NOTE:  As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended only for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature.  The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used for other purposes.

 

The most recent FIR version (in HTML & Adobe PDF formats) is available on the Legislative Website.  The Adobe PDF version includes all attachments, whereas the HTML version does not.  Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

 

 

F I S C A L   I M P A C T   R E P O R T

 

 

 

SPONSOR:

Park

 

DATE TYPED:

03/03/03

 

HB

771

 

SHORT TITLE:

District Attorney Enforcement of Ordinances

 

SB

 

 

 

ANALYST:

Fox-Young

 

APPROPRIATION

 

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY03

FY04

FY03

FY04

 

 

 

 

 

Unknown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

 

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

 

Responses Received From

Attorney General (AG)

Department of Public Safety (DPS)

 

No Response

Administrative Office of the District Attorneys (AODA)

Public Defender Department (PDD)

 

SUMMARY

 

     Synopsis of Bill

 

House Bill 771 provides that a district attorney, in a class A county containing a metropolitan court, may prosecute and defend municipal ordinances of any municipality in the district in any court in the district.  

 

     Significant Issues

 

The bill grants the Second Judicial District Attorney the authority to prosecute and defend municipal ordinances of municipalities located within the district.

 

The Attorney General (AG) notes that it not clear when a district attorney shall prosecute and defend municipal ordinances, since such actions are permissible but not required.  The mechanics of arranging such prosecutions are also unclear, and the bill includes no provisions regarding contracts between the district attorney and the municipalities.  AG notes that in contrast, Paragraph (B) of the current law states explicitly that the district attorney’s office and an Indian nation can enter into a contract regarding this exercise of authority.

 

The AG notes that payment cannot be made on a per conviction or per plea basis, since such a structure would constitute an impermissible governmental contingency fee arrangement.

 

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) notes that the provisions of the bill will clarify jurisdiction in the future, when class A counties prevent any issues of non-jurisdiction, in the future when Class A Counties consolidate.

 

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS

 

Municipalities affected by the bill will likely experience an increase in collections from fines assessed. 

 

JCF/yr