To Ensure That Mandated Costs And Fees Paid By A Defendant In A Criminal Case Shall Be Refunded Upon An Acquittal, A Dismissal, Or An Order Of Nolle Prosequi.
Summary
SB549 would create a new section of Arkansas law requiring the refund of certain criminal-case costs and fees when a defendant is not ultimately convicted. The bill defines “mandated costs and fees” broadly to include sums required because a person is subject to prosecution, such as court filing fees, service fees, ignition interlock device costs, pretrial supervision fees, and ankle monitor costs.
Under the bill, if a defendant is acquitted, or if the charges are dismissed or resolved by nolle prosequi, the defendant must be refunded the mandated costs and fees paid in that case. If only some charges are resolved in the defendant’s favor but other charges result in conviction, the refund would apply only to the costs and fees tied specifically to the charges that were acquitted or dismissed.
Impact
The bill would amend Title 16, Chapter 92 of the Arkansas Code by adding a new refund requirement for criminal defendants. It would affect courts, clerks, and any agencies or vendors collecting prosecution-related fees by requiring repayment when a case ends without conviction, and it would limit retention of those charges to matters where a conviction remains or where the fees are tied to convicted counts.
Sentiment
The bill’s purpose appears consumer- and fairness-oriented, aiming to prevent defendants from bearing prosecution-related financial burdens when the state does not secure a conviction. With no committee transcript or recorded votes available, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the provided materials, but the caption and text suggest a generally reform-minded approach focused on refunding costs after acquittal or dismissal.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of refundable charges and how they are allocated when a case includes multiple counts. The bill expressly includes items such as ignition interlock, pretrial supervision, and ankle monitor fees, which may raise administrative questions about which costs are “specifically associated” with dismissed or acquitted charges. Potential points of concern for opponents could include fiscal impact on courts and local agencies, refund administration, and whether all prosecution-related fees should be treated the same way.