RELATING TO COURT-ORDERED PAYMENTS.
HB2254 revises Hawaii law governing court-ordered payments in criminal cases, including fees, fines, restitution, sanctions, and court costs. The bill requires the Judiciary to contract with a bonded collection agency or licensed attorney to collect delinquent court-ordered amounts, rather than merely allowing that option. It also clarifies that restitution to victims has priority over fees and fines, and that no payment should be applied to fees or fines until restitution is paid in full.
The bill further restructures the process for handling nonpayment. It expands and formalizes proof-of-compliance hearings, requires the court to set such hearings for restitution cases, and authorizes show-cause proceedings, summonses, warrants, and possible commitment for contumacious nonpayment. For fees and fines, the court may refer delinquent amounts to collections or use the same show-cause process. The bill also preserves civil collection remedies, clarifies that attorney’s fees, costs, and interest are not themselves punishable by imprisonment, and updates confidentiality rules for adult probation records to allow limited disclosure to collection agents and victims enforcing payment orders.
HB2254 amends sections 601-17.5, 706-642, 706-644, and 806-73 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Its practical effect is to make collection of delinquent court-ordered payments more structured and more aggressive, while also preserving restitution priority and limiting imprisonment to nonpayment of the underlying fee, fine, or restitution. It expands the Judiciary’s authority and obligations in collections, creates clearer court monitoring procedures, and broadens access to certain probation information for collection and victim-enforcement purposes. The bill applies prospectively and does not affect matured rights, incurred penalties, or proceedings already begun before its effective date.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill, as reflected by its passage on second reading and referral onward with no recorded no votes. The only noted reservation came from Representative Amato, who voted aye with reservations, indicating some support but possible concern about aspects of the measure. No committee transcript is provided, so the broader discussion is not available, but the vote pattern indicates the bill moved forward without organized opposition at that stage.
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s stronger enforcement mechanisms and expanded collection authority. Requiring the Judiciary to use outside collection agents or attorneys, authorizing repeated compliance hearings, and allowing warrants or commitment for nonpayment may raise concerns about debtor treatment, due process, and the burden on low-income defendants. Another likely issue is the expanded access to confidential adult probation records for collection purposes and the limited disclosure of victim-related payment information. At the same time, supporters would likely emphasize victim restitution priority, improved collection of public debts, and clearer procedures for courts and probation offices.