House Bill 216, titled the CAM Accessibility & Sustainability Act, creates a dedicated funding source to help pay for continuous alcohol monitoring when a court orders it but determines the defendant cannot afford the cost. The bill establishes a Continuous Alcohol Monitoring Fund within the Division of Community Supervision and Reentry of the Department of Adult Correction and directs that fund to cover monitoring costs for eligible defendants. It also authorizes courts to order the Division to pay for monitoring from the fund when the defendant is unable to pay.
To finance the fund, the bill adds a five-cent charge on each bottle of spirituous liquor sold at the State price and requires local alcohol boards to remit the proceeds from that charge to the Division each month. The bill also makes conforming changes to the alcohol pricing and distribution statutes so the new charge is collected and distributed properly. The changes apply to liquor sales and sentencing orders on or after July 1, 2025.
HB216 would amend North Carolina’s alcohol pricing and distribution laws in Chapter 18B and sentencing provisions in Chapter 15A and Chapter 20. It creates a new earmarked revenue stream from liquor sales to support a state fund that pays for continuous alcohol monitoring in criminal cases, shifting some costs away from indigent defendants and local governments and onto a dedicated surcharge on spirituous liquor sales. The bill affects the Department of Adult Correction, local alcohol boards, courts, and defendants subject to alcohol-monitoring conditions.
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented debate or recorded vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed as a targeted access-and-funding proposal rather than a broad policy change, with an emphasis on making a sentencing option available to defendants who cannot afford it. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided materials means overall sentiment cannot be determined from legislative discussion history.
The main policy issue is who should bear the cost of continuous alcohol monitoring when a court orders it. The bill shifts that burden from indigent defendants to a state fund financed by a per-bottle liquor surcharge, which may raise concerns among alcohol retailers, consumers, local boards, or fiscal conservatives about using alcohol sales revenue for criminal justice costs. Another possible point of contention is the use of local county-collected funds versus statewide administration, since the bill directs funds to be used, to the extent practicable, in the county where the surcharge is collected.