Require defendants convicted of sexual offenses against children to pay a fee for electronic devices seized during prosecution
Summary
LB910 would create a new criminal procedure requirement for defendants convicted of sexual offenses against children. Under the bill, when a court convicts a defendant of a qualifying offense, it must order the defendant to pay a $100 fee for each electronic device seized in connection with the prosecution. The bill defines “electronic device” broadly to include electronic communication devices, computers, and other devices or drives used to store data electronically.
The measure also defines “sexual offense against a child” by reference to offenses that require sex offender registration and involve a victim under 18 at the time of the offense. The collected fees would be remitted to the State Treasurer for the Nebraska State Patrol Cash Fund, and the Nebraska State Patrol would use the money to help pay for forensic analysis of the devices. If the court finds the defendant indigent, the fee would be waived.
Impact
LB910 would amend Nebraska criminal procedure law by adding a mandatory post-conviction fee tied to the number of electronic devices seized in child-sex-offense cases. It would create a new revenue stream for the Nebraska State Patrol Cash Fund and specifically support digital forensic examination costs. The bill would affect defendants convicted of qualifying offenses, courts responsible for imposing the fee, and the State Patrol as the recipient and user of the funds.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the available legislative history, the bill appears to have been framed as a law-enforcement and forensic-cost recovery measure rather than a broadly controversial policy change. There are no committee transcript excerpts or recorded votes provided showing debate or divided sentiment. The bill’s final status as indefinitely postponed suggests it did not advance, but the available record does not indicate the reasons for that outcome.
Contention
The main policy issue raised by the bill is whether it is appropriate to impose an additional fee on defendants convicted of sexual offenses against children, especially when the fee is tied to the number of devices seized. Potential concerns include the burden on indigent defendants, the fairness of charging for seized property in criminal cases, and whether the fee structure is proportional to the costs of forensic analysis. Supporters would likely emphasize reimbursement of investigative costs and funding for digital forensics, while opponents may focus on due process, financial penalties, and the impact on defendants with limited means.