Fees; increasing sheriff's fee for certain service. Effective date. Emergency.
SB152 amends Oklahoma’s criminal costs statute to increase the sheriff’s fee for serving or attempting to serve writs, warrants, orders, process, commands, notices, or for pursuing fugitives from justice. The bill raises that fee from $50 to $150 for service within a county and from $50 to $150 for service outside the county, or alternatively allows mileage/actual necessary expenses where applicable. It also makes conforming language updates throughout the statute, including stylistic and terminology revisions.
The bill leaves the broader structure of criminal court costs in place, but it preserves and restates the various flat fees assessed in traffic, misdemeanor, felony, and DUI cases, along with the distribution of those fees to court-related funds, law enforcement-related accounts, victim services, child abuse resources, trauma care, and prosecution support. It also retains provisions allowing payment by credit or debit card and clarifies the meaning of “convicted” for purposes of the statute. The act is set to take effect July 1, 2025, and contains an emergency clause for immediate effectiveness upon passage and approval.
SB152 would directly increase the amount collected for sheriff service-related activities in criminal cases, shifting more of the cost burden to defendants in cases where process is served or attempted. Because the bill amends 28 O.S. 2021, Section 153, it affects the statewide schedule of court costs and the allocation of those fees among the court fund, sheriff’s service fee accounts, and other designated state and county funds. The bill does not create a new fee system, but it raises one existing fee and updates statutory references and wording within the criminal costs framework.
With no committee transcripts or recorded votes available, the public record provided does not show formal debate or opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be a targeted fee increase intended to support sheriff service and courthouse-related functions, which suggests a generally administrative or revenue-supporting purpose rather than a controversial policy change. The inclusion of an emergency clause indicates the author viewed the measure as needing prompt implementation.
The main point of potential contention is the increase in the sheriff’s service fee from $50 to $150, which could be viewed as a significant added cost in criminal cases for defendants, especially in cases involving warrants or service outside the county. Another possible concern is the broader effect on court costs and related assessments, since the bill preserves a system that already imposes multiple fees on criminal convictions. Supporters would likely emphasize funding for sheriff services and courthouse security, while critics may focus on the financial burden on defendants and the cumulative nature of criminal court fees.