Debt collection; prohibiting certain contract with private debt collectors. Effective date.
Summary
SB 973 would prohibit Oklahoma courts and other state entities from contracting with private debt collectors or private debt collection agencies to collect outstanding criminal fines, fees, costs, or restitution. The bill also makes conforming changes to the state’s criminal cost statute and repeals two existing provisions in Title 19 that govern the court cost compliance program and related warrant-notification contracting authority.
In addition to the new prohibition, the bill revises 28 O.S. Section 153, which sets court costs and related assessments in criminal cases. Most of the section’s fee schedule and earmarked fund distributions remain in place, but the bill updates language to align with the repeal of the court cost compliance program provisions and the ban on private collection contracts. The measure is set to take effect November 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would change Oklahoma law by eliminating statutory authority for courts or state entities to use private debt collectors for criminal justice debt collection and by repealing 19 O.S. Sections 514.4 and 514.5, which relate to the court cost compliance program. It would also amend Title 28’s criminal cost provisions to conform to the new framework, while leaving most court cost amounts and fund allocations intact. Affected parties include court clerks, sheriffs, district attorneys, state agencies involved in criminal debt collection, and individuals owing criminal fines, fees, costs, or restitution.
Sentiment
There is limited recorded public or committee sentiment available in the provided materials because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes. Based on the bill’s caption and structure, the measure appears to be a policy change aimed at restricting private collection of criminal justice debt and simplifying related statutory provisions. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the available history makes the overall sentiment difficult to gauge beyond the bill’s introduction and referral.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the bill’s prohibition on private debt collection contracts for criminal fines and restitution, which would affect existing or potential collection arrangements used by courts or state entities. Another likely issue is the repeal of the court cost compliance program statutes, since those provisions appear to have governed warrant notification and related fee collection mechanisms. Supporters would likely favor ending private collection of criminal justice debt, while opponents could argue the change reduces collection tools or disrupts existing revenue and enforcement processes.