Pennsylvania House Bill HB285

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Refer: 1/23/25

Caption

An Act amending Title 44 (Law and Justice) of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, in constables, further providing for restricted account and for fees.

Summary

HB285 amends Pennsylvania law governing constables by increasing the surcharge deposited into the constables’ restricted account and by raising a wide range of statutory fees constables may charge for services in civil, landlord-tenant, and criminal matters. The bill doubles the restricted-account surcharge from $5 to $10 per docket number in criminal cases and per named defendant in civil cases when a constable or deputy constable performs a compensable service. The measure also updates numerous fee amounts for service of process, levies, sales of levied goods, returns of service, order of possession, ejectments, courtroom security, arrest warrants, prisoner transport, fingerprinting transport, holding defendants at a magisterial district judge’s office, and related mileage reimbursements. It preserves existing rules about when counties, or in some private criminal complaint cases the affiant, must pay constable fees when a defendant is discharged, indigent, or the case is dismissed. The act would take effect 60 days after enactment.

Impact

HB285 would directly amend Title 44 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, specifically the provisions on constables’ restricted accounts and fee schedules. Its practical effect is to increase compensation for constables and deputy constables across a broad set of court-related duties, while also increasing the costs that may be assessed in civil, landlord-tenant, and criminal cases. Counties, litigants, and in some circumstances private complainants would bear higher fee obligations under the revised schedule.

Sentiment

No committee transcript or recorded vote information is provided, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears to be a compensation and cost-adjustment bill rather than a policy overhaul, suggesting a technical or administrative purpose. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the provided context means overall sentiment cannot be reliably characterized beyond the bill’s apparent intent to update outdated fee amounts.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the increased cost to parties and counties from higher constable fees and surcharges. Supporters would likely view the bill as a needed update to reflect current costs and compensate constables for court security, transport, and service work, while opponents may object to shifting more expense onto counties, defendants, landlords, tenants, and civil litigants. Another possible issue is the broader use of constables in criminal transport and courtroom security, where fee increases may raise concerns about affordability and the allocation of court-related enforcement costs.