A BILL to amend and reenact §§ 19.2-326 and 19.2-362 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 19.2-362.1, relating to court fines and fees; indigent defendant; waiver of fees.
Summary
SB472 would expand a Virginia court’s ability to waive criminal and traffic court fees for defendants who are indigent. The bill adds a new section allowing courts, in criminal or traffic cases, to waive all or part of specified fees if the defendant meets the financial criteria for indigence under existing law and is unable to pay. It also creates a presumption that a person already found indigent, or who meets the indigence criteria, cannot pay those fees unless the court makes a specific contrary finding.
The bill also amends existing provisions governing court costs and fines. It preserves the current rule that courts generally may not remit fines or penalties, but clarifies that this limitation does not prevent fee waivers under the new indigence provision. In addition, it retains the existing authority to assess appellate attorney fees and costs against a defendant if a conviction is upheld on appeal.
Impact
The bill would affect Virginia’s criminal and traffic court fee collection framework by giving judges express authority to waive a broad list of statutorily authorized fees for indigent defendants, either on the court’s own motion or on the defendant’s motion before final order. It would also create a stronger default in favor of fee relief for people already determined indigent under current financial criteria. The measure would not eliminate all court debt, but it would make fee assessment more flexible and could reduce financial burdens on low-income defendants while preserving the court’s ability to later remit debt under existing procedures.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests the bill received some support in the Courts of Justice Committee, where it was reported on a 9-6 vote, but it also faced enough opposition to indicate disagreement over its policy approach. It then advanced to Finance and Appropriations, where it was continued to the next session on a unanimous 15-0 vote, suggesting either fiscal caution or a desire for further review rather than outright rejection. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record shows procedural movement but limited direct public debate in the materials available.
Contention
The main point of contention appears to be whether courts should have broader discretion to waive fees for indigent defendants and how that would affect court revenue and existing debt-collection practices. Supporters likely view the bill as a fairness measure that prevents unaffordable fees from burdening people who cannot pay, while opponents may be concerned about reduced fee collections, administrative complexity, or the scope of judicial discretion. The split vote in the policy committee and the later continuation in Finance and Appropriations indicate both policy and fiscal concerns.