Effect of nonpayment of fines, restitution or costs
- report to consumer reporting agency
- rules
Source:
Section 161.685 — Effect of nonpayment of fines, restitution or costs; report to consumer reporting agency; rules, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors161.html.
Notes of Decisions
The Oregon recoupment scheme does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Fuller v. Oregon, 417 US 40, 40 L Ed 2d 642, 94 S Ct 2116 (1974)
Evidence, that defendant either had income during 9-month period of nonpayment of fine or that he could have sought employment to produce income during such period, was sufficient to support finding that defendant did not make good faith effort to pay fine. State v. Meyer, 31 Or App 775, 571 P2d 550 (1977)
Court had no authority under this section to impose determinate sentence. State v. Benton, 101 Or App 386, 790 P2d 1191 (1990); 102 Or App 585, 795 P2d 601 (1990), aff’d 311 Or 295, 810 P2d 851 (1991)
Because this provision does not authorize determinate sentence, provision is about civil, not criminal contempt so trial procedures did not violate defendant’s privilege against self-incrimination or right to due process. State v. Benton, 102 Or App 585, 795 P2d 601 (1990), aff’d 311 Or 295, 810 P2d 851 (1991)
Authorization to collect fine upon default is permissive and does not create requirement that default occur prior to collection efforts. Wilkins v. Frink, 158 Or App 76, 971 P2d 494 (1999), Sup Ct review denied
Law Review Citations
11 WLJ 288, 291 (1975); 55 OLR 101 (1976)
Up to date