I'm trying to find out what other counties are doing with regard to the justice ct. technology fund set forth in the Code of Criminal Procedure, Art. 102.0173.

Has anyone come up against any opposition to this fee? Anyone heard of any suits regarding the constitutionality of this fee?

Any comments or ideas would be helpful.

eve.schatelowitz@co.travis.tx.us

What's the argument that it is unconstitutional?

There was a letter on this from TAC (or maybe the JP's Assn legal counsel?) a couple of months ago, to all JP's. There has been some kind of court challenge to the legality of the fund. The agency that put out the letter suggested three courses of action: 1. suspend collecting the fund and refund all money collected. 2. suspect collecting the fund and don't refund the money right now. 3. continue collecting the fund. Our Court opted for No. 2, suspend collecting the fund but don't refund the money yet.

Rob:

If I remember correctly, the constitutionality of the fund derives from an earlier "special fee" applied to county court at law cases. A suit was filed against Harris County alleging that assessing the fee for county courts at law when a person would not be assessed the fee in a constitutional county court violated the equal protection clause. Harris County eventually had to refund millions of dollars. Since that time, everyone has been wary of user fees in different courts.

In looking at the AG Opinions, I believe JC00-98 addresses some of the constitutional arguments related to due process and equal protection concerns.

Robert DuBoise
Assistant District Attorney
Parker County, Texas
rduboise@sbcglobal.net

[This message was edited by Robert S. DuBoise on 07-19-02 at .]

We have been collecting the fee and putting it in a separate account awaiting the AG opinion. At least I thought there was an AG opinion requested on the subject.

A request for an AG opinion was made regarding the justict ct. technology fund. However, the AG declined to write on the subject due to pending litigation regarding the consitutionality of 51.702(b), Gov't Code, a cost provision that is analogous to the tech. fund fee. The litigation that is pending is Caldwell, et al v. Rylander in the dist. court of Travis County. The Caldwell case is on remand from the Austin Court of Appeals. See 23 S.W.3d 132. Although the Austin Court of Appeals did not address the constitutional issue directly, the opinion does appear to give a hint that the Court will find the fee under 51.702(b) to be a civil type revenue provision rather than a criminal penalty, and that it might therefore withstand an equal protection attack at least in that Court.