addressed the disposition of fees collected by the city of Asheville for Cauble v. Asheville overtime parking, in violation of the city’s parking ordinance. Initially, the Court reaffirmed, over a dissent, its holding from an earlier decision in the same case that overtime parking in violation of the city ordinance constituted a violation of penal laws of the State.” Cauble, “the 314 N.C. at 601-02, 336 S.E.2d at 62 (citation omitted). Next, the Court addressed the question of how to determine the proceeds” of the fines, as required under Article IX, Section 7. “clear After reviewing older cases, the Court explained that the proceeds” meant the total sum “clear collected less only the administrative costs of collecting the fines. The Court further explained that the costs of collection do not include the costs associated with enforcing the ordinance If we were to take the position that the costs of enforcing the penal … laws of the State were a part of the collection of fines imposed by the laws, there could never be any of such fines to be used for the support of the clear proceeds public schools. This would itself contravene Article IX, Section 7 of the … North Carolina Constitution[.] at 605-06, 336 S.E.2d at 64. Id. iii. State v. Johnson Next, in the defendant, who had been convicted of possession of State v, Johnson, cocaine, challenged a requirement that he repay the State $100 for the expense of analyzing the cocaine found in his possession. At that time, the repayment was authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95.3(b) and was labeled as The defendant relied on the portion of which Shore “restitution.” provided that would not be reasonable to require the defendant to pay the State’s overhead “it … attributable to the normal costs of prosecuting him.” 124 N.C.App. at 470, 478 S.E.2d Johnson, at 21, quoting The opinion repeatedly characterizes this portion of as dicta, Shore. Johnson Shore but nevertheless explains why the reimbursement for lab fees in drug cases is not overhead but, rather, represents reimbursement for case-specific expenses. The Court explained that “the
Cauble v. Asheville addressed the disposition of fees collected by the city of Asheville for overtime parking, in violation of the city’s parking ordinance. Initially, the Court reaffirmed, over a dissent, its holding from an earlier decision in the same case that overtime parking in violation of the city ordinance constituted a violation of “the penal laws of the State.” Cauble, 314 N.C. at 601-02, 336 S.E.2d at 62 (citation omitted). Next, the Court addressed the question of how to determine the “clear proceeds” of the fines, as required under Article IX, Section 7. After reviewing older cases, the Court explained that the “clear proceeds” meant the total sum collected less only the administrative costs of collecting the fines. The Court further explained that the costs of collection do not include the costs associated with enforcing the ordinance … If we were to take the position that the costs of enforcing the penal laws of the State were a part of the collection of fines imposed by the laws, there could never be any clear proceeds of such fines to be used for the support of the public schools. This would itself contravene … Article IX, Section 7 of the North Carolina Constitution[.] Id. at 605-06, 336 S.E.2d at 64. iii. State v. Johnson Next, in State v, Johnson, the defendant, who had been convicted of possession of cocaine, challenged a requirement that he repay the State $100 for the expense of analyzing the cocaine found in his possession. At that time, the repayment was authorized by N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-95.3(b) and was labeled as “restitution.” The defendant relied on the portion of Shore which provided that “it would not … be reasonable to require the defendant to pay the State’s overhead attributable to the normal costs of prosecuting him.” Johnson, 124 N.C.App. at 470, 478 S.E.2d at 21, quoting Shore. The Johnson opinion repeatedly characterizes this portion of Shore as dicta, but nevertheless explains why the reimbursement for lab fees in drug cases is not overhead but, rather, represents reimbursement for case-specific expenses. The Court explained that “the
template_costs-and-fees-motion.docx