HF2697 adds a new subsection to Iowa Code section 910.2 that gives courts an explicit option to require financial payments when a public offense is dismissed by the court. Under the bill, and only with the defendant’s and prosecuting attorney’s consent, the court may order payment of pecuniary damages to victims, category “B” restitution (which the bill says shall include court costs), and prosecution costs under section 815.13 as part of the dismissal.
This change creates a statutory pathway to tie monetary recovery to dismissal outcomes that previously might have been limited by other statutes or rules. For prosecutors, victims, and defense counsel, HF2697 alters negotiation dynamics by adding a newly authorized, court-enforceable financial component to dismissals — while leaving important implementation details, like collection and review procedures, unspecified.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new subsection to Code section 910.2 allowing a court, with the defendant’s and prosecuting attorney’s consent, to order specified payments as a condition of dismissing a public offense. Authorized payments include pecuniary damages to the victim, category “B” restitution (explicitly including court costs), and prosecution costs under section 815.13.
Who It Affects
Directly affects defendants who negotiate dismissal deals, prosecuting attorneys who must consent to and may seek recovery of prosecution costs, victims seeking pecuniary compensation, and clerks/collection units that will handle new court-ordered financial obligations. Defense counsel and public defenders will need to advise clients on these options and consequences.
Why It Matters
The bill overrides conflicting statutes or rules by using “notwithstanding any other statute or rule of law,” creating an affirmative statutory route for courts to impose financial obligations with dismissals. That shifts bargaining leverage in plea/diversion contexts and raises practical questions about enforcement, indigency screening, and the separation between criminal dismissals and civil recovery.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HF2697 inserts a new, narrowly framed power into Iowa’s dismissal statute. It authorizes courts to include financial terms—victim pecuniary damages, restitution labeled category “B” (the bill specifically states this includes court costs), and prosecution costs referenced to section 815.13—as part of an order dismissing a public offense.
The option is not unilateral: the statute conditions such an order on the mutual consent of the defendant and the prosecuting attorney.
The bill’s text is short and procedural rather than prescriptive. It does not rewrite existing restitution definitions beyond labeling the restitution “category ‘B’” and declaring that court costs are part of that category.
It likewise points to section 815.13 for prosecution costs rather than specifying what those costs encompass. Because the provision begins with “notwithstanding any other statute or rule of law,” it is designed to allow these payments even where other law might otherwise forbid or limit them.Practically, this will appear in court as an alternative disposition: instead of conviction or formal diversion, parties can agree to a dismissal coupled with a payment order.
That makes dismissal a vehicle for compensating victims and recouping prosecution expenses without a conviction. The bill leaves several operational questions open—how the court calculates pecuniary damages, the timing and enforcement of payments, waivers or reductions for indigence, and whether such orders convert to civil judgments on nonpayment—which courts and agencies will have to reconcile when enforcing the new option.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds a new subsection (numbered as a new third subsection) to Iowa Code section 910.2 authorizing payment terms as part of a dismissal of a public offense.
Any court order under this provision requires the defendant’s consent and the prosecuting attorney’s consent; the court cannot impose these payments unilaterally.
Authorized payments are threefold: pecuniary damages payable to the victim; category “B” restitution (the bill explicitly states category B shall include court costs); and prosecution costs as defined or collectible under section 815.13.
The provision uses overriding language—“notwithstanding any other statute or rule of law”—meaning it is intended to supersede conflicting statutes or procedural rules that would otherwise prevent such dismissal conditions.
The text does not define collection, enforcement, or review procedures for the ordered payments (no timelines, default remedies, or indigency exemptions are specified).
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds explicit authority to attach payments to dismissals
This is the operative change: the bill inserts a new subsection into section 910.2. The language grants courts the authority to order financial payments as part of dismissing a public offense, but only when both the defendant and prosecuting attorney consent. For practitioners, that makes the courthouse the formal place where negotiated financial resolutions can be memorialized and enforced as part of a dismissal order.
Three categories of recoverable amounts
The bill specifies three categories: (1) pecuniary damages to the victim, which reads like a civil-style compensation for loss; (2) category “B” restitution, and the bill expressly states that category includes court costs; and (3) prosecution costs under section 815.13. By pointing to section 815.13 for prosecution costs, the bill ties recovery to an existing statutory rubric rather than creating a new cost schedule.
Consent requirement and override language
Two procedural features matter. First, consent by both the defendant and the prosecuting attorney is a prerequisite; courts cannot impose these payments over a party’s objection under this section. Second, the provision begins with an explicit “notwithstanding” clause intended to allow these payments even where other statutes or rules might have limited or prohibited such terms in dismissals, which could affect conflicts with diversion statutes, sentencing rules, or restitution frameworks elsewhere in the Code.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Victims of charged offenses — they gain an additional, court-ordered avenue to recover pecuniary losses and court costs without pursuing a separate civil action, making compensation potentially quicker and less costly.
- Prosecuting attorneys and county governments — the bill authorizes recovery of prosecution costs under section 815.13, which can reduce local fiscal burdens from criminal prosecutions when costs are collectible.
- Defendants who want dismissal — defendants may secure dismissal of charges in exchange for making payments, avoiding convictions while resolving financial consequences tied to the conduct.
- Judges and courts seeking disposition options — the statute expands the set of sanctions and remedies available to resolve cases administratively or by negotiated agreement, which can aid case management.
Who Bears the Cost
- Defendants — the bill creates a formal mechanism for imposing monetary obligations as a condition of dismissal, increasing the risk that defendants (including indigent defendants) will face direct financial obligations tied to case resolution.
- Defense counsel and public defenders — attorneys must advise clients on the financial trade-offs and potential downstream consequences (collections, credit, civil liability), adding counseling and procedural workload.
- County treasuries/collection units — courts will generate new payment orders to monitor and collect; local collection systems may need resources to track and enforce these obligations.
- Victims may bear indirect costs — while this expands routes to compensation, victims may still face delays or collection hurdles; in some cases, victims could get partial recovery while the state absorbs uncollectible prosecution costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between compensating victims and recouping prosecution costs efficiently, versus the risk that introducing a payment-for-dismissal option shifts bargaining power and imposes financial burdens on vulnerable defendants without clear procedural safeguards or enforcement standards.
The bill creates a powerful bargaining chip but leaves crucial implementation details to practice or later rules. It does not specify how pecuniary damages are calculated, whether the amounts ordered are subject to review or limits, or whether nonpayment converts the dismissal into a conviction or civil judgment.
That gap raises questions about enforcement pathways: will collection proceed through normal restitution machinery, civil judgment procedures, or county cost-recovery processes?
The consent requirement reduces the chance of unilateral imposition, but it also concentrates leverage in plea negotiations. Defendants — especially those without counsel or with limited resources — may feel pressured to accept payment-based dismissals to avoid prosecution risk, creating due-process and fairness concerns.
At the same time, the “notwithstanding” clause could conflict with other statutory schemes (diversion, expungement, or statutes limiting recovery) and invite litigation about whether this specific authorization truly overrides other protections or limitations in the Code.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.