The New Federal Definition of Hemp

The New Federal Definition of Hemp

The New Federal Definition of Hemp: Legal and Regulatory Implications

Congress has enacted a sweeping revision to the federal definition of hemp through the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (H.R. 5371, Pub. L. No. 119‑37), signed into law on November 12, 2025. This amendment represents the most consequential change since the Agricultural Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 Farm Bill) and will take effect on November 12, 2026, with full enforcement beginning January 1, 2027

The Updated Definition

Under the revised statute, hemp will no longer be defined solely by its Delta-9 THC concentration on a dry-weight basis. Instead, the definition incorporates production methods, intended effects, and total THC content per container.

The Act amends 7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1), redefining hemp as:

“The plant Cannabis sativa L. and any part of that plant, including the seeds thereof and all derivatives, extracts, cannabinoids, isomers, acids, salts, and salts of isomers, whether growing or not, with a concentration of not more than 0.4 milligrams of total tetrahydrocannabinols per container, and excluding any product containing synthesized cannabinoids or marketed for intoxicating effects.”

Key provisions include:

  • THC Threshold: Products exceeding 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will be excluded from the lawful hemp category.
  • Synthetic Cannabinoids: Any product containing synthesized cannabinoids or marketed for intoxicating effects will be classified outside the scope of lawful hemp.
  • FDA Oversight: Within 90 days of enactment, the FDA must publish foundational lists identifying:
    • Cannabinoids naturally produced by Cannabis sativa L.
    • The definition of a “container” for hemp products.

Industry Impact

The hemp industry, valued at approximately $28.4 billion and supporting an estimated 300,000 jobs, faces substantial disruption.

  • Market Contraction: Intoxicating hemp products, including edibles and beverages, may be reclassified as controlled substances.
  • Intoxicating hemp products (e.g., Delta‑8 THC gummies, beverages) may be reclassified as controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), 21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.
  • State-Federal Conflicts: States such as Tennessee have already implemented regulations on intoxicating cannabinoids. The federal definition may override or complicate these frameworks, leading to litigation and compliance challenges.
  • Operational Uncertainty: Businesses must reassess product lines, labeling, and distribution channels to avoid federal enforcement actions.

Legal and Regulatory Challenges

The revised definition blurs the distinction between hemp and marijuana, raising complex legal questions:

  • Compliance Risks: Operators must navigate conflicting guidance from Congress, the FDA, and the Department of Justice, with heightened risk of federal crackdowns.
  • Absence of Spending Restrictions: Unlike marijuana, hemp businesses lack federal appropriations riders that limit enforcement, leaving them exposed to regulatory action.
  • Litigation Potential: The interplay between federal and state laws is likely to generate constitutional and administrative challenges, particularly concerning interstate commerce and preemption.
  • Conflicting guidance: Operators must reconcile directives from Congress, FDA, and DOJ, with heightened risk of federal crackdowns.
  • No appropriations protections: Unlike marijuana, hemp businesses lack federal spending restrictions that limit enforcement, leaving them vulnerable to DOJ action
  • Litigation potential: The interplay between federal and state laws is likely to generate constitutional challenges, particularly regarding interstate commerce and preemption.

Strategic Considerations for Stakeholders

Stakeholders in the hemp, marijuana, and alcohol industries should proactively evaluate their exposure under the new definition. Recommended steps include:

  • Regulatory Audits: Conduct comprehensive reviews of product portfolios to identify items at risk of reclassification.

  • Compliance Planning: Develop strategies for reformulation, labeling, and marketing to align with federal standards.

  • Legal Preparedness: Anticipate potential enforcement actions and prepare for litigation involving federal preemption and state regulatory conflicts.

  • Industry Advocacy: Engage in lobbying and public comment processes to influence FDA rulemaking and congressional oversight.

Conclusion

The new federal definition of hemp marks a decisive shift in cannabis regulation, closing the “intoxicating hemp loophole” and imposing stricter controls on THC content and synthetic cannabinoids. While intended to provide clarity, the law introduces significant uncertainty for operators and investors. The coming year will be critical in determining whether hemp-derived consumer products remain viable under federal law.

Track and review more Government Bills (If you want)

Established in 1993, Komorn Law  has decades of experience navigating the complexities of Michigan’s cannabis landscape, from the early days of medical marijuana (MMMA) to the regulatory challenges and constitutional fights of the current adult-use market (MRTMA).

As Michigan’s cannabis community confronts aggressive tax hikes, legislative attempts to rewrite the people’s laws, and ongoing criminal charges stemming from the state’s Public Health Code, the need for experienced legal counsel is paramount. Komorn Law has the expertise and deep institutional knowledge to fight your case in a court of law, from the district to federal court systems, challenging not only individual charges but also the regulatory schemes and constitutional infringements that threaten the industry and individual rights. When you’re ready to hire a lawyer who hates to lose, call our office  248-357-2550

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v. Soto: Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony ChargesMichigan's cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and...

read more
Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for...

read more
How to create and share a Dropbox link

How to create and share a Dropbox link

Simplified Sender and Receiver Dropbox Share Instructions to Someone NOT on your Team. Don't get caught up in another license or give access to your whole box by mistake.Dropbox Sender Share Instructions Log into your Dropbox account Hover over the file or folder...

read more
Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn't...

read more
Michigan Cannabis Tax Bill HB4951- Passed

Michigan Cannabis Tax Bill HB4951- Passed

In case you did not know…

In September 2025, the Michigan Legislature passed House Bill 4951, known as the Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act. This legislation introduces a significant change to the taxation of marijuana in Michigan, with implications for cannabis businesses and consumers alike.

Overview of HB4951

Effective January 1, 2026, HB4951 imposes a new 24% excise tax on wholesale marijuana transfers. This tax applies to:

  • Transfers from marijuana establishments to retail licensees.

  • Transfers from provisioning centers to retail licensees.

  • Marijuana cultivated or processed by retailers for direct sale.

The tax is calculated based on the wholesale price, which includes all fees and charges but excludes discounts or rebates. The Michigan Department of Treasury will administer the tax, including rulemaking, collection, and enforcement.

Revenue Allocation

The revenue generated—estimated at $420 million annually—will be distributed between two newly created funds:

  • Comprehensive Road Funding Fund: Supports administration and implementation of the act.

  • Neighborhood Road Fund: Finances road construction, maintenance, and preservation across Michigan.

For fiscal year 2025–26, $3 million will be allocated to the Comprehensive Road Funding Fund, with the remainder going to the Neighborhood Road Fund. In subsequent years, the administrative allocation will be reduced to $500,000, adjusted annually for inflation.

Legislative Background

HB4951 was introduced by Rep. Samantha Steckloff (D–Farmington Hills) as part of a broader infrastructure funding package. It complements other bills addressing fuel taxes, corporate income tax, and insurance assessments. The legislation reflects Michigan’s strategic shift toward leveraging cannabis industry revenues to address long-standing infrastructure needs without increasing general taxes.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the purpose of HB4951? HB4951 aims to generate sustainable funding for Michigan’s road infrastructure by imposing a new excise tax on wholesale marijuana transactions.

2. Who is affected by the new 24% marijuana tax? Cannabis businesses—specifically growers, processors, provisioning centers, and retailers—will bear the tax burden. While consumers won’t pay this tax directly, retail prices may increase as businesses adjust.

3. How is the wholesale price determined? For unaffiliated transactions, it’s the actual price paid, including fees. For affiliated entities or self-produced marijuana, the Department of Treasury will publish an average wholesale price quarterly.

4. Where does the tax revenue go? Funds are split between the Comprehensive Road Funding Fund (for administration) and the Neighborhood Road Fund (for road projects statewide).

5. When does HB4951 take effect? The new tax structure begins on January 1, 2026, contingent on the enactment of related bills (HB4183, HB4961, HB4968) addressing fuel, income, and insurance taxes.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v. Soto: Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony ChargesMichigan's cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and...

read more
Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for...

read more
How to create and share a Dropbox link

How to create and share a Dropbox link

Simplified Sender and Receiver Dropbox Share Instructions to Someone NOT on your Team. Don't get caught up in another license or give access to your whole box by mistake.Dropbox Sender Share Instructions Log into your Dropbox account Hover over the file or folder...

read more
Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn't...

read more
Don’t worry – There’s always a workaround

Don’t worry – There’s always a workaround

In case you did not know…

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough justification for a search.

The Court reasoned that because the use and possession of marijuana is now legal for adults in Michigan under certain circumstances (following the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act – MRTMA), the smell of marijuana no longer automatically indicates illegal activity. The odor could just as likely be associated with the legal possession or recent legal use of marijuana.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the smell of marijuana can still be a factor in determining probable cause, it must be accompanied by other specific and articulable facts indicating illegal activity to justify a search.

This ruling stems from a case where a firearm was found in a vehicle after a search was conducted based solely on the smell of marijuana. The Supreme Court sided with the lower courts in suppressing the evidence, stating that the initial search was unlawful because the smell of marijuana alone did not provide probable cause in light of the state’s legalization of cannabis.

This decision is a significant shift in Michigan law and will likely impact how law enforcement conducts vehicle searches. It emphasizes the need for additional evidence beyond the smell of marijuana to establish probable cause for a search.

They can’t say because we smell weed we are going to search your car. Because the whole town may reek.  Alas… there are a hundred other words to choose from to make the arrest.

They have to say something else now. If you’re sitting behind the wheel of a motorized vehicle all a police officer has to say is “I believe you’re impaired”. And operating a motor vehicle impaired is a crime.

So don’t think this is a win. Maybe a little one.

Read the ruling linked below.

Michigan Supreme Court Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

More Articles

More

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v. Soto: Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony ChargesMichigan's cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and...

read more
Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for...

read more
How to create and share a Dropbox link

How to create and share a Dropbox link

Simplified Sender and Receiver Dropbox Share Instructions to Someone NOT on your Team. Don't get caught up in another license or give access to your whole box by mistake.Dropbox Sender Share Instructions Log into your Dropbox account Hover over the file or folder...

read more
Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

Smell of marijuana no longer legal grounds for search

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that the smell of marijuana alone is no longer sufficient probable cause for police to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle. This decision overturns a previous precedent where the odor of marijuana was considered enough...

read more
Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Michigan Forfeiture News Articles

Can the police sieze your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Civil asset forfeiture is a legal process that allows law enforcement agencies in Michigan to seize property they suspect is connected to criminal activity, even if the owner hasn't...

read more
Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v Soto (MRTMA Defense Denied)

Another look at People v. Soto:

Application of Marijuana Regulation and Taxation Act to Felony Charges

Michigan’s cannabis landscape is evolving rapidly, marked by a nuanced exploration of the People v. Soto case and its implications for the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act alongside the Public Health Code.

Introduction

The advent of the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., has fundamentally reshaped the legal framework surrounding cannabis in Michigan.

However, the precise boundaries of this legislative initiative, particularly its interaction with pre-existing felony provisions of the Public Health Code, MCL 333.7401 et seq., remain a subject of ongoing judicial interpretation.

The case of People of the State of Michigan v. Julia Kathleen Soto, serves as a critical illustration of this evolving legal landscape, offering significant insights for legal practitioners navigating the complexities of cannabis law in the state. 

Factual Backstory and Lower Court Proceedings

The genesis of People v. Soto dates to October 26, 2022, when law enforcement initiated an investigation predicated on intelligence from Illinois State Police concerning a substantial quantity of marijuana—approximately 85 pounds—intercepted in a rental vehicle destined for southwest Michigan.

The driver of the intercepted vehicle subsequently cooperated with authorities, facilitating a controlled delivery to Chad Boylen, who directed the shipment to Julia Kathleen Soto’s residence in Niles, Michigan.

Upon the arrival of the illicit cargo, Boylen was apprehended outside the residence, and Soto eventually exited her dwelling after law enforcement officers established a perimeter and issued commands for her egress. 

A “protective sweep” of the residence revealed large quantities of marijuana in plain view. Following this initial observation, officers secured a search warrant for the premises. Execution of the warrant led to the seizure of approximately 20 pounds of marijuana, predominantly located in what was identified as Soto’s bedroom, alongside over $10,000 in U.S. currency. The substantial volume of cannabis and the significant cash seizure were indicative of commercial distribution rather than personal use, forming the evidentiary basis for felony charges.  

In the Berrien Circuit Court (LC No. 2022-015939-FH), Soto was bound over for trial on two felony counts: (1) possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii), and (2) maintaining a drug house, contrary to MCL 333.7405(1)(d). Soto’s defense counsel filed a motion to suppress the seized evidence, asserting an unconstitutional search, and a motion to dismiss the charges. A supplemental brief later introduced the argument that the MRTMA should preclude her prosecution for the possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge as a felony.  

Issue: Whether the evidence was seized in violation of constitutional protections, and whether the MRTMA preempts felony prosecution under the Public Health Code for large-scale possession with intent to deliver marijuana.

Result: The Circuit Court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence was admissible and that the MRTMA did not preclude the felony charges.

Michigan Court of Appeals: Interlocutory Review and Statutory Construction

Soto pursued two distinct interlocutory appeals to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The first, Docket No. 365822, challenged the denial of her motion to suppress based on the alleged unconstitutional search. On September 11, 2023, the Court of Appeals issued an unpublished order denying leave to appeal, citing a “failure to persuade the Court of the need for immediate appellate review”.  

The second appeal, Docket No. 370138, specifically addressed the Circuit Court’s ruling on the applicability of the MRTMA. On May 24, 2024, the Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal, limiting review to the statutory interpretation issues raised.  

Issue: Whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents prosecution under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii) of the Public Health Code for possession with intent to deliver between 5 and 45 kilograms of marijuana.  

Result: On October 7, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion affirming the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court’s analysis hinged on a strict textual interpretation of the MRTMA, emphasizing the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

The Court noted that while MCL 333.27965(1) and (2) of the MRTMA explicitly include “possession with intent to deliver” when defining civil infractions and misdemeanors for lesser quantities, MCL 333.27965(4)—which addresses misdemeanor penalties for quantities exceeding twice the allowed amount—conspicuously omits this phrase.  

This deliberate omission, the Court reasoned, indicated the electorate’s intent to exclude large-scale possession with intent to deliver from the MRTMA’s more lenient penalty scheme, thereby leaving such conduct subject to the felony provisions of Article 7 of the Public Health Code.

The Court further posited that this interpretation aligns with the MRTMA’s broader purpose of preventing the diversion of marijuana to illicit markets, asserting that large-scale, remunerated distribution outside state regulation constitutes illicit dealing.

The case was thus remanded to the Circuit Court for trial on the felony charges.  

Michigan Supreme Court: Update 7-11-2025

The legal trajectory of People v. Julia Kathleen Soto has now reached the state’s highest judicial body. The case, identified as Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 167834

Issue: Whether the Michigan Supreme Court will grant leave to appeal and, if so, affirm, reverse, or modify the Michigan Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the MRTMA’s applicability to felony marijuana charges under the Public Health Code. 

Result: On 7-11-25 Denied

The Michigan Supreme Court

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case has reached the highest court in Michigan.

Issue: Will the Michigan Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals’ decision and potentially change the interpretation of the MRTMA regarding large-scale marijuana offenses?

Result: The case, identified as Michigan Supreme Court Docket No. 167834, is currently “Pending on Application”. This means that Soto has asked the Supreme Court to hear her appeal, and the Court is deciding whether to take the case. Until the Supreme Court makes a decision, the ruling from the Court of Appeals stands.  

UPDATE 7-11-2025 DENIED

Implications for Legal Practice

The People v. Julia Kathleen Soto case underscores the critical importance of meticulous statutory interpretation in the evolving domain of cannabis law. The Michigan Court of Appeals’ published opinion provides a clear, albeit potentially temporary, delineation between regulated cannabis activity and illicit trafficking. For legal professionals, this case highlights that the MRTMA is not a blanket decriminalization statute for all marijuana-related conduct, particularly concerning commercial quantities and intent to deliver for remuneration.

For those navigating the complexities of Michigan’s cannabis and controlled substance laws, the need for experienced legal counsel is paramount. Komorn Law specializes in these intricate areas, offering robust defense strategies informed by a deep understanding of statutory construction, appellate procedure, and the nuances of Michigan’s Public Health Code and MRTMA.

Sources: Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 370138 (May 24, 2024). Michigan Medical Marijuana Blog, “MRTMA defense denied dismissal by MI Court of Appeals” (Oct. 7, 2024).

Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Court of Appeals Opinion,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, COA 370138 (Oct. 7, 2024). Michigan Courts Case Search, “PEOPLE OF MI V JULIA KATHLEEN SOTO,” MSC #167834.

Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 365822 (Sep. 11, 2023). Michigan Court of Appeals Order,

People of MI v. Julia Kathleen Soto, Docket No. 365822 (Sep. 11, 2023).

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for...

read more
How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

Don't do the crime - if you can't pay the price.Average Flat Fees. Some criminal defense attorneys charge a flat fee for certain types of cases, instead of billing by the hour. This may or may not include filing fees, motions, fees, etc. Flat fees include: DUI/DWI –...

read more
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress

Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Michigan Governor Whitmer Announces Medical Debt Forgiveness

Michigan Governor Whitmer Announces Medical Debt Forgiveness

Michigan Implements Substantial Medical Debt Forgiveness Program

Governor Gretchen Whitmer has announced a significant initiative to alleviate the burden of medical debt for nearly 210,000 Michigan residents, totaling over $144 million in forgiven obligations. This program, a collaborative effort with the national non-profit Undue Medical Debt, represents a strategic deployment of state resources to address a critical factor contributing to financial instability among Michigan households. The funding for this endeavor primarily stems from the state’s fiscal year 2024 budget, along with supplemental contributions from various county governments, and leverages the unique operational model of Undue Medical Debt to maximize the impact of every dollar allocated. This article will provide a detailed exposition of the program’s origins, funding mechanisms, eligibility criteria, and relevant legal considerations.

Background and Program Genesis

The persistent issue of medical debt profoundly impacts the financial well-being of individuals and families across the United States. Governor Whitmer’s administration has consistently emphasized addressing healthcare costs and improving accessibility.

While the specifics of this particular program are recent, the Governor’s familiarity with the intricacies of the healthcare finance system may be informed by her personal history. Her father, Richard Whitmer, held the position of President and CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from 1988 to 2006.

His extensive tenure in a leadership role within a major healthcare insurer would have provided direct insight into the systemic challenges associated with medical expenditures and the resultant accumulation of debt. This familial connection to the healthcare industry may have contributed to a comprehensive understanding that underpins the state’s proactive engagement in such debt relief initiatives.

The partnership with Undue Medical Debt is predicated on the non-profit’s capacity to acquire large portfolios of medical debt from healthcare providers and collection agencies at a significantly reduced rate, subsequently discharging these obligations for the affected individuals.

The primary source of funding for this round of medical debt forgiveness is an allocation of $4.5 million from the Michigan state fiscal year 2024 budget.

Key Aspects of the Medical Debt Forgiveness Program:

  • Strategic Partnership: The State of Michigan has formalized a partnership with Undue Medical Debt, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization. This collaboration is instrumental in the program’s efficacy, as Undue Medical Debt specializes in purchasing medical debt in bulk for a fraction of its face value, thereby enabling its complete extinguishment for debtors.
  • Funding Allocation and Taxpayer Dollars: The primary source of funding for this round of medical debt forgiveness is an allocation of $4.5 million from the Michigan state fiscal year 2024 budget. This constitutes the direct use of taxpayer dollars. Furthermore, contributions from specific counties, including Wayne, Oakland, and Kalamazoo, have augmented the program’s capacity. The efficiency of the program is amplified by Undue Medical Debt’s operational model, wherein, on average, every dollar contributed facilitates the eradication of approximately one hundred dollars in medical debt.
  • Eligibility Criteria: Eligibility for medical debt relief is determined by specific financial parameters. Individuals qualify if their income is at or below four hundred percent (400%) of the federal poverty level, or if their medical debt constitutes five percent (5%) or more of their annual income. This targeted approach ensures that assistance is directed toward those experiencing the most substantial financial hardship due to medical obligations.
  • Notification Protocol: Individuals whose medical debt has been discharged will receive formal notification via mail directly from Undue Medical Debt. This communication will confirm the forgiveness of their outstanding medical bills, and no proactive action is required from the beneficiaries.
  • Credit Reporting Implications: It is important for beneficiaries to understand the implications for their credit reports. While the medical debt is indeed forgiven under this program, a recent federal court ruling reversed a prior rule that would have mandated the removal of medical debt from credit reports. Consequently, previously reported medical debt may persist on credit reports for up to seven years, irrespective of its forgiveness under this initiative.
  • Michigan Statutes Governing Medical Debt Collection: In Michigan, the statute of limitations for the collection of medical debt is six (6) years from the date of the last payment or written acknowledgment of the debt. Beyond this period, creditors are generally precluded from initiating legal action to recover the debt, though non-litigious collection attempts may still occur.

Komorn Law PLLC

Established in 1993, Komorn Law possesses extensive experience and expertise in navigating the complexities of legal proceedings across all court systems, ranging from district to federal jurisdictions. When confronted with legal challenges, it is imperative to secure diligent legal representation from a firm that comprehends the intricate nuances of the law and is committed to achieving favorable outcomes for its clientele. Komorn Law is distinguished by its assertive advocacy and unwavering dedication to justice. For professional legal counsel from a firm known for its tenacious representation, contact our office at (248) 357-2550.

FAQs

About Michigan’s medical debt forgiveness program

 

Q: How is eligibility for this medical debt forgiveness program determined?

A: Eligibility is determined based on financial criteria, specifically if an individual’s income is at or below four times the federal poverty level, or if their medical debt accounts for 5% or more of their annual income.

Q: Will the forgiveness of medical debt through this program remove past medical debt entries from my credit report?

A: While the debt itself is forgiven, a recent federal court ruling indicates that previously reported medical debt may remain on credit reports for up to seven years, even after being discharged through this program.

Q: What recourse do individuals have if they are subjected to collection attempts for medical debt after it has been officially forgiven under this initiative?

A: Individuals who receive notification of medical debt forgiveness and subsequently face collection attempts should retain their official forgiveness letter from Undue Medical Debt. They may consult with legal counsel to assert their rights and address any improper collection practices, referencing Michigan’s debt collection laws, such as MCL 445.252.

More Posts

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

Sextortion and Sexploitation in Michigan

FAQs and Laws about Sextortion and SexploitationSextortion and sexploitation are increasingly prevalent and devastating forms of digital abuse, leveraging technology to coerce, manipulate, and exploit individuals, often for sexual gratification or financial gain....

read more
Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for...

read more
How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

How Much Does It Cost To Hire a Criminal Defense Attorney?

Don't do the crime - if you can't pay the price.Average Flat Fees. Some criminal defense attorneys charge a flat fee for certain types of cases, instead of billing by the hour. This may or may not include filing fees, motions, fees, etc. Flat fees include: DUI/DWI –...

read more
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress

Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects...

read more

Komorn Law

Arrested? – Better Call Komorn

Komorn Law
Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

Michigan House Bill NO. 4391

It may just be easier to collect and analyze tears.

This legislation seeks to integrate saliva testing for cannabis within law enforcement procedures, designating a refusal to participate in this testing as a criminal offense, similar to the penalties imposed for declining an alcohol-related preliminary breath test.

  • Crimes: intoxication or impairment
  • Criminal procedure: evidence
  • Traffic control: traffic regulation Crimes: intoxication or impairment; methods of testing intoxication or impairment in the Michigan vehicle code; expand to include other bodily fluid.

Amends secs. 625a, 625c & 625g of 1949 PA 300 (MCL 257.625a et seq.). TIE BAR WITH: HB 4390’25

Below is the text to the introduced bill.
If you are from the future you can see updates here.

Komorn Law

TIP: When you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs don’t drive.
But if you do and you get tangled up in the web of justice – Call Us

A bill to amend 1949 PA 300, entitled

“Michigan vehicle code,”

by amending sections 625a, 625c, and 625g (MCL 257.625a, 257.625c, and 257.625g), sections 625a and 625g as amended by 2021 PA 85 and section 625c as amended by 2014 PA 315.

THE “PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN” ENACT:

Sec. 625a. (1) A peace officer may arrest a person without a warrant under either of the following circumstances:

(a) The peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was, at the time of an accident in this state, the operator of a vehicle involved in the accident and was operating the vehicle in violation of section 625 or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625.

(b) The person is found in the driver’s seat of a vehicle parked or stopped on a highway or street within this state if any part of the vehicle intrudes into the roadway and the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe the person was operating the vehicle in violation of section 625 or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625.

(2) A peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person was operating a vehicle upon a public highway or other place open to the public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state and that the person by the consumption of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance or a combination of them may have affected his or her the person’s ability to operate a vehicle, or reasonable cause to believe that a person was operating a commercial motor vehicle within the state while the person’s blood, breath, or urine, or other bodily fluid contained any measurable amount of alcohol, a controlled substance, or any other intoxicating substance or while the person had any detectable presence of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance or any other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, or reasonable cause to believe that a person who is less than 21 years of age was operating a vehicle upon a public highway or other place open to the public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state while the person had any bodily alcohol content as that term is defined in section 625(6), may require the person to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis.

The following provisions apply to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis administered under this subsection:

(a) A peace officer may arrest a person based in whole or in part upon the results of a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis.

(b) The results of a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis are admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime enumerated in section 625c(1) or in an administrative hearing for 1 or more of the following purposes:

(i) To assist the court or hearing officer in determining a challenge to the validity of an arrest. This subparagraph does not limit the introduction of other competent evidence offered to establish the validity of an arrest.

(ii) As evidence of the defendant’s breath alcohol content, if offered by the defendant to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a defense witness that the defendant’s breath alcohol content was higher at the time of the charged offense than when a chemical test was administered under subsection (6).

(iii) As evidence of the defendant’s breath alcohol content, if offered by the prosecution to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a prosecution witness that the defendant’s breath alcohol content was lower at the time of the charged offense than when a chemical test was administered under subsection (6).

(iv) As evidence of the presence or nonpresence of a controlled substance in the defendant’s oral fluid, if offered by the defendant to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a defense witness that a preliminary oral fluid analysis of the defendant’s oral fluid showed the presence of a controlled substance that was not found to be present when a chemical test of the defendant’s blood, urine, or other bodily fluid was administered under subsection (6).

(v) As evidence of the presence or nonpresence of a controlled substance in the defendant’s oral fluid, if offered by the prosecution to rebut testimony elicited on cross-examination of a prosecution witness that a preliminary oral fluid analysis of the defendant’s oral fluid showed no presence of a controlled substance that was found to be present when a chemical test of the defendant’s blood, urine, or other bodily fluid was administered under subsection (6).

(c) A person who submits to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis remains subject to the requirements of sections 625c, 625d, 625e, and 625f for purposes of chemical tests described in those sections.

(d) Except as provided in subsection (5), a person who refuses to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis upon a lawful request by a peace officer is responsible for a civil infraction.

(3) A peace officer shall use the results of a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis conducted under this section to determine whether to order a person out-of-service under section 319d. A peace officer shall order out-of-service as required under section 319d a person who was operating a commercial motor vehicle and who refuses to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis as provided in this section. This section does not limit use of other competent evidence by the peace officer to determine whether to order a person out-of-service under section 319d.

(4) A person who was operating a commercial motor vehicle and who is requested to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis under this section must be advised that refusing a peace officer’s request to take a test described in this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both, and will result in the issuance of a 24-hour out-of-service order.

(5) A person who was operating a commercial motor vehicle and who refuses to submit to a preliminary chemical breath analysis or a preliminary oral fluid analysis upon a peace officer’s lawful request is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 93 days or a fine of not more than $100.00, or both.

(6) The following provisions apply to chemical tests and analysis of a person’s blood, breath, urine, or breath, other bodily fluid other than a preliminary chemical breath analysis:

(a) The amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in a driver’s blood, or urine, or other bodily fluid or the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the person’s blood, breath, urine, or breath other bodily fluid is admissible into evidence in any civil or criminal proceeding and is presumed to be the same as at the time the person operated the vehicle.

(b) A person arrested for a crime described in section 625c(1) must be advised of all of the following:

(i) If he or she the person takes a chemical test of his or her the person’s blood, breath, urine, or breath other bodily fluid administered at the request of a peace officer, he or she the person has the right to demand that a person of his or her the person’s own choosing administer 1 of the chemical tests.

(ii) The results of the test are admissible in a judicial proceeding as provided under this act and will be considered with other admissible evidence in determining the defendant’s innocence or guilt.

(iiiHe or she The person is responsible for obtaining a chemical analysis of a test sample obtained at his or her the person’s own request.

(iv) If he or she the person refuses the request of a peace officer to take a test described in subparagraph (i), a test must not be given without a court order, but the peace officer may seek to obtain a court order.

(v) Refusing a peace officer’s request to take a test described in subparagraph (i) will result in the suspension of his or her the person’s operator’s or chauffeur’s license and vehicle group designation or operating privilege and in the addition of 6 points to his or her the person’s driver record.

(c) A sample or specimen of breath, urine, or breath other bodily fluid must be taken and collected in a reasonable manner. Only a licensed physician, or an individual operating under the delegation of a licensed physician under section 16215 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16215, qualified to withdraw blood and acting in a medical environment, may withdraw blood at a peace officer’s request to determine the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in the person’s blood, as provided in this subsection. Liability for a crime or civil damages predicated on the act of withdrawing or analyzing blood and related procedures does not attach to a licensed physician or individual operating under the delegation of a licensed physician who withdraws or analyzes blood or assists in the withdrawal or analysis in accordance with this act unless the withdrawal or analysis is performed in a negligent manner.

(d) A chemical test described in this subsection must be administered at the request of a peace officer having reasonable grounds to believe the person has committed a crime described in section 625c(1). A person who takes a chemical test administered at a peace officer’s request as provided in this section must be given a reasonable opportunity to have a person of his or her the person’s own choosing administer 1 of the chemical tests described in this subsection within a reasonable time after his or her the person’s detention. The test results are admissible and must be considered with other admissible evidence in determining the defendant’s innocence or guilt. If the person charged is administered a chemical test by a person of his or her the person’s own choosing, the person charged is responsible for obtaining a chemical analysis of the test sample.

(e) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is transported to a medical facility and a sample of the driver’s blood or other bodily fluid is withdrawn at that time for medical treatment, the results of a chemical analysis of that sample are admissible in any civil or criminal proceeding to show the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance in the person’s blood at the time alleged, regardless of whether the person had been offered or had refused a chemical test. The medical facility or person performing the chemical analysis shall disclose the results of the analysis to a prosecuting attorney who requests the results for use in a criminal prosecution as provided in this subdivision. A medical facility or person disclosing information in compliance with this subsection is not civilly or criminally liable for making the disclosure.

(f) If, after an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident is deceased, a sample of the decedent’s blood or other bodily fluid must be withdrawn in a manner directed by the medical examiner to determine the amount of alcohol or the presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, in the decedent’s blood. The medical examiner shall give the results of the chemical analysis of the sample to the law enforcement agency investigating the accident and that agency shall forward the results to the department of state police.

(g) The department of state police shall promulgate uniform rules in compliance with the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328, for the administration of chemical tests for the purposes of this section. An instrument used for a preliminary chemical breath analysis or preliminary oral fluid analysis may be used for a chemical test described in this subsection if approved under rules promulgated by the department of state police.

(7) The provisions of subsection (6) relating to chemical testing do not limit the introduction of any other admissible evidence bearing upon any of the following questions:

(a) Whether the person was impaired by, or under the influence of, alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or a combination of alcoholic liquor, a controlled substance, or other intoxicating substance.

(b) Whether the person had an alcohol content of 0.08 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine or, beginning 5 years after the state treasurer publishes a certification under section 625(28), the person had an alcohol content of 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.

(c) If the person is less than 21 years of age, whether the person had any bodily alcohol content within his or her the person’s body. As used in this subdivision, “any bodily alcohol content” means either of the following:

(i) An alcohol content of 0.02 grams or more but less than 0.08 grams per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine or, beginning 5 years after the state treasurer publishes a certification under section 625(28), the person had an alcohol content of 0.02 grams or more but less than 0.10 grams or more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.

(ii) Any presence of alcohol within a person’s body resulting from the consumption of alcoholic liquor, other than the consumption of alcoholic liquor as a part of a generally recognized religious service or ceremony.

(8) If a chemical test described in subsection (6) is administered, the test results must be made available to the person charged or the person’s attorney upon written request to the prosecution, with a copy of the request filed with the court. The prosecution shall furnish the results at least 2 days before the day of the trial. The prosecution shall offer the test results as evidence in that trial. Failure to fully comply with the request bars the admission of the results into evidence by the prosecution.

(9) A person’s refusal to submit to a chemical test as provided in subsection (6) is admissible in a criminal prosecution for a crime described in section 625c(1) only to show that a test was offered to the defendant, but not as evidence in determining the defendant’s innocence or guilt. The jury must be instructed accordingly.

(10) As used in this section:

(a) “Controlled substance” means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

(b) “Intoxicating substance” means that term as defined in section 625.

Sec. 625c. (1) A person who operates a vehicle upon a public highway or other place open to the general public or generally accessible to motor vehicles, including an area designated for the parking of vehicles, within this state is considered to have given consent to chemical tests of his or her the person’s blood, breath, or urine, or other bodily fluid for the purpose of determining the amount of alcohol or presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, in his or her the person’s blood, or urine, or other bodily fluid or the amount of alcohol in his or her the person’s breath in all of the following circumstances:

(a) If the person is arrested for a violation of section 625(1), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), or (8), section 625a(5), or section 625m or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to section 625(1), (3), (6), or (8), section 625a(5), or section 625m.

(b) If the person is arrested for a violation of section 601d, section 626(3) or (4), or manslaughter, or murder resulting from the operation of a motor vehicle, and the peace officer had reasonable grounds to believe the person was operating the vehicle in violation of section 625.

(2) A person who is afflicted with hemophilia, diabetes, or a condition requiring the use of an anticoagulant under the direction of a physician is not considered to have given consent to the withdrawal of blood.

(3) The tests shall must be administered as provided in section 625a(6).

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Controlled substance” means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

(b) “Intoxicating substance” means that term as defined in section 625.

Sec. 625g. (1) If a person refuses a chemical test offered under section 625a(6), the peace officer who requested the person to submit to the chemical test shall comply with subdivisions (a) and (b). If a person submits to the chemical test or a chemical test is performed under a court order and the test reveals an unlawful alcohol content, or the presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, the peace officer who requested the person to submit to the test shall do all of the following, other than subdivision (b)(i):

(a) On behalf of the secretary of state, immediately confiscate the person’s license or permit to operate a motor vehicle and, if the person is otherwise eligible for a license or permit, issue a temporary license or permit to the person. The temporary license or permit must be on a form provided by the secretary of state.

(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), immediately do all of the following:

(i) Forward a copy of the written report of the person’s refusal to submit to a chemical test required under section 625d to the secretary of state.

(ii) Notify the secretary of state by means of the law enforcement information network that a temporary license or permit was issued to the person.

(iii) Destroy the person’s driver license or permit.

(2) If a person submits to a chemical test offered under section 625a(6) that requires an analysis of blood, or urine, or other bodily fluid and a report of the results of that chemical test is not immediately available, the peace officer who requested the person to submit to the test shall comply with subsection (1)(a) and (b)(ii) and indicate in the notice under subsection (1)(b)(ii) that a subsequent chemical test is pending. If the report reveals an unlawful alcohol content, or the presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, the peace officer who requested the person to submit to the test shall immediately comply with subsection (1)(b)(iii). If the report does not reveal an unlawful alcohol content, or the presence of a controlled substance or other intoxicating substance, or any combination of them, the peace officer who requested the person to submit to the test shall immediately notify the person of the test results and immediately return the person’s license or permit by first-class mail to the address provided at the time of arrest.

(3) A temporary license or permit issued under this section is valid for 1 of the following time periods:

(a) If the case is not prosecuted, for the earlier of 90 days after issuance or until the person’s license or permit is suspended under section 625f. The prosecuting attorney shall notify the secretary of state if a case referred to the prosecuting attorney is not prosecuted. The arresting law enforcement agency shall notify the secretary of state if a case is not referred to the prosecuting attorney for prosecution.

(b) If the case is prosecuted, until the criminal charges against the person are dismissed, the person is acquitted of those charges, or the person’s license or permit is suspended, restricted, or revoked.

(4) As used in this section:

(a) “Controlled substance” means that term as defined in section 7104 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.7104.

(b) “Intoxicating substance” means that term as defined in section 625.

(c) “Unlawful alcohol content” means any of the following, as applicable:

(i) If the person tested is less than 21 years of age, 0.02 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.

(ii) If the person tested was operating a commercial motor vehicle within this state, 0.04 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.

(iii) If the person tested is not a person described in subparagraph (i) or (ii), 0.08 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine or, beginning 5 years after the state treasurer publishes a certification under section 625(28), 0.10 grams or more of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath, or per 67 milliliters of urine.

Enacting section 1. This amendatory act takes effect 90 days after the date it is enacted into law.

Enacting section 2. This amendatory act does not take effect unless House Bill No. 4390 (request no. H00111’25) of the 103rd Legislature is enacted into law.

April 24, 2025, Introduced by Reps. Rogers, BeGole, Prestin, Rigas, Borton, Woolford, Harris, Mueller, St. Germaine, DeBoyer, Schmaltz, Meerman, Outman, Mentzer, Longjohn, Wortz, Markkanen, Wozniak, McFall, Robinson, Fairbairn, Bruck, Scott, Greene, T. Carter, Linting, Miller, VanderWall, Aragona and Kunse and referred to Committee on Government Operations.

Kommorn Law – Areas of Service

We fight for our clients throughout the State of Michigan and Northern Ohio.

Here are some court contacts we frequently handle cases.

Oakland County

If you are facing any legal charges in Oakland County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Macomb County

If you are facing any legal charges in Macomb County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

Wayne County

If you are facing any legal charges in Wayne County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the Third Circuit Court (Wayne County):

  • Telephone Number (Civil/Family): (313) 224-5510
  • Telephone Number (Criminal): (313) 224-5261 or (313) 224-2503
  • Address (Civil/Family): 2 Woodward Avenue, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Address (Criminal): 1441 St. Antoine, Detroit, MI 48226
  • Website: https://www.3rdcc.org/

Kent County

If you are facing any legal charges in Kent County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information:

  • Telephone Number: (616) 632-5220
  • Address: 180 Ottawa Avenue NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49503
  • Website: Kent County

Traverse County

If you are facing any legal charges in Traverse County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information for the 13th Circuit Court (which includes Traverse County):

Monroe County

If you are facing any legal charges in Monroe County and need to hire an attorney, call our Office (248) 357-2550. If you need to contact the court, here is the information: