Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court will conduct a public administrative hearing, providing an opportunity for citizens and legal professionals to engage directly with the state’s highest court.

This hearing, held via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube, will allow participants to discuss significant legal issues affecting Michigan’s judicial system.

The court’s decision to include the public in these proceedings underscores its commitment to transparency and public involvement in the legal process​.

Read More Details Here: MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT NOTICE OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING.

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court will conduct a public administrative hearing, providing an opportunity for citizens and legal professionals to engage directly with the state's highest court. This hearing, held via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube,...

More Articles

Meanwhile elsewhere…

A Justice Department watchdog revealed that one of the nation’s most prolific federal narcotics prosecutors violated ethics rules last year when he drunkenly handed his business card to Florida police investigating a hit-and-run crash.

The conclusion arises nearly a year after The Associated Press released body-camera footage from a Fourth of July incident in which Joseph Ruddy was alleged to have collided with another vehicle, fled the scene, and attempted to use his position as an assistant U.S. attorney in Tampa to mitigate the repercussions.

Despite his visible disorientation, Ruddy managed to maintain enough composure to present his Justice Department credentials to the officers from two different jurisdictions who had arrived to investigate the crash.

“What are you trying to hand me?” a Tampa police officer asked. “You realize when they pull my body-worn camera footage and they see this, this is going to go really bad.”

On the evening of his arrest, Ruddy faced allegations of striking an SUV that was waiting to make a right turn, damaging its side mirror and detaching another component that became lodged in the fender of Ruddy’s pickup.

“He never even hit brakes,” a witness told police. “He just kept going and he was swerving all the way up the road. I’m like, ‘No, he’s going to hurt somebody.’”

When officers arrived at Ruddy’s residence in the Tampa suburb of Temple Terrace, they observed him hunched over his pickup truck, clutching his keys and leaning on the vehicle for support, according to a police report. The officers noted that he had soiled himself, required assistance to walk, and did not pass a field sobriety test.

“I understand we might be having a better night,” Tampa police patrolman Taylor Grant said before looking at the business card.

“Why didn’t you stop?” the officer asked.

“I didn’t realize it was that serious,” Ruddy said in a slurred response.

“You hit a vehicle and you ran,” the officer said. “You ran because you’re drunk. You probably didn’t realize you hit the vehicle.”

Read More Details Here: Legal News

More Articles

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

On September 18, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court will conduct a public administrative hearing, providing an opportunity for citizens and legal professionals to engage directly with the state's highest court. This hearing, held via Zoom and livestreamed on YouTube,...

Need to hire one of Michigans top Criminal Defense Attorneys?

Call Komorn Law

Meanwhile elsewhere…

The DUI adventures of one of the nation’s most prolific federal narcotics prosecutors

A Justice Department watchdog revealed that one of the nation’s most prolific federal narcotics prosecutors violated ethics rules last year when he drunkenly handed his business card to Florida police investigating a hit-and-run crash.

The conclusion arises nearly a year after The Associated Press released body-camera footage from a Fourth of July incident in which Joseph Ruddy was alleged to have collided with another vehicle, fled the scene, and attempted to use his position as an assistant U.S. attorney in Tampa to mitigate the repercussions.

Despite his visible disorientation, Ruddy managed to maintain enough composure to present his Justice Department credentials to the officers from two different jurisdictions who had arrived to investigate the crash.

“What are you trying to hand me?” a Tampa police officer asked. “You realize when they pull my body-worn camera footage and they see this, this is going to go really bad.”

On the evening of his arrest, Ruddy faced allegations of striking an SUV that was waiting to make a right turn, damaging its side mirror and detaching another component that became lodged in the fender of Ruddy’s pickup.

“He never even hit brakes,” a witness told police. “He just kept going and he was swerving all the way up the road. I’m like, ‘No, he’s going to hurt somebody.’”

When officers arrived at Ruddy’s residence in the Tampa suburb of Temple Terrace, they observed him hunched over his pickup truck, clutching his keys and leaning on the vehicle for support, according to a police report. The officers noted that he had soiled himself, required assistance to walk, and did not pass a field sobriety test.

“I understand we might be having a better night,” Tampa police patrolman Taylor Grant said before looking at the business card.

“Why didn’t you stop?” the officer asked.

“I didn’t realize it was that serious,” Ruddy said in a slurred response.

“You hit a vehicle and you ran,” the officer said. “You ran because you’re drunk. You probably didn’t realize you hit the vehicle.”

Read More

Source: Legal News

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan

These clauses protect property rights and maintain a balance between public needs and individual ownership

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions are pivotal components of property law, ensuring that private property is not seized by the government without fair compensation. These clauses protect property rights and maintain a balance between public needs and individual ownership.

United States Constitution: The Fifth Amendment

The Takings Clause is embedded in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This clause has two primary components: public use and just compensation.

Public Use: The government can only take private property if it is for a public purpose. Historically, this meant projects like highways, schools, or public buildings. However, the interpretation has broadened over time. The landmark case Kelo v. City of New London (2005) expanded public use to include economic development, where the government justified the taking by claiming it would benefit the community economically​ (Michigan Public)​.

Just Compensation: The government must provide fair market value for the property taken. This is determined through an appraisal process, though disputes can arise regarding the value. The aim is to ensure the property owner is not financially disadvantaged by the taking.

Michigan Constitution: Article X, Section 2

The Michigan Constitution mirrors the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause with some distinct nuances. Article X, Section 2 states, “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation therefor being first made or secured in a manner prescribed by law.”

Public Use: Michigan adheres to the federal standard of public use but has specific state-level interpretations and applications. Following the Hathcock v. Wayne County (2004) decision, Michigan imposed stricter limitations on takings for economic development compared to the broader interpretation allowed by Kelo at the federal level. Hathcock overturned previous rulings that permitted takings for economic development unless the project served a clear public interest, such as addressing blight​ (Michigan Public)​.

Just Compensation: Similar to the federal standard, Michigan requires fair market value compensation. The state also provides for additional compensation mechanisms, including potential reimbursement for relocation expenses in certain cases.

Legal and Social Implications

The Takings Clauses aim to protect individuals from the loss of property without proper cause or reimbursement, balancing individual rights with community needs. These clauses ensure that while the government can perform functions beneficial to the public, it cannot arbitrarily or unfairly deprive individuals of their property.

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

Controversies and Challenges

Broad Interpretation of Public Use: Cases like Kelo have sparked debates on the limits of public use, with critics arguing that broad interpretations can lead to abuse, where private property is taken for private development under the guise of public benefit.

Determination of Just Compensation: Disputes often arise over what constitutes fair market value, with property owners frequently contesting government appraisals.

State vs. Federal Standards: States can impose stricter standards than those set by federal rulings, as seen in Michigan’s response to economic development takings post-Hathcock. This creates a patchwork of interpretations and applications across the country, affecting property rights differently depending on the state.

Recent Developments

The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County emphasized that surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales should return to former homeowners, underscoring the protection against governmental overreach and unjust enrichment. This ruling aligns with the principles of the Takings Clauses, ensuring fair treatment and compensation for property owners​ (Michigan Public)​.

Conclusion

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions serve as vital safeguards for property rights, mandating that any governmental taking of private property must be for a public use and with just compensation. These clauses continue to evolve through judicial interpretations and legislative adjustments, reflecting ongoing efforts to balance public interests with private property rights.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...

read more

Other Articles

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

read more
When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.In Michigan, police can take your dashcam footage in specific situations, primarily when they believe it could serve as evidence in a criminal investigation. Michigan law permits officers to seize...

read more
When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

Someone asked us... Can the police take my drone?As we have seen ... They can charge, arrest you and take your stuff for whatever they want.  You'll have to fight it out in court to get it back.In Michigan, the police can confiscate your drone under certain...

read more
People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...

read more
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

read more
Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if the
totality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave

In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding police seizure.

Background of the Case: Police officers observed a parked car with its engine running in an elementary school parking lot at 10:00 p.m. They parked their patrol car about ten feet behind the parked car at a 45-degree angle, with headlights and a spotlight directed at the car.

The officers approached the vehicle, detected signs of intoxication from the driver, and took him into custody following failed field sobriety tests. The driver later agreed to a blood draw and confessed to consuming alcohol.

Key Legal Issues: The defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of intoxication was denied by the Oakland Circuit Court, as it claimed the evidence was obtained through an unlawful seizure. The Court of Appeals also denied interlocutory leave to appeal.

The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine when the defendant was first seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. On remand, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant was seized when the patrol car parked behind him.

The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, stating that the defendant was not considered to be under seizure when the patrol car pulled up 10 feet away at a 45-degree angle.

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

Michigan Supreme Court Decision: A police vehicle blocking a defendant’s exit may constitute a seizure if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave based on the circumstances.

The Court determined that the defendant was seized prior to the officers detecting any signs of intoxication, taking into account the police behavior, timing, and environment.

The Court of Appeals’ decision was overturned, leading to a remand to assess if the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during the defendant’s initial seizure.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...

read more

Other Articles

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

read more
When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.In Michigan, police can take your dashcam footage in specific situations, primarily when they believe it could serve as evidence in a criminal investigation. Michigan law permits officers to seize...

read more
When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

Someone asked us... Can the police take my drone?As we have seen ... They can charge, arrest you and take your stuff for whatever they want.  You'll have to fight it out in court to get it back.In Michigan, the police can confiscate your drone under certain...

read more
People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...

read more
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

read more
Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court to Hold Public Administrative Hearing

Michigan Supreme Court – Money back for former homeowners

In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties cannot retain surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales, a move poised to return millions to former homeowners. This ruling, stemming from the case Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, found that keeping surplus auction proceeds violated the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without just compensation.

Typical Government Hustle

Historically, Michigan’s tax foreclosure law, established in 1999, allowed counties to auction off properties with unpaid taxes and retain any proceeds beyond the owed taxes and associated fees.

This practice led to significant financial windfalls for counties, often at the expense of the original property owners, who lost their homes and any equity built up in them.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturns this precedent, emphasizing that former homeowners are entitled to any surplus funds from these sales.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that practice as unconstitutional and said the homeowner was entitled to that surplus.

At the time of the ruling, only claims from 2020 and later qualified for reimbursement of funds, but a new ruling Monday could impact sales as far back as 2014. 

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

The case that catalyzed this ruling involved Uri Rafaeli, whose property in Oakland County was sold for $24,500 after he failed to pay a $285 property tax debt. 

The county kept the entire sale amount, far exceeding the owed tax. The court ruled this action as an unconstitutional taking, highlighting the inequity of the practice.

This decision has significant financial implications for Michigan counties.

Many counties relied on surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure auctions to supplement their budgets and support various county operations.

Wayne County, for instance, often used these funds to cover budget deficits. Now, counties may face financial strain, particularly if the ruling is applied retroactively, necessitating repayments for past surpluses retained from property sales prior to the 2020 decision.

In response to the ruling, Oakland County and others will need to amend their practices. Oakland County has already settled a related lawsuit, establishing a $38 million fund to compensate affected homeowners. This settlement underscores the potential scale of financial restitution that counties might need to provide.

Like every other poor decision the government makes it will be funded by tax payers.

The ruling aligns Michigan with other states that ensure surplus proceeds from tax sales are returned to former property owners, reinforcing property rights and equitable treatment. Moving forward, Michigan counties will need to adjust their tax foreclosure processes to comply with this ruling, likely influencing legislative changes to solidify the new legal framework.

For former homeowners, this ruling represents a significant victory, affirming their rights to any equity remaining in their properties after tax debts are settled. It also serves as a check on governmental overreach, ensuring that property seizure for unpaid taxes does not result in unjust enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.

This decision has broader implications beyond Michigan, resonating with similar cases across the United States. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Minnesota homeowner in a comparable situation, emphasizing a national trend towards protecting homeowners from losing their property equity in tax foreclosure processes.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling mandates a fairer approach to tax foreclosures, ensuring surplus proceeds return to the rightful owners and setting a precedent for property rights protections. This decision will reshape county financial strategies and bolster homeowner protections, marking a pivotal shift in Michigan’s handling of tax-delinquent properties​

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if thetotality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an...

read more

Other Articles

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

read more
When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.In Michigan, police can take your dashcam footage in specific situations, primarily when they believe it could serve as evidence in a criminal investigation. Michigan law permits officers to seize...

read more
When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

Someone asked us... Can the police take my drone?As we have seen ... They can charge, arrest you and take your stuff for whatever they want.  You'll have to fight it out in court to get it back.In Michigan, the police can confiscate your drone under certain...

read more
People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...

read more
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

read more
Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave

In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018. This decision reverses the amendments made by the legislature, which had adopted and then quickly weakened the voter-initiated proposals, effectively bypassing the intent of the voters.

Background

In 2018, two citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave were presented.

The Michigan Legislature adopted these initiatives to prevent them from going to a public vote, then promptly amended them to make them more business-friendly. This “adopt and amend” strategy reduced the scope and impact of the original proposals.

For example, the minimum wage was set to increase more gradually, and the paid sick leave law was adjusted to exempt more businesses from providing benefits.

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

The Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Claims, with Judge Douglas Shapiro presiding, ruled that this legislative maneuver violated the state constitution. Shapiro’s opinion emphasized that once the legislature adopts an initiative, it cannot amend it within the same session.

This decision reinstates the original 2018 proposals, which include raising the minimum wage to $12 per hour and extending paid sick leave benefits to many more employees than the amended laws allowed.

The court found that the legislature’s actions undermined the will of the people, who had supported the more generous terms of the original initiatives. The ruling also highlighted the constitutional principle that initiatives should be protected from legislative tampering once they are adopted.

Implications for Workers and Employers

The restoration of these laws is a major victory for worker rights groups and unions, who argue that the higher minimum wage and expanded sick leave are essential for providing fair compensation and benefits to workers.

For instance, the reinstated minimum wage law also includes provisions to eliminate the lower tipped wage by 2024, ensuring all workers receive at least $12 per hour.

The paid sick leave law now requires businesses, including those with fewer than 50 employees, to offer up to 72 hours of paid sick leave annually.

This decision is seen as a move towards economic justice, addressing issues of wage inequality and providing greater job security and benefits for low-income workers. Supporters argue that these changes are necessary to meet the rising cost of living and provide a fair wage for all workers.

Business Community’s Response

The business community, however, has expressed significant concerns about the impact of these changes. Many business leaders argue that the restored laws will place a substantial financial burden on employers, particularly small businesses already struggling with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and ongoing economic challenges. They warn that the increased labor costs could lead to higher prices for consumers, reduced hiring, and even closures of small businesses.

The Michigan Restaurant & Lodging Association, for example, fears that the immediate implementation of these laws could create chaos in the hospitality industry, which is heavily reliant on the lower tipped wage model. Business groups are calling for a delay in implementing the changes to allow time for adjustment and are expected to appeal the ruling.

Next Steps

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision marks a pivotal moment in the state’s labor policy, reaffirming the constitutional protections for voter-initiated laws. While the ruling is a clear win for worker advocates, the legal and political battles are likely to continue as business groups push back and seek ways to mitigate the impact on employers.

The state’s regulatory bodies, including the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, are now tasked with ensuring compliance with the restored laws. They will play a crucial role in determining how these laws are implemented and enforced, potentially shaping the future landscape of labor rights in Michigan.

This ruling underscores the ongoing tension between protecting worker rights and addressing the concerns of the business community, highlighting the complexities of labor law and economic policy in Michigan.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s decision to restore the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws represents a significant shift in the state’s labor policy, aimed at providing greater protections and benefits for workers.

While celebrated by worker rights groups, the ruling poses challenges for businesses, setting the stage for further legal and political debates.

As the state moves forward with implementing these changes, the balance between fair labor practices and economic viability will remain a central issue.

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...

read more

Other Articles

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

Trump plans – How does Cannabis Business fit in?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.President Biden's administration has proposed the reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I controlled substance to a Schedule III drug, which recognizes its medical benefits. This significant...

read more
When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

When Can Police Take Your Dash Cam?

You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.In Michigan, police can take your dashcam footage in specific situations, primarily when they believe it could serve as evidence in a criminal investigation. Michigan law permits officers to seize...

read more
When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

When Can Police Confiscate Your Drone in Michigan?

Someone asked us... Can the police take my drone?As we have seen ... They can charge, arrest you and take your stuff for whatever they want.  You'll have to fight it out in court to get it back.In Michigan, the police can confiscate your drone under certain...

read more
People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a Lawyer – November 12, 2024

People who are going to need a LawyerMan so drunk field sobriety tests were ‘too dangerous’ sentenced to life in prison for repeated DWI convictions‘Several terabytes’: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of...

read more
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court

Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...

read more
Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view

The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...

read more
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw

A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving  investigation following a car...

read more

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court Ruling – July 25, 2025

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.

The court ruled that Stephanie Wilson’s 2006 Saturn Ion was not subject to forfeiture laws as there was no evidence of drug-related activities when seized in 2019. Mere proximity to suspected drug crimes or passenger drug possession is not sufficient for seizure.

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

Michigan Supreme Court: Factual and Procedural History

On June 24, 2019, claimant Stephanie Wilson was driving in the defendant vehicle with Malcolm Smith in the passenger seat when she was pulled over by Sergeant Chivas Rivers of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Office. Sergeant Rivers testified at his deposition that he had been surveilling a house on Lumley Street in Detroit for narcotics activity when he saw claimant and Smith drive up and park in front of that house. An unidentified man approached the passenger side of the defendant vehicle and reached his arm in through the window for what Sergeant Rivers believed to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction.

After claimant drove away, Sergeant Rivers followed the defendant vehicle a short distance before effectuating a traffic stop on the basis of a failure to signal a turn. Sergeant Rivers
testified that, when he pulled claimant over, she stated that she had driven Smith to the Lumley Street address to purchase drugs. Claimant has denied saying this.

After speaking to claimant and Smith, Sergeant Rivers searched the defendant vehicle and found five empty syringes under the passenger seat but no other evidence of drugs. Although Sergeant Rivers averred that Smith stated that he had already used the syringes to inject heroin, it appears that the syringes were never tested for drug residue. Sergeant Rivers seized the
defendant vehicle. Nearly four months later, the state initiated forfeiture proceedings pursuant to MCL 333.7521.

Following discovery, claimant moved for summary disposition on three bases:

(1) MCR 2.116(C)(7) (plaintiff failed to promptly file its complaint for forfeiture);

(2) MCR 2.116(C)(8) (plaintiff failed to state a claim on which relief could be granted); and

(3) MCR 2.116(C)(10) (there was no material factual dispute, and claimant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law).

The trial court held a hearing and considered arguments from both parties regarding the facts surrounding the seizure of the defendant vehicle.

Finding that Sergeant Rivers appeared to have witnessed a hand-to-hand transaction but that such an interaction would not necessarily involve drugs, the trial court granted summary disposition to claimant without explicitly specifying the ground on which the ruling was based.

Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, a motion to stay, and an ex parte motion for relief from judgment.

The trial court denied these motions and directed plaintiff to release claimant’s vehicle immediately.

Read the Entire Opinion Here

Legal Counsel and Your Rights

When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.

An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.

Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.

Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.

Research us and then call us.

More Rights You Should Know

A secured and safe vote thanks to new laws in Michigan

A secured and safe vote thanks to new laws in Michigan

Governor Whitmer Signs Historic Election Bills Package to Ensure Every Vote Can be Cast and CountedIn Case You Missed It November 30, 2023 “Today, we are expanding voting rights and strengthening our democracy,” said Governor Whitmer. “Michiganders spoke clearly last...

read more
What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

What could happen when you click the – I agree – box?

Wrongful death suit against Disney serves as a warning to consumers when clicking ‘I agree’A wrongful death lawsuit involving Walt Disney Parks and Resorts highlights the critical importance for consumers to meticulously review the fine print before registering for a...

read more

Other Articles

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan

The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan

These clauses protect property rights and maintain a balance between public needs and individual ownership The Takings Clauses of the United States and Michigan Constitutions are pivotal components of property law, ensuring that private property is not seized by the...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

Michigan Supreme Court – People of Michigan v. Duff

A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if thetotality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Michigan Supreme Court restores wage and sick leave laws

Citizen-initiated proposals aimed at increasing the minimum wage and expanding paid sick leave In a significant ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court has reinstated the original minimum wage and paid sick leave laws that were initially gutted by the legislature in 2018....

read more
Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

Michigan Supreme Court – Forfeiture of 2006 Saturn ION

FORFEITURE OF 2006 SATURN IONMichigan Supreme Court Ruling - July 25, 2025 The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that Detroit police can no longer seize cars through civil asset forfeiture unless they can demonstrate that the vehicle was used for drug trafficking.The...

read more
Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

Michigan Supreme Court won’t revive Flint water charges

The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday shot down the state attorney general’s high-profile effort to criminally prosecute seven former public officials for their role in the Flint water crisis. In a series of orders, the court left in place lower court dismissals of the...

read more