Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Neglect of Duty

Case Summary

In People v Harper, a Wayne County Sheriff’s deputy was charged with neglect of duty after witnessing an inmate escape during his smoke break and taking no action to stop or pursue the prisoner. The prosecution relied on the Sheriff’s Department policy manual to define the duty allegedly violated. The Michigan Court of Appeals held that violating an internal policy is not the same as violating a duty “enjoined by law,” but it also recognized that a statutory duty exists under MCL 51.75, which requires deputies to keep the jail secure and prevent escapes.

Background

Neglect‑of‑duty charges apply when a public officer fails to perform a duty imposed by law. The key question is whether the duty arises from:

• A statute

• A regulation with the force of law

• Or merely an internal policy or guideline

Internal policies may guide employee conduct, but they do not automatically create criminal liability. In Harper’s case, the prosecution initially relied on the policy manual rather than a statute, raising the issue of whether the charge was legally sufficient.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

The charging document cited only the Sheriff’s Department policy manual as the source of Harper’s duty. The Court of Appeals held:

• A policy manual cannot serve as the legal basis for a criminal neglect‑of‑duty charge.

• However, MCL 51.75 does impose a statutory duty on deputies to keep the jail secure and prevent escapes.

• Because the prosecution failed to rely on the statute in the charging document, the charge as written was defective.

The court clarified that while the policy manual alone is insufficient, a properly framed charge based on the statutory duty could be valid.

What’s at Stake

This case highlights the importance of precision in criminal charging documents. The stakes include:

• For law enforcement officers: clarity about what duties carry criminal consequences.

• For prosecutors: the need to cite statutory duties rather than internal policies.

• For courts: ensuring that criminal liability is tied to democratically enacted laws, not departmental rules.

The ruling protects officers from criminal exposure based solely on internal policy violations while preserving the state’s ability to prosecute genuine statutory neglect.

In Closing

People v Harper draws a clear line between internal policy expectations and legally enforceable duties. While deputies have a statutory obligation to prevent inmate escapes, prosecutors must ground charges in that statute—not in departmental manuals. The decision reinforces the principle that criminal liability must rest on law, not policy.

Here are some related links and articles

• MCL 51.75 — Duties of sheriffs and deputies

• MCL 750.478 — Neglect of duty by public officers

• People v Harper, No 371144

• People v Waterstone, 296 Mich App 121 (2012) — Scope of public‑officer duties

• People v Coutu, 459 Mich 348 (1999) — Requirements for criminal neglect charges

Komorn Law, founded in 1993, brings decades of seasoned experience to Michigan’s most complex criminal and regulatory matters, including the evolving cannabis framework from the MMMA to today’s MRTMA landscape. The firm represents clients facing controlled‑substance offenses, DUI and drug‑related driving charges, firearm violations, property crimes, resisting or obstructing, and the most serious allegations such as manslaughter and homicide. With a proven record in courts across Michigan and the federal system, Komorn Law delivers strategic, relentless advocacy when the stakes are highest. To work with a firm that truly refuses to back down, call  248-357-2550.