Effective February 13, 2024
On February 6, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued ADM File No. 2023-24, which adopts amendments to MCR 3.701 and the addition of MCR 3.715, .716, .717, .718, .719, .720, .721, and .722, effective February 13, 2024.
These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the Revised Judicature Act in May of 2023.
- MCR 3.715 Definitions. Several terms are defined within this rule, including “complaint,” “existing action,” “minor,” “petitioner,” and “respondent.” In addition, MCR 3.715 indicates that the terms “dating relationship,” “possession or control,” “family member,” “guardian,” “health care provider,” “law enforcement agency,” and “law enforcement officer,” mean those terms as defined in MCL 691.1803.
- MCR 3.716 Commencing an Extreme Risk Protection Action. An extreme risk protection action is an independent action commenced by filing a complaint with the family division of the circuit court. A complaint may be filed regardless of whether the respondent owns or possesses a firearm and must be prepared on a form approved by the State Court Administrative Office and submitted with the complaint. An extreme risk protection action may only be commenced by
- the spouse or former spouse of the respondent;
- an individual who has a child in common with, has or has had a dating relationship with, or resides or has resided in the same household as the respondent;
- a family member;
- a guardian of the respondent;
- a law enforcement officer; or
- a health care provider, under certain circumstances.
MCR 3.716 also details requirements for the complaint, a complaint against a minor, and venue.
- MCR 3.717 Dismissals. Except as otherwise specified in the rules, an action for an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) may only be dismissed upon motion by the petitioner prior to the issuance of an order.
- MCR 3.718 Issuing Extreme Risk Protection Orders. Except as otherwise provided in the rule, the court must rule on a request for an ex parte order within one business day of the filing date of the complaint and must expedite and give priority to ruling on a request for an ex parte order. MCR 3.718 also specifies the factual requirements for granting an ex parte order as well as the procedures for immediate emergency ex parte orders, an anticipatory search warrant, and hearings. The court must expedite and give priority to hearings required by the extreme risk protection act and must schedule a hearing for the issuance of an ERPO under certain circumstances detailed in the rule.
- MCR 3.719 Orders. This rule details the form and scope of an order and stipulates the respondent’s response requirements, along with restrictions on concealed weapons and the process for surrendering firearms. Service, notice, and clerk of the court responsibilities are also covered in MCR 3.719.
- MCR 3.720 Modification, Termination, or Extension of Order. The petitioner may file a motion to modify or terminate the ERPO and request a hearing after the order is issued. The respondent may file one motion to modify or terminate an ERPO during the first six months that the order is in effect and one motion during the second six months that the order is in effect.
- MCR 3.721 Contempt Proceedings for Violation of Extreme Risk. In general, an ERPO is enforceable under MCL 691.1810(4)–(5), 691.1815(4), and 691.1819(4). MCR 3.721 outlines the guidelines for motions to show cause, service, search warrants, arraignment, pleas of guilty, scheduling or postponing hearings, prosecution after arrest, and violation hearings.
- MCR 3.722 Appeals. Appeals must generally comply with subchapter 7.200. Either party has an appeal of right from
- an order granting, denying, or continuing an ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.718(D); or
- an order granting or denying an extended ERPO after a hearing under MCR 3.720(B).
The respondent has an appeal of right from a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered after a contested hearing.
The respondent has the lawful right to appeal a judgment of sentence for criminal contempt entered following a contested hearing.
Chief Justice Clement concurred with the proposed adoption of the ERPO court rules, but she wrote separately to address her concerns regarding inconsistent legal terminology used in the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act..
Among other linguistic inconsistencies, she emphasized that the Act “requires an individual to file “a summons and complaint” to initiate an ERPO action” but the nature of ERPO actions is consistent with that of a petition—not a complaint.
The Michigan Supreme Court has developed a range of SCAO forms aligned with the ERPO, showcasing their commitment to effective legal documentation.:
See the Court’s February 7, 2023 memorandum for more info.
Court Form Information
https://www.courts.michigan.gov/4908b5/siteassets/forms/scao-approved/recent-revisions/eoc_erpo.pdf
Related Articles
If you have an LLC you must comply or face fines and possible prison
You work hard. Now get ready to work harder to prepare to give more.If you own or are a member of an LLC.You have a deadline of January 1, 2025Call us we can take care of it for you. 248-357-2550The new Beneficial Ownership Reporting requirements for LLCs and other...
Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan
Understanding Compounding Charges Laws in Michigan Compounding charges refer to the illegal act of accepting or agreeing to accept a benefit in exchange for not prosecuting a crime. In Michigan, this is considered a serious offense, and the law specifically prohibits...
Harris unveils new proposals targeting black men with cannabis legalization
"Harris unveils new proposals targeting Black men as she looks to shore up Democratic coalition" CNNAmid the ongoing national issues, Vice President Kamala Harris introduced new initiatives on Monday aimed at addressing the needs of Black men as she works to bolster...
Cleary becomes latest US law firm to add non-equity partners
See you in the Home Depot lot.Oct 10, 2024 (Reuters) Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton will create a new category of non-equity partners, becoming the latest major U.S. law firm to move away from the traditional single-tier structure in which all partners have an...
More Posts
Federal Ban on Owning Firearms by Cannabis Consumers is Unconstitutional Court Says
Federal charges against a non-violent, cannabis-using gun owner were unconstitutional.A federal appeals court panel upheld a lower court's ruling on Wednesday,...
AG Nessel joined 21 attorneys general to regulate the sale of firearms
Extreme Risk Protection Order to prevent individuals from possessing or owning a firearm for eight years following their conviction. That legislation was signed into...
Michigan DUI Laws and Consequences – First Offense
First Offense DUI in Michigan: Laws and ConsequencesFacing a first offense DUI in Michigan can be daunting as the implications are significant and the legal landscape...
Court Ruling – No bonus for growing weed
COURT RULING – SORRY NO BONUS FOR GROWING CANNABISA marijuana farm worker is unable to succeed in his breach-of-contract lawsuit regarding a $100,000 bonus he claims to...
Cannabis workers claimed employer violated labor laws
Allegedly had to put on company-issued personal protective equipment (“PPE”) (such as masks, hair nets, arm sleeves, gloves, scrubs, and protective shoes) before...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Vehicle Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your Driver License and Motor Vehicle Information privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State...
The MSP is Concerned About Your Privacy (Biometric Information)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your DNA / biometric privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to...
The MSP and Your Privacy (Criminal History)
Is the Michigan State Police really concerned about your criminal history privacy?Here's what they say on their websiteThe Michigan State Police (MSP) is committed to...
The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?
The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just...
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases
The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law CasesChallenges to Federal Gun Laws the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed Updated July 8, 2024...