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. 

Case Summary

In People v Dummer, the defendant challenged Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles statute, arguing that simply possessing the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment. The Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged that possession of metallic knuckles is presumptively protected conduct. However, after conducting a historical analysis, the court concluded that metallic knuckles were widely prohibited during the era surrounding the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because they were historically viewed as “dangerous and unusual” weapons associated with criminal activity rather than lawful self‑defense, the statute survived the facial constitutional challenge.

Background

Michigan’s prohibition on metallic knuckles appears in MCL 750.224(1)(d), which criminalizes possession of certain weapons deemed inherently dangerous. After the U.S. Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment decisions, courts must evaluate whether a weapon is part of the nation’s historical tradition of lawful firearm and weapon regulation.

Metallic knuckles occupy a unique place in weapons law. They are not designed for hunting, self‑defense, or sport. Historically, they were associated with street violence, ambush attacks, and criminal misuse. This history became central to the court’s analysis.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

The defendant raised a facial challenge, arguing that the statute was unconstitutional in all applications. The Court of Appeals rejected the challenge, finding:

• Possession of metallic knuckles is presumptively protected under the Second Amendment.

• But historical evidence showed widespread 19th‑century bans on metallic knuckles.

• These weapons were considered “dangerous and unusual,” placing them outside the core of protected conduct.

Because the historical tradition supported prohibiting such weapons, the statute remained valid.

What’s at Stake

This case highlights the evolving landscape of Second Amendment litigation. Courts must balance modern constitutional standards with historical weapon‑regulation practices. The ruling reinforces that:

• Not all weapons fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.

• Legislatures may prohibit weapons historically associated with criminal misuse.

• Facial challenges face a high bar, especially when historical evidence supports regulation.

For defendants, the case underscores that weapon‑possession laws remain enforceable even in a post‑Bruen legal environment.

In Closing

People v Dummer reaffirms that Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles ban is constitutionally sound. While the Second Amendment protects many forms of weapon possession, it does not extend to weapons historically viewed as dangerous, unusual, and primarily used for unlawful purposes. The decision provides a clear roadmap for evaluating similar challenges in the future.

Here are some related links and articles

• People v Dummer, No 369752, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (Mar 18, 2025)

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. 

Summary

A Michigan Court of Claims judge has ruled that the lawsuit challenging the state’s newly enacted 24% wholesale marijuana excise tax may proceed. The ruling, issued January 5, 2026, keeps alive a significant constitutional challenge brought by industry groups who argue that the tax violates the voter‑approved Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). Although the case moves forward, the tax remains in effect.

Background

The 24% wholesale tax was enacted in 2025 as part of the Comprehensive Road Funding Tax Act (CRFTA)—a broad revenue package designed to support statewide transportation funding. The Legislature passed the measure through the standard budget process, and the Governor signed it into law. It was not a ballot initiative, nor did it require a supermajority vote under the Legislature’s interpretation of MRTMA.

Shortly after enactment, the Michigan Cannabis Industry Association (MCIA) and several licensed operators filed suit. Their central argument: MRTMA’s 10% excise tax was intended to be the exclusive tax on adult‑use cannabis, and any additional tax requires a three‑fourths legislative supermajority. They contend the new tax undermines MRTMA’s purpose of promoting a regulated, affordable market.

Judge Sima G. Patel previously dismissed two claims but allowed the core constitutional challenge to proceed, finding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that the tax may frustrate MRTMA’s voter‑approved objectives.

Opinions

Industry Perspective: MCIA and its members view the ruling as a meaningful step toward protecting voter intent. They argue that the tax is excessive, discriminatory, and likely to push consumers back toward the illicit market—precisely what MRTMA sought to prevent.

State’s Position: The Attorney General’s office maintains that MRTMA expressly permits additional taxes “in addition to all other taxes,” and that the Legislature acted within its authority. The state also argues that the tax is a lawful component of a broader revenue strategy and does not amend MRTMA’s core provisions.

Judicial Approach: Judge Patel’s ruling does not address the merits of the tax itself. Instead, it reflects a procedural determination that the plaintiffs’ remaining claim warrants factual development. The court will now examine whether the tax meaningfully interferes with MRTMA’s statutory purpose.

What’s at Stake

• Regulatory Integrity: Whether the Legislature can impose new cannabis taxes without a supermajority vote.

• Market Stability: A 24% wholesale tax may significantly increase retail prices, potentially affecting consumer behavior and business viability.

• Budget Projections: The state anticipates hundreds of millions in annual revenue from the tax; a successful challenge could disrupt transportation‑funding plans.

• Precedent for Voter‑Initiated Laws: The case may clarify how far lawmakers can go when legislating around voter‑approved initiatives.

In Closing

The Court of Claims’ decision ensures that Michigan’s cannabis‑tax litigation will continue into discovery and further judicial review. The outcome may reshape the balance between legislative authority and voter‑initiated protections in Michigan’s cannabis framework. A scheduling conference is set for January 13, and the case is expected to draw close attention from industry stakeholders, policymakers, and legal observers.

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. 

People v Lyons, No 370840, ___ Mich App ___, ___ NW3d ___ (May 13, 2025)

Case Summary

In People v Lyons, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by police. Before the vehicle fully stopped, he exited and began walking away. Officers ordered him to return, he refused, and he was arrested for failing to obey a lawful order. A search incident to arrest revealed methamphetamine. The Court of Appeals upheld the arrest and the resulting evidence.

Background

During a traffic stop, all occupants are considered seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. Passengers are not free to leave unless officers permit it. Police may issue reasonable commands to maintain control and safety during the stop.

The question in Lyons was whether the defendant was lawfully seized and whether officers could order him to remain at the scene.

Lower and Higher Court Opinions

The trial court upheld the arrest, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:

• A passenger is seized when police initiate a traffic stop.
• A reasonable person would not believe they were free to walk away.
• Police may order passengers to remain with the vehicle.
• Refusal to obey a lawful order provides grounds for arrest.
• The search incident to arrest was valid, making the drug evidence admissible.

What’s at Stake

This case reinforces:

• Police authority to control the scene during traffic stops.

• The obligation of passengers to comply with lawful commands.

• The validity of searches incident to lawful arrests.

• The principle that attempting to walk away from a stop can escalate into arrestable conduct.

In Closing

People v Lyons confirms that passengers are seized during traffic stops and must comply with reasonable police commands. Refusal to obey a lawful order justified the arrest, and the resulting search was constitutionally valid.

Relevant Laws, Cases and Articles

• Fourth Amendment — Summary
• MCL 750.81d — Resisting/obstructing
• People v Lyons
• Brendlin v California, 551 US 249 (2007)
• Pennsylvania v Mimms, 434 US 106 (1977)

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.