Michigan’s public employees are protected by government immunity for bad decisions

Michigan’s public employees are protected by government immunity for bad decisions

Jun 18, 2024 | Michigan Laws

Sorry…Not Sorry

Michigan Governmental Immunity Laws

Michigan’s governmental immunity laws provide legal protection to government agencies and their employees in negligence lawsuits. Here are the key points:

Governmental Agency Immunity:

  • A governmental agency is immune from tort liability when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.
  • This immunity does not modify or restrict the state’s immunity from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965.
  • The state’s immunity from tort liability is affirmed.

Officer and Employee Immunity:

Officers, employees, and volunteers acting on behalf of a governmental agency are immune from tort liability for injuries or property damage caused during the course of employment or service.

Conditions for immunity:

  • Acting within the scope of authority.
  • The governmental agency is engaged in a governmental function.
  • Conduct does not amount to gross negligence that proximately causes injury or damage.
  • Intentional torts are not covered by this immunity.

Specific Immunities:

  • Judges, legislators, and the highest appointive executive officials are immune from tort liability when acting within their respective authorities.
  • Guardians ad litem are immune when acting within their authority.

Why not you?

Because you don’t work for the government.

Watch the abuse in the near future

Relevant Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Links

News Articles on Michigan Immunity Laws

FAQs

Is Michigan a qualified immunity state?

  • In Michigan, qualified immunity is created by statute. Its application, however, is limited to state court civil actions alleging tortious behavior causing injury or damages, such as cases which allege assault, battery (excessive force claims), and injuries from vehicular accidents.

What are the exceptions to governmental immunity in Michigan?

  • Since 1986, most of the governmental immunity cases have been focused on the major exceptions to governmental immunity—failure to keep highways in reasonable repair, the negligent operation of government-owned motor vehicles, and dangerous or defective conditions in public buildings.

Who qualifies for immunity?

  • Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials.

What states are getting rid of qualified immunity?

  • In addition, cities and states can create their own causes of action to hold government officials accountable and ban qualified immunity as a potential defense. Today, four states—Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico—have eliminated qualified immunity for state constitutional lawsuits against police officers.

Here’s the Law
MCL Section 691.1407

691.1407 Immunity from tort liability; intentional torts; immunity of judge, legislator, official, and guardian ad litem; immunity of governmental agency under MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act; definitions.

Sec. 7.

    (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.
    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, and without regard to the discretionary or ministerial nature of the conduct in question, each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force of a governmental agency is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service or caused by the volunteer while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met:
    (a) The officer, employee, member, or volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority.
    (b) The governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.
    (c) The officer’s, employee’s, member’s, or volunteer’s conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
    (3) Subsection (2) does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986.
    (4) This act does not grant immunity to a governmental agency or an employee or agent of a governmental agency with respect to providing medical care or treatment to a patient, except medical care or treatment provided to a patient in a hospital owned or operated by the department of community health or a hospital owned or operated by the department of corrections and except care or treatment provided by an uncompensated search and rescue operation medical assistant or tactical operation medical assistant.
    (5) A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority.
    (6) A guardian ad litem is immune from civil liability for an injury to a person or damage to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority as guardian ad litem. This subsection applies to actions filed before, on, or after May 1, 1996.
    (7) The immunity provided by this act does not apply to liability of a governmental agency under the MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act.
    (8) As used in this section:
    (a) “Gross negligence” means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.
    (b) “Search and rescue operation” means an action by a governmental agency to search for, rescue, or recover victims of a natural or manmade disaster, accident, or emergency on land or water.
    (c) “Search and rescue operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the occupations listed in subdivision (e), acting within the scope of the license, and assisting a governmental agency in a search and rescue operation.
    (d) “Tactical operation” means a coordinated, planned action by a special operations, weapons, or response team of a law enforcement agency that is 1 of the following:
    (i) Taken to deal with imminent violence, a riot, an act of terrorism, or a similar civic emergency.
    (ii) The entry into a building, area, watercraft, aircraft, land vehicle, or body of water to seize evidence, or to arrest an individual for a felony, under the authority of a warrant issued by a court.
    (iii) Training for the team.
    (e) “Tactical operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the following, acting within the scope of the license, and assisting law enforcement officers while they are engaged in a tactical operation:
    (i) Medicine, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or as a registered professional nurse, under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
    (ii) As an emergency medical technician, emergency medical technician specialist, or paramedic under part 209 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20901 to 333.20979.
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

Tap Here to Call Us

Other Articles

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...

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.Police conducted a warrantless search under the "automobile exception."The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

May 30, 2024 | Your Rights

Borders and Cannabis and Money

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.

If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit? 

They don’t so they will punish you if you get caught.

It’s simple. It’s about the money. That is the only reason it is now legal.

Cannabis Legalization in Canada

On October 17, 2018, Canada made a significant policy shift by legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The Cannabis Act came into effect, allowing Canadians to possess and use cannabis for non-medical purposes. However, there are still some important considerations:

Possession and Use: Canadians can legally possess and consume weed, subject to restrictions on the amount and how it was purchased. This includes various forms of cannabis, such as dried flower, edibles, extracts, and topicals.

Transportation Across the Border: Despite legalization within Canada, it remains strictly prohibited to transport cannabis across the Canadian border. This applies whether you’re entering Canada from another country or leaving Canada for another destination.

The ban includes all forms of cannabis products, even if you’re authorized to use it for medical purposes.

It’s essential to understand that this law applies even if cannabis is legal in both the source and destination countries.

You’re Not Welcome Here in Canada

Inadmissibility Due to Cannabis Conviction: If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and there aren’t that many. If you have a prior arrest or cannabis conviction, there’s a chance you may be turned away at the Canadian border. A DUI? Just stay home.

If you really must go. Seeking legal advice from an immigration expert is advisable in such cases.

Cannabis Legalization in Michigan

Michigan, too, has embraced cannabis legalization. However, there are nuances to be aware of:

  1. Legalization Status: As of now, it’s no longer against the law to own or grow marijuana in Michigan. However, retail stores didn’t open until 2021. Michigan citizens can legally cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants, compared to the limit of four in Ontario, Canada.
  2. Crossing the Border: Despite both Michigan and Canada legalizing cannabis, it’s still illegal for those in Michigan to buy cannabis in Canada and cross the border with marijuana. This issue affects Americans living near the border who might be tempted to take advantage of Canada’s nationwide legalization.

Conclusion

While cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy legal weed in both Canada and Michigan, crossing the border with it remains a complex matter. Whether you’re traveling north or south, leave your cannabis behind to avoid legal complications. Remember, the laws differ between countries, and what’s permissible in one place might not be in another. Stay informed and enjoy responsibly!

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for specific guidance.

Learn more

 

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

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...

Using a computer to commit a crime – The latest add on charges

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)Act 53 of 1979752.796 Use of computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to commit crime. Sec. 6.     (1) A person shall not use a computer program, computer,...

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

From Canada.ca  The official website of the Government of Canada

Drugs, alcohol and travel

It is illegal to take cannabis – including products containing cannabis, such as edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals, and all products containing CBD – across the Canadian border, whether you are entering or leaving the country:

  • No matter how much cannabis you have with you.
  • Even if you use cannabis for medical purposes in any form, including cannabidiol (CBD), unless authorized by Health Canada.
  • Even if you are travelling to or from a municipality, state or country where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

At your destination

If you travel to other countries, including the United States, with any amount of cannabis in your possession, you could:

  • be charged with a criminal offence (This applies to all countries, whether cannabis is legal there or not.)
  • be denied entry at your destination if you have previously used cannabis or any substance prohibited by local laws
  • be denied entry to other countries in the future

It is your responsibility to learn about the laws, including the legal status of cannabis use and possession, in your destination country.

If you are travelling for business related to the cannabis industry, contact the foreign government office in Canada of the country you plan to visit.

For more information, consult our Travel Advice and Advisories.

Returning to Canada

It is illegal to enter Canada with cannabis, unless you have a prescription for a medication containing cannabis authorized by Health Canada.

If you are entering Canada and have cannabis with you in any form, you must declare it to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Not declaring cannabis in your possession at the Canadian border is a serious criminal offence. You could be arrested and prosecuted.

This information is taken directly from the Canadian Gov website section Drugs, alcohol and travel.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

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...

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.Police conducted a warrantless search under the "automobile exception."The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins...

More Posts

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024: A Step Toward "Safer Communities"Michigan House Bill 5451, introduced by Representative Sharon MacDonell in February 2024, aims to...

read more
Michigan House Bill 5450 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5450 of 2024

Step by StepMichigan House Bill 5450 of 2024 is a bill that was introduced by Representative Sharon MacDonell on February 14, 2024. The bill was referred to the House...

read more
Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

May 28, 2024 | Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Squatters

Squatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.

Squatting vs. Adverse Possession: Key Differences

Michigan law differentiates between squatting and adverse possession. Squatting refers to the unlawful occupation of a property without the owner’s consent. In contrast, adverse possession allows someone who isn’t the legal owner to gain ownership rights under specific circumstances, as outlined in MCL § 600.5801. To establish adverse possession, an occupant must demonstrate:

  • Continuous occupancy: Occupying the property for at least 15 consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(1)).
  • Color of title: Possessing a document, though potentially flawed, that suggests ownership (MCL § 600.5801(2)). However, simply paying rent or utilities doesn’t constitute color of title.
  • Payment of property taxes: Paying property taxes for at least ten consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(2)).

Open, notorious, and hostile possession: Occupying the property openly, demonstrably, and claiming it as their own, even if mistakenly (MCL § 600.5801(3, 4)).

The burden of proof lies with the squatter to establish adverse possession. Notably, Michigan courts have interpreted these requirements strictly, making it difficult for squatters to gain ownership rights.

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

News Articles and Information

Squatters evicted from Michigan home, neighbor details ‘chemical’ smell, cash-bearing criminals in hiding

MML-Michigan Communities and Squatting: What You Need to Know (PDF)

Here’s how homeowners can fight against squatter insanity

Squatter Squad Videos

And now for something completely different…

American Airlines blames girl, 9, who ‘should have known’ flight attendant planted hidden cameras under toilet seat: court docs

 

Self-Help Eviction: A Unique Feature in Michigan

Michigan offers a unique remedy for property owners facing squatters: self-help eviction. Unlike most states, Michigan law allows owners to take specific steps to make the property unappealing for squatters, encouraging them to leave voluntarily.

Important Caveats: It’s crucial to note that self-help eviction has limitations:

No removal of belongings: Owners cannot remove the squatter’s belongings or physically force them out.

Tenant vs. squatter: This method only applies to squatters, not tenants with a valid lease agreement. Evicting tenants requires a formal eviction process through the court system.

Potential legal repercussions: Improper use of self-help measures could result in legal action from the squatter. Consulting an attorney before taking any steps is highly recommended.

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Getting Rid of Squatters

If you discover that someone unauthorized is occupying your property, contact the police. However, be aware that the police may consider it a civil issue and advise you to pursue eviction through the courts. It is important to note that squatting is considered a misdemeanor in Michigan, even if law enforcement may not be fully aware of this fact.

Instead of waiting on or dealing with the police, property owners in Michigan can take action to remove illegal occupants within the limits of the law:

 

  • Kindly request the squatter to vacate the premises within a specified timeframe.
  • Notify the squatter that legal measures will be pursued if they fail to comply promptly.
  • While the squatter is away from the property, consider changing the locks, securing entry points, boarding up windows, and implementing additional barriers like fences to prevent re-entry.

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...

Using a computer to commit a crime – The latest add on charges

FRAUDULENT ACCESS TO COMPUTERS, COMPUTER SYSTEMS, AND COMPUTER NETWORKS (EXCERPT)Act 53 of 1979752.796 Use of computer program, computer, computer system, or computer network to commit crime. Sec. 6.     (1) A person shall not use a computer program, computer,...

Criminal Trespass: Legal Ramifications of Squatting

Squatting in Michigan is considered criminal trespass under MCL 750.553. This statute classifies trespassing as a misdemeanor for first offenses, punishable by fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both. Subsequent offenses become felonies with steeper penalties.

There are additional trespassing classifications based on the property type:

  • Residential property: Trespassing on a single-family or two-family dwelling is typically a misdemeanor.
  • Commercial property: Trespassing on commercial buildings, industrial sites, construction zones, or utility property can be charged as a felony.

Property owners who suspect squatting should contact law enforcement. Officers can remove squatters if they lack a legal right to be on the property.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

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...

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

MI Court of Appeals – MRTMA defense denied dismissal

Does the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act protect you in all Marijuana scenarios?The Conflict The central issue in this interlocutory appeal is whether the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), MCL 333.27951 et seq., prevents a...

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.Police conducted a warrantless search under the "automobile exception."The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins...

More Posts

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5451 of 2024: A Step Toward "Safer Communities"Michigan House Bill 5451, introduced by Representative Sharon MacDonell in February 2024, aims to...

read more
Michigan House Bill 5450 of 2024

Michigan House Bill 5450 of 2024

Step by StepMichigan House Bill 5450 of 2024 is a bill that was introduced by Representative Sharon MacDonell on February 14, 2024. The bill was referred to the House...

read more
Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

May 21, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Federal Laws, Supreme Court

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal offense. 

Background of the Law

The term “carjacking” entered the American lexicon in the late 20th century, but the act itself is as old as automobiles. It wasn’t until the Federal Anti-Car Theft Act of 1992 (FACTA) that carjacking was recognized as a distinct federal crime. The law was enacted in response to a spate of violent carjackings, some of which resulted in the deaths of victims. Congress aimed to address this violent crime that often crossed state lines, making it a matter of federal concern.

APPEALS in STATE or FEDERAL COURT
When you need to appeal a decision you feel is wrong.
Call Komorn Law  (248) 357-2550

Current Law

The current federal statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, defines carjacking as the taking of a motor vehicle from another person “by force and violence or by intimidation” with the vehicle having been transported in interstate or foreign commerce. 

The law has been amended since its inception to include provisions for cases where serious bodily injury or death results from the carjacking, with penalties ranging from fines to life imprisonment, or even the death penalty in the most severe cases.

The carjacking statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2119, which originally became effective on October 25, 1992, provided in relevant part:

Whoever, possessing a firearm … takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall þ (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both; (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both; and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both.

    On September 13, 1994, § 2119 was amended to read as follows:

    Whoever, with intent to cause death or serious bodily harm takes a motor vehicle that has been transported, shipped, or received in interstate or foreign commerce from the person or presence of another by force and violence or by intimidation, or attempts to do so, shall (1) be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 15 years or both, (2) if serious bodily injury results, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 25 years, or both, and (3) if death results, be fined under this title or imprisoned for any number of years up to life, or both or sentenced to death (emphasis added to highlight the 1994 changes to the statute).

     

    Prosecutorial Trends

    Despite the stringent laws, there has been a noticeable decline in the number of carjacking cases prosecuted at the federal level in recent years. Several factors contribute to this trend. One significant hurdle is the requirement for prosecutors to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily harm or death. This intent requirement sets a high bar for federal charges and is not a prerequisite at the state level, where most carjacking cases are prosecuted.

    Conclusion

    In summary, while carjacking remains a serious offense under federal law, the challenges of proving intent and the intricacies of prosecutorial decision-making have led to fewer federal charges in recent years. The focus has shifted towards state-level prosecutions, where the legal requirements may be less stringent, and the practicalities of bringing a case to trial are more manageable. The evolution of carjacking laws reflects a balance between the need for harsh penalties for violent crimes and the realities of legal practice.

    In the FEDERAL COURT SYSTEM
    When you need to go on the offense – to put the prosecution on defense
    Komorn Law (248) 357-2550.

    Can I be arrested for DUI riding my bike high in Michigan?

    Can I be arrested for DUI riding my bike high in Michigan?

    May 18, 2024 | Blog, Driving, Michigan Laws

    Recreational Cannabis is “legal” in Michigan.

    Can I be arrested for riding my bike high in Michigan?

    First… What is the definition of a bicycle?

    MCL 257.4 defines a “bicycle” as:

    “…a device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having either 2 or 3 wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement, all of which are over 14 inches in diameter.”

    Does a bicyclist have to obey the same traffic laws as a motorist?

    Yes, with exceptions.  MCL 257.657 states:

    “Each person riding a bicycle…upon a roadway has all of the rights and is subject to all of the duties applicable to the driver of a vehicle by this chapter, except as to special regulations in this article and except as to the provisions of this chapter which by their nature do not have application.”

    Can you be charged with a DUI or biking high while riding your bicycle?

    No. Although it is dangerous to ride while intoxicated, a bicycle is not a motor vehicle according to state law. DUI applies only to motor vehicle operators.

    Other laws will be weaponized against you however, such as disorderly conduct.

    DUI Charges?
    Sometimes it’s cheaper in the long run to fight them
    Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550

    By the way…

    Is it legal to use a cell phone or text while riding a bicycle?

    Only if the cell phone is in hands-free mode. MCL 257.661 states:

    “A person operating a bicycle…shall not carry any package, bundle, or article that prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle.”

    Here is a link to some bike specific Michigan Laws

    The Michigan Point System

    Each traffic violation has a point value, which is set by law in the Michigan Vehicle Code.

    Read about it here