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 be owed for producing a healthy harvest of 1400 pounds of dry cannabis crop as the contract is...
Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act
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
Court Ruling – No bonus for growing weed
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 clocking in Close to 1.2 milion settlement for 134 cannabis workers alleging wage violations under federal...
Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.
Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive number of cannabis plants in violation of state laws. Subsequent visits revealed dozens of underfed and...
AGs – Ex DEA Leaders for Push Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling
State AGs And Former DEA Leaders Push Agency To Hold Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling ProposalIn a filing with the federal government ahead of a key deadline this week, a group of former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) leaders is asking the agency to...
More Posts
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...
Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?
Do Passengers have 4th Amendment Rights?Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in CarsBackground Mead was a passenger in a car and...
Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools
Students and 4th Amendment RightsStudents are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the...
Forfeiture Law: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark Rulings
Forfeiture Law in Focus: SCOTUS and Sixth Circuit Issue Landmark RulingsThe landscape of forfeiture law has been significantly shaped by recent decisions from the U.S....
Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests
Facial RecognitionHow Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use...
People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights
Court of Appeals of Michigan PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 368736 Decided: June 27, 2024Before:...
MI Lawyer Weekly – Michigan’s Go To Lawyers for Cannabis Law
Please join us in congratulating our inaugural Michigan’s Go To Lawyer for cannabis law. Michael Komorn, Komorn Law, Farmington HillsMichigan Lawyers Weekly is pleased...
Chinese-funded marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.
Inside the Chinese-funded and staffed marijuana farms springing up across the U.S.During a farm inspection, New Mexico state special agents discovered an excessive...