Michigan legislative action thread
Posted on 09/25/2015 6:45:12 AM PDT by MichCapCon
A bill to protect Michiganders from being prosecuted for unknowingly violating thousands of state laws and regulations could soon face a vote in a key committee of the Michigan House of Representatives.
House Bill 4713 would restore a standard for defining what constitutes criminal liability. The move would affect numerous state statutes, especially regulatory violations. Under mens rea (Latin for ‘the guilty mind’), more than just the act of violating a law must be considered to establish criminal liability; the intent of the accused person also has to be considered.
On Sept. 17 the House Oversight Committee held a hearing on the bill. Observers expect the committee to vote on the legislation soon, possibly as early as Sept. 24.
“This addresses statutes that fail to specify that there needs to be proof of a culpable mental state,” Mike Reitz, the executive vice president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, told the committee. “For a crime to occur there has to be a combination of intent and action."
Witnesses speaking before the committee said that as the number of the state’s regulatory crimes have increased the mens rea concept has consistently been omitted.
This has resulted in cases such as that of Alan Taylor, a Sparta business owner who unintentionally became a criminal after he had an employee parking lot expanded. After the work was done, the Department of Environmental Quality informed Taylor that his project had encroached on a wetland. The department's lead investigator admitted it wasn’t clear that the lot was on protected land, but ultimately, Taylor was found guilty and ordered to pay $8,500 in fines and costs.
In reaction to this case, Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman called on the Legislature to clarify statutes that criminalize administrative offenses.
Advocates of reform argue that Michigan’s law books include an estimated 3,102 crimes, a number so large that residents aren’t likely to be aware of or fully understand many of them. One study has shown that 27 percent of Michigan felonies and 59 percent of state misdemeanors contain no mens rea provision.
Under the bill under consideration, mens rea would apply to all crimes to which it could reasonably be applied. Under that standard, a criminal offense could only be established if it were proven that the accused person had acted with intent, knowledge or recklessness. Statutes within the vehicle code, the penal code and drug laws would be exempt and not affected by the bill.
“The need for this involves two issues,” Reitz said. “One, personal liberty; and two, it will also provide an element of clarity.”
Rep. Lana Theis, R-Brighton, asked why the Legislature doesn’t solve the problem by getting rid of all of the state’s problematic laws.
“My concern is that there are a lot of laws on the books that shouldn’t be on the books in the first place,” Theis said. “Maybe we shouldn’t be doing this and instead should be getting rid of those laws.”
Rep. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, the chair of the committee and sponsor of the bill, said that doing that was something that sounds easier than it actually would be.
“There is a law that says colored chicks and rabbits can’t be sold, which has never resulted in a single case,” McBroom said. “But when we attempted to take it off the books there was quite an outcry from certain quarters. And that was only one of the many laws we’re talking about.”
Shelli Weisberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, spoke in support of the bill.
“We agree with everything the Mackinac Center has said regarding this bill,” Weisberg said.
Russell Coleman, of the U.S. Justice Action Network, testified in favor of the bill. He cited the case of Lisa Snyder, of Middleville, who watched over her neighbors’ children for 20 to 30 minutes each morning until the school bus arrived. Snyder didn’t realize that what she’d been doing could get her in trouble until she received a letter from the Michigan Department of Human Services. It warned her that if she continued to watch the children at her home, she would be providing child care without a day care license. As a result of her illegal activity, she could face penalties, possibly even jail time.
Coleman also cited the case of Michigan resident Kenneth Schumacher, who delivered scrap tires to what he believed to be a legal depository, not knowing the facility wasn’t licensed to receive the tires. Even after appealing his subsequent conviction, Schumacher received a sentence of 270 days in jail and a $10,000 fine.
“Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Without that rule, ANYONE who commits a crime can just say, “I didn’t know...” And get off scott-free.
Crimes should be obvious and not obscure.
“I forgot armed robbery was illegal”
Steve Martin
I think a major problem is that there are so many darn laws... chances are we break one/more each day. I agree with Cripplecreek... laws should be obvious.
Correction: crimes should be obvious. (oops, my bad)
This law strikes at the heart of the proliferating “self-funded” government entities. They get their operating capital by creating mountains of conflicting regulations, some of which you can go to prison for violating. They send out an army of inspectors who can issue fines and even arrest you.
My county and city both established their own self-funded EPAs. They created regulations so inclusive that the ordinary person is often unknowingly in violation and potentially subject to fine. Once you get arrested the entire bloated bureaucracy starts feeding off your body, or, you rot in jail.
Do it right, once. Place a sunset clause of 20 years over all existing laws. If law is not reenacted within that time, it’s history. And with it, all regulations and incarcerations based on that law.
The 20 years is the approximate term of a generation. This lets each generation determine the laws they want applied to them.
No.
This is applied to administrative rules that have been criminalized, not to the penal code.
In the example from the final paragraph, a man turns old tires into a facility (I assume with their knowledge, given the report as written). The facility is not licensed to receive tires for disposal. The man who turned the tires in is fined, despite the fact that the facility managers are responsible for the actual breach of the administrative rule.
In other words - he was fined for what someone else did.
If he surreptitiously abandoned the tires at the facility, he would still be charged - at least for littering or dumping.
Yeah, this is largely about regulatory law like selling the wrong colored bunny or laying a foundation in a technical wetland. Its not something that can be used by a murder or rape defendant.
And cops do get off scot free as long as they operated”in good faith” Try that for your defense next time you get a ticket.
““Ignorance of the law is no excuse”. Without that rule, ANYONE who commits a crime can just say, “I didn’t know...” And get off scott-free.”
The federal register of laws exceeds 80,000 pages - and growing.
Do you know them all?
Do you know how many you’ve violated?
Yet you think you should be found guilty?
I disagree.
“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.” ― Ayn Rand
There are 2 solutions to this problem of thousands of laws being on the books, most of which NO ONE could be aware of:
1) Put automatic sunset clauses in ALL laws (yes, even for murder, rape, etc.). Require that each one be voted on SEPARATELY to be renewed. The sensible ones will be, the other ones - not so much.
2) Start arresting judges and state legislators for violations of these ridiculous laws...you’ll see action so fast that it’ll make your head spin.
Yeah, like I said, I don’t expect either solution to be implemented...but in my fantasy world, both would be and it would vastly simplify our system of laws and provide for more efficient and effective justice.
That quote popped into my head as soon as I read the headline.
When current Federal Law and enforced Regulations are entire libraries’ worth of books, and every one of us commits 3 or more technical felony violations of the law daily, it certainly IS a valid argument to ask “How was I to know “x” was a crime ??
I don’t believe this will happen.
Too large of a revenue stream to just let it go, they have a taste of that sugar and won’t give it up without a fight.
Just like traffic cameras, once the money starts rolling in no amount of fuss will get them removed.
So true and no longer a fiction book
I once asked a garage to put tubes in tubeless tires for me but the guy running the garage wouldn’t do it unless I told him that the truck was only used as a farm vehicle.
I found some brand new tires that someone had stuck an ice pick in the sidewalls and tubes were the most effective fix but its apparently illegal for a garage to do.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.