The City of Ann Arbor has many rules regarding the ownership of dogs. This article outlines those rules.
The following acts are all civil infractions (with one exception noted below). A first offense is a fine of $25 to $500, and a second offense of certain violations below may come with an increase if a $50 to $500 fine:
1. The dog is at any time not under reasonable control. Reasonable control is defined as
The Michigan Court of Appeals in the case of People v. Neal answered a pressing question related to the indecent exposure statute: Does the exposure have to be in a public place? The Court concluded that the indecent exposure statute does not require a person be in public for a conviction.
Michigan Law MCL 750.335a is the indecent exposure statute and lays out the penalties upon conviction.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Brown discusses the Michigan Gross Indecency Law. In this case, the Court of Appeals affirms the rule that for a conviction under this law the gross indecency must be in public.
In this case, the defendants were charged with gross indecency between female persons, in addition to soliciting and accosting. The gross indecency between female law is MCL 750.338a. The law states that it is a felony for “any female person who, in public or in private, commits or is a party to the commission of, or any person who procures or attempts to procure the commission by any female person of any act of gross indecency with another female person.”
This felony is punishable by up to 5 years in prison, a $2,500.00 fine, or both.
The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Brown answered a pressing question: Is it prostitution if it was only hands?
In this case, defendants owned a massage parlor where nude female employees provided manual stimulation to nude male customers.
The defendants argued that this was not prostitution because the definition of prostitution only applies to sexual intercourse.
The Michigan Supreme Court Case of People v. Kowalski focuses on the law of accosting a minor for immoral purposes under MCL 750.145a. Specifically, the Court answers the question of what does it mean to ‘accost’ a minor?
Defendant was speaking with a “girl” on the internet whom he believed was 15 years old. The girl was really an undercover police officer. The Defendant and the fake girl had several conversations, that were sexual in nature. The two never met in person.
Here’s what the law says: It is a felony punishable by up to 4 years in prison to
The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Tennyson discusses the Michigan law of contributing the delinquency of a minor.
In this case, the Court sought to determine whether evidence that a child was present in a home where a defendant was in possession of drugs and firearms is legally sufficient for a conviction under the criminal law of contributing the neglect or delinquency of a minor under MCL 750.145.
Specifically, what level of certainty is required to determine that a defendant tended to cause a minor to become neglected or delinquent so as to tend to come under family court jurisdiction.
The Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Roger held that a person can be prosecuted under the motor vehicle code drunk driving statute for operating a snowmobile while intoxicated on the road.
The facts of the case aren’t complicated. Defendant Roger was riding a snowmobile down the shoulder of the highway. He had a blood alcohol content of .23.
Roger was prosecuted under the drunk driving statute of the Motor Vehicle Code, MCL 257.625. There is a separate statute for prosecutions of riding a snowmobile while intoxicated. Roger argued that he should be prosecuted under the snowmobile statute, not the Motor Vehicle Code.
The Court of Appeals in People v. Favreau ruled that Defendant’s conviction for disorderly person was improper because a hotel room is not a public place. The disorderly person public intoxication statute requires a person to be intoxicated in a public place for a conviction.
Defendant was staying overnight in a hotel room he was renting. People in neighboring rooms complained there was loud music coming from his room. Defendant’s girlfriend was seen in the lobby with a bloody noise. Hotel management called police. Police arrested defendant for disorderly conduct. When the police entered the room Defendant was quiet but intoxicated. During the search upon arrest, police found cocaine on Defendant. He was charged with disorderly person and possession of cocaine less than 25 grams. Defendant was convicted at a bench trial.
Defendant argues on appeal that his arrest for disorderly person was improper because the hotel room he was in was not in a public place.
The Michigan Court of Appeals in People v. Reynolds discusses what it means to have a “concealed weapon.” Reynolds was charged with Carrying a Concealed Weapon under Michigan Law MCL 750.227. After a jury trial convicted him of that crime, he appealed. The Court of Appeals analyzed the elements and issues with carrying a concealed weapon law.
The important aspect of this case is the Court’s definition of a “concealed” weapon. A person can be charged with carrying a concealed weapon under MCL 750.227. A person may “open-carry” a firearm in Michigan. A person may not carry the weapon concealed unless the person also has a concealed pistol license (CPL).
Legally speaking, “a weapon is is concealed if it is hidden from the ordinary observation of persons in the ordinary and usual associations of life. The issue of concealment depends on the particular circumstances present in each case. The question of whether the gun was concealed is for the trier of fact.”
The short but important Michigan Supreme Court decision in People v. Stevens holds that an inoperable gun cannot be the basis of a felonious assault conviction.
The Defendant Stevens pointed a starter pistol at another person. He was charged with felonious assault under MCL 705.82.
The firing pin of the gun was filed down to the point where the gun would not fire.
Ann Arbor Criminal Defense Blog
