THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE
Act 328 of 1931
750.168 Disorderly person; penalty.
Sec. 168.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person convicted of being a disorderly person is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine of not more than $500.00, or both.
(2) A person convicted of being a disorderly person under section 167d is guilty of a felony punishable as follows:
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
(b) If the person was previously convicted of violating section 167d, by imprisonment for not more than 4 years or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.168 ;-- Am. 1965, Act 320, Eff. Mar. 31, 1966 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 150, Eff. Aug. 22, 2006
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 2 of Act 264 of 1889, being How., § 1997a-1; CL 1897, § 5924; CL 1915, § 7775; CL 1929, § 9091; Act 190 of 1895; Act 82 of 1909; and Act 35 of 1927.
Notes of Decisions
People of Michigan v. Selesa Arrosieur Likine, 492 Mich. 367 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 2× “”36 This provision further reflects the Legislature’s recognition that a defendant’s ability to pay must be considered before imposing criminal punishment.”
People v. Neal, 702 N.W.2d 696 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“167(l)(f). The “disorderly person” statutes thus proscribe precisely the type of public *665 conduct defendant seeks to have read into the indecent exposure statute.”
People v. Sanders, 204 N.W.2d 706 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 2× “MCLA 750.168; MSA 28.365. [5] Similar language is found in MCLA 600.”
People v. Hoy, 158 N.W.2d 436 (Mich. 1968).
· cites it 2× “Because I believe the record shows that defendant's intoxication in a public place resulted from his voluntary exercise of free choice, I vote to affirm the Court of Appeals. SOURIS, J.”
Speet v. Schuette, 889 F. Supp. 2d 969 (W.D. Mich. 2012).
“§ 750.168(1). The State of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids (collectively, the “government”) assert that Michigan’s statutory ban on public begging is constitutional on its face, and they emphasize that the statute serves several desirable purposes.”
Lowden v. Cnty. of Clare, 709 F. Supp. 2d 569 (E.D. Mich. 2010).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.168 . Plaintiffs’ claims specifically focus on the “adversely affect” language of the statute, the statute’s application to an area within 500 feet of a funeral or related event, and the statute’s application to funeral processions.”
Calvert v. Lapeer Circuit Judges, 468 N.W.2d 253 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The list shall be compiled annually by the judges of the circuit court of each circuit, and the names of persons engaged in the business of becoming surety upon bonds for compensation shall be added to the list by the judges upon proper application.”
People v. Anderson, 218 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 2× “588, and being a disorderly person, MCLA 750.168; MSA 28.365. Defendant has not established that the above convictions were invalid.”
People v. Hoy, 143 N.W.2d 577 (Mich. Ct. App. 1966).
“167 and CL 1948, § 750.168 (Stat Ann 1962 Rev §§ 28.364 and 28.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Farnsworth (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“MCL 750.168(1). At trial, Officers Parks, Sliwa, Mitchell, and Kretzschmer all testified that they believed defendant to have been heavily intoxicated.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.168(1) — 2 cases
Speet v. Schuette, 889 F. Supp. 2d 969 (W.D. Mich. 2012).
“§ 750.168(1). The State of Michigan and the City of Grand Rapids (collectively, the “government”) assert that Michigan’s statutory ban on public begging is constitutional on its face, and they emphasize that the statute serves several desirable purposes.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Farnsworth (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
“MCL 750.168(1). At trial, Officers Parks, Sliwa, Mitchell, and Kretzschmer all testified that they believed defendant to have been heavily intoxicated.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.