Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 750 / Act 328 of 1931
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224d (2026)

Self-defense spray or foam device.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE


Act 328 of 1931


750.224d Self-defense spray or foam device.

Sec. 224d.

    (1) As used in this section and section 224, "self-defense spray or foam device" means a device to which all of the following apply:

    (a) The device is capable of carrying, and ejects, releases, or emits 1 of the following:

    (i) Not more than 35 grams of any combination of orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile and inert ingredients.

    (ii) A solution containing not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum.

    (iii) A solution containing an ultraviolet dye and not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum.

    (b) The device does not eject, release, or emit any gas or substance that will temporarily or permanently disable, incapacitate, injure, or harm a person with whom the gas or substance comes in contact, other than the substance described in subdivision (a)(i), (ii), or (iii).

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a person who uses a self-defense spray or foam device to eject, release, or emit orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile or oleoresin capsicum at another person is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or a fine of not more than $2,000.00, or both.

    (3) If a person uses a self-defense spray or foam device during the commission of a crime to eject, release, or emit orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile or oleoresin capsicum or threatens to use a self-defense spray or foam device during the commission of a crime to temporarily or permanently disable another person, the judge who imposes sentence upon a conviction for that crime shall consider the defendant's use or threatened use of the self-defense spray or foam device as a reason for enhancing the sentence.

    (4) A person shall not sell a self-defense spray or foam device to a minor. A person who violates this subsection 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.

    (5) Subsection (2) does not prohibit either of the following:

    (a) The reasonable use of a self-defense spray or foam device containing not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum by a person who is employed by a county sheriff or a chief of police and who is authorized in writing by the county sheriff or chief of police to carry and use a self-defense spray or foam device and has been trained in the use, effects, and risks of the device, while in performance of his or her official duties.

    (b) The reasonable use of either of the following by a person in the protection of a person or property under circumstances that would justify the person's use of physical force:

    (i) A self-defense spray or foam device containing not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum.

    (ii) A self-defense spray or foam device containing an ultraviolet dye and not more than 18% oleoresin capsicum.

History: Add. 1980, Act 346, Eff. Mar. 31, 1981 ;-- Am. 1991, Act 33, Imd. Eff. June 10, 1991 ;-- Am. 1992, Act 4, Imd. Eff. Feb. 21, 1992 ;-- Am. 2006, Act 401, Eff. Dec. 28, 2006 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 365, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2010 ;-- Am. 2018, Act 98, Imd. Eff. Apr. 2, 2018

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2024 · leading case: People of Michigan v. Broderick David Savage (Mich. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. Charla Rochelle Wilburn (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “See MCL 750.224d(5)(b).5 We acknowledge that defendant’s version of events was decidedly different, as she blamed Sterling and Gabrielle for escalating the dispute and she informed Corporal Robert Nill of the Detroit Police Department that she felt securing her gun from her home…”
People of Michigan v. Broderick David Savage (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “MCL 750.224d(1)(b) (emphasis added). By (i) recognizing that there are numerous devices that emit a gas or substance that can temporarily or permanently injure a person and (ii) prohibiting the use of those, but then (iii) carving out an exception for those devices that emit…”
People of Michigan v. Gordon Doyle Diehl (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court then sentenced defendant to serve 5 to 15 years in prison for the unlawful-imprisonment conviction, 5 to 15 years in prison for the second-degree home invasion conviction, 330 days in jail for the unlawful use of a self-defense spray device conviction, and 93…”
People of Michigan v. Chantal Lorily Lister (Mich. Ct. App. 2024). “For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we affirm defendant’s convictions.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224d(1)(b) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Broderick David Savage (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “MCL 750.224d(1)(b) (emphasis added). By (i) recognizing that there are numerous devices that emit a gas or substance that can temporarily or permanently injure a person and (ii) prohibiting the use of those, but then (iii) carving out an exception for those devices that emit…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224d(2) — 1 case
People of Michigan v. Gordon Doyle Diehl (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “The trial court then sentenced defendant to serve 5 to 15 years in prison for the unlawful-imprisonment conviction, 5 to 15 years in prison for the second-degree home invasion conviction, 330 days in jail for the unlawful use of a self-defense spray device conviction, and 93…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.224d(5)(b) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Charla Rochelle Wilburn (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “See MCL 750.224d(5)(b).5 We acknowledge that defendant’s version of events was decidedly different, as she blamed Sterling and Gabrielle for escalating the dispute and she informed Corporal Robert Nill of the Detroit Police Department that she felt securing her gun from her home…”
People of Michigan v. Broderick David Savage (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “MCL 750.224d(1)(b) (emphasis added). By (i) recognizing that there are numerous devices that emit a gas or substance that can temporarily or permanently injure a person and (ii) prohibiting the use of those, but then (iii) carving out an exception for those devices that emit…”
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.