Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.448
Soliciting, accosting, or inviting to commit prostitution or immoral act; crime.
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
750.448 Soliciting, accosting, or inviting to commit prostitution or immoral act; crime.
Sec. 448.
A person 16 years of age or older who accosts, solicits, or invites another person in a public place or in or from a building or vehicle, by word, gesture, or any other means, to commit prostitution or to do any other lewd or immoral act, is guilty of a crime punishable as provided in section 451.
History: 1931, Act 328, Eff. Sept. 18, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 750.448 ;-- Am. 1969, Act 243, Eff. Mar. 20, 1970 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 45, Eff. June 1, 2002
FormerLaw Notes:
See section 1 of Act 231 of 1925, being CL 1929, § 16871.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Randy Alman v. Kevin Reed
Randy Alman v. Kevin Reed (2013)
“Dismissal of Charges Against Alman Alman initially was given an appearance ticket charging him with violating Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.448 , Soliciting and Accosting; and M.”
State Ex Rel. Wayne County Prosecuting Attorney v. Levenburg (1979)
“Soliciting and accosting and prostitution itself are different and distinct concepts, MCL 750.448; MSA 28.703. [4] Recognizing the distinction customarily drawn, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently held a complaint alleging the defendant "did prostitute herself by…”
People v. Morey (1999)
“[MCL 750.448; MSA 28.703.] Hanlon agreed to cooperate with the police by telephoning defendant and asking her to send a second masseuse to the room under the pretext that the officer wished to have sex with two women.”
People v. Rocha (1981)
“Similar actions taken against a male victim would at most constitute the misdemeanor of solicitation, MCL 750.448; MSA 28.703. Defendant contends that the statute denies equal protection by providing women with greater protection against such offenses.”
Dinkins v. United States (1977)
“[1] One is hard put to explain why such an issue deserves en banc consideration.”
People v. Masten (1980)
“This observation lends additional support to the argument that the word procure applies to three-party situations.”
People v. Williams (1982)
“Initially, we note that even had the complainant been convicted of the charge of accosting and soliciting at the time this case went to trial — of which there is no record support — defendants could not have impeached her credibility due to this fact alone under MRE 609 since…”
People v. Allan (2013)
“The prosecution dismissed a charge of prostitution, MCL 750.448. People v Allan, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 12, 2012 (Docket No.”
People v. Brown (1997)
“Twenty to thirty minutes later, the officer returned to the parlor with uniformed officers. Defendants were arrested and charged with gross indecency between female persons, M.”
Ron’s Last Chance, Inc v. Liquor Control Commission (1983)
“MCL 750.448; MSA 28.703. Any person of ordinary intelligence would reasonably believe that a prohibition against "solicitation for immoral purposes” is in *183 tended to prohibit solicitation for prostitution.”
People v. Martin (1965)
“On May 27, 1964, Betty Martin was arrested by an undercover agent of the Detroit police department and charged with the crime of accosting and soliciting under CL 1948, § 750.448 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.703) which states: *267 “Any person who shall accost, solicit or invite…”
People v. Lynn (1997)
“Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted in the district court of violating MCL 750.448; MSA 28.703, a misdemeanor. He was sentenced to one day in jail, with credit for time served, thirty-two hours of work service, a $100 fine, and $400 in costs.”
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.