Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1 (2026)

Issuance of processes; authorization for issuance of warrant or summons; exception; making complaint for arrest warrant or summons by electronic or electromagnetic means; proof of signing; location.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Act 175 of 1927

764.1 Issuance of processes; authorization for issuance of warrant or summons; exception; making complaint for arrest warrant or summons by electronic or electromagnetic means; proof of signing; location.

Sec. 1.

(1) For the apprehension or summons of persons charged with a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation, a judge or district court magistrate may issue processes to implement this chapter, except that a judge or district court magistrate shall not issue a warrant or summons for other than a minor offense unless an authorization in writing allowing the issuance of the warrant or summons is filed with the judge or district court magistrate and, except as otherwise provided in this act, the authorization is signed by the prosecuting attorney, or unless security for costs is filed with the judge or district court magistrate.

(2) A judge or district court magistrate shall not issue a warrant for a minor offense unless an authorization in writing allowing the issuance of the warrant is filed with the judge or district court magistrate and signed by the prosecuting attorney, or unless security for costs is filed with the judge or district court magistrate, except if the warrant is requested by any of the following officials for the following offenses:

(a) Agents of the state transportation department, a county road commission, or the public service commission for violations of the motor carrier act, 1933 PA 254, MCL 475.1 to 479.42, or the motor carrier safety act of 1963, 1963 PA 181, MCL 480.11 to 480.25, the enforcement of which has been delegated to them.

(b) The director of the department of natural resources, or a special assistant or conservation officer appointed by the director of the department of natural resources and declared by statute to be a peace officer, for a violation of a law that provides for the protection of wild game or fish.

(3) A complaint for an arrest warrant or summons may be made and an arrest warrant or summons may be issued by any electronic or electromagnetic means of communication from any location in this state, if all of the following occur:

(a) The prosecuting attorney authorizes the issuance of the warrant or summons. Authorization may consist of an electronically or electromagnetically transmitted facsimile of the signed authorization.

(b) The judge or district court magistrate orally administers the oath or affirmation, in person or by any electronic or electromagnetic means of communication, to an applicant for an arrest warrant or summons who submits a complaint under this subsection.

(c) The applicant signs the complaint. Proof that the applicant has signed the complaint may consist of an electronically or electromagnetically transmitted facsimile of the signed complaint.

(4) The person or department receiving an electronically or electromagnetically issued arrest warrant or summons must receive proof that the issuing judge or district court magistrate has signed the warrant or summons before the warrant or summons is executed. Proof that the issuing judge or district court magistrate has signed the warrant or summons may consist of an electronically or electromagnetically transmitted facsimile of the signed warrant or summons.

(5) A judge or district court magistrate may sign an electronically or electromagnetically issued arrest warrant or summons when he or she is at any location in this state.

History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- Am. 1929, Act 290, Eff. Aug. 28, 1929 ;-- CL 1929, 17135 ;-- Am. 1931, Act 173, Imd. Eff. May 27, 1931 ;-- CL 1948, 764.1 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 616, Eff. Aug. 1, 1979 ;-- Am. 1980, Act 506, Imd. Eff. Jan. 22, 1981 ;-- Am. 1990, Act 41, Imd. Eff. Mar. 29, 1990 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 318, Imd. Eff. Aug. 27, 2004 ;-- Am. 2014, Act 389, Imd. Eff. Dec. 22, 2014 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 394, Eff. Apr. 1, 2021

FormerLaw Notes:

See section 1 of Ch. 163 of R.S. 1846, being CL 1857, § 5977; CL 1871, § 7843; How., § 9454; CL 1897, § 11838; CL 1915, § 15665; Act 4 of 1858; and section 1 of Act 108 of 1883, being How., § 7135a; CL 1897, § 1061; and CL 1915, § 15811.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1966–2025 · leading case: People v. Joker, 234 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

People v. Joker, 234 N.W.2d 550 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 22× “Bench warrants and capias writs shall be signed by the Judge who ordered their issuance.”

Sykes v. Anderson, 625 F.3d 294 (6th Cir. 2010). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1 (1) (West 2010); Walczak v.”

People v. Smith, 378 N.W.2d 384 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “Included in the Code of Criminal Procedure are provisions for the proper procedures to be followed, for example: upon arrest, MCL 764.1 et seq.; MSA 28.860 et seq., at the preliminary examination, MCL 766.”

People v. Hill, 766 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “Chapter IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 764.1 et seq., governs the issuance of arrest warrants.”

Matthews v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 572 N.W.2d 603 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 2× “The warrant request was based on Waldron's independent investigation, not on the information the defendant's agent submitted.”

People v. Carter, 148 N.W.2d 860 (Mich. 1967). · cites it 6× “Defendant's motion relied on the provisions of CL 1948, § 764.1 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.860) and the *28 decision of this Court in People v.”

Billie M. Ireland v. Gary L. Tunis, Richard Thompson, John Meiers, & Richard D. Kuhn, 113 F.3d 1435 (6th Cir. 1997). “102; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §§ 764.1 -.ld, and find no such mandate.”

People v. Crawford, 414 N.W.2d 360 (Mich. 1987). · cites it 2× “865, and the magistrate shall inform an alleged felon of his rights and give him an opportunity to speak, MCL 764.”

People v. Meyer, 379 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “MCL 764.1; MSA 28.860(1) provides: A magistrate shall issue a warrant upon presentation of a proper complaint alleging the commission of an offense and a finding of reasonable cause to believe that the person accused in the complaint committed that offense.”

People v. Byrd, 162 N.W.2d 777 (Mich. Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2× “In Michigan, except where warrants are requested by members of the department of public safety for traffic or motor vehicle violations, the magistrate may not issue a warrant in any criminal case, whether the offense is or is not cognizable by a justice of the peace, until an…”

People v. Karalla, 192 N.W.2d 676 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971). · cites it 2× “” Defendants’ contention that the Attorney General may not authorize a warrant is based on MCLA § 764.1 (Stat Ann 1954 Eev § 28.860) which requires that the issuance of an arrest warrant he authorized by the prosecuting attorney.”

People v. Seifert, 169 N.W.2d 345 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969). · cites it 2× “The file in this case does not contain an order in writing signed by the prosecuting attorney authorizing issuance of the warrant for the defendant’s apprehension as required by MCLA § 764.1 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28.860).”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1(1) — 7 cases

People v. Hill, 766 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “Chapter IV of the Code of Criminal Procedure, MCL 764.1 et seq., governs the issuance of arrest warrants.”

In Re Burress & Kizer (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Parents & Taxpayers Against Pornography v. Rockford Pub Schs Dist (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

People of Michigan v. Clarence Jovan Davison (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

People of Michigan v. Chanton Lewin Blackshire (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1(2) — 1 case

Gibson v. Sain, 979 F. Supp. 557 (W.D. Mich. 1997).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.1(a) — 1 case

People of Michigan v. Waleed Ali Al-Hajam (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

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.