THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
764.2a Peace officer; exercise of authority in other county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university; violation involving water vessel; "public airport authority" defined.
Sec. 2a.
(1) A peace officer of a county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university of this state may exercise the authority and powers of a peace officer outside the geographical boundaries of the officer's county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university under any of the following circumstances:
(a) If the officer is enforcing the laws of this state in conjunction with the Michigan state police.
(b) If the officer is enforcing the laws of this state in conjunction with a peace officer of any other county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university in which the officer may be.
(c) If the officer has witnessed an individual violate any of the following within the geographical boundaries of the officer's county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university and immediately pursues the individual outside of the geographical boundaries of the officer's county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university:
(i) A state law or administrative rule.
(ii) A local ordinance.
(iii) A state law, administrative rule, or local ordinance, the violation of which is a civil infraction, municipal civil infraction, or state civil infraction.
(d) If a public airport authority officer has witnessed an individual violate any of the following while the individual is outside the geographical boundaries of the public airport authority but the violation committed by the individual occurs within the airspace above the public airport authority and immediately pursues the individual:
(i) A state law or administrative rule.
(ii) A local ordinance.
(iii) A state law, administrative rule, or local ordinance, the violation of which is a civil infraction, municipal civil infraction, or state civil infraction.
(2) The officer pursuing an individual under subsection (1)(c) or (d) may stop and detain the person outside the geographical boundaries of the officer's county, city, village, township, public airport authority, or university for the purpose of enforcing that law, administrative rule, or ordinance or enforcing any other law, administrative rule, or ordinance before, during, or immediately after the detaining of the individual. If the violation or pursuit involves a vessel moving on the waters of this state, the officer pursuing the individual may direct the operator of the vessel to bring the vessel to a stop or maneuver it in a manner that permits the officer to come beside the vessel.
(3) As used in this section, "public airport authority" means an authority created under section 110 or a regional authority created under section 139 of the aeronautics code of the state of Michigan, 1945 PA 327, MCL 259.110 and 259.139, that is a political subdivision and instrumentality of the local government that owns the airport and is considered a public agency of the local government for purposes of state and federal law.
History: Add. 1939, Act 100, Imd. Eff. May 16, 1939 ;-- CL 1948, 764.2a ;-- Am. 1975, Act 159, Imd. Eff. July 14, 1975 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 483, Eff. Oct. 1, 2002 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 326, Eff. Feb. 20, 2017
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case:
People v. Hamilton, 638 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2002).
People v. Hamilton, 638 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. 2002).
· cites it 8× “As is explained later, the question before us is one of statutory interpretation—whether the Legislature intended that a violation of MCL 764.2a should result in exclusion of evidence obtained as a result of the arrest.”
People v. Meyer, 379 N.W.2d 59 (Mich. 1985).
· cites it 14× “The trial court ruled that when Officer Carpenter was in Parchment he was operating outside his bailiwick, without the cooperation of local authorities or the State Police, and that he was, therefore, functioning without authority under MCL 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1). [6] The court…”
People v. Collins, 828 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 3× “Defendant initially argues that the evidence recovered should be suppressed because the officers were *467 acting outside their jurisdiction, in violation of MCL 764.2a(l). However, assuming this to be the case, it does not provide a basis for suppression.”
People v. McCrady, 540 N.W.2d 718 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “Defendant’s second contention is that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to raise the fact that the police officers were outside their jurisdiction when they arrested defendant.”
Delude v. Raasakka, 202 N.W.2d 508 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).
· cites it 4× “[2] What then was the status of the defendants who answered the pursuing officers' call for assistance? Since the pursuing officers were clothed with the statutory authority to act as officers of the county with respect to plaintiff, the defendants were likewise clothed with the…”
People v. Clark, 450 N.W.2d 75 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 3× “The prosecution argues that exclusion of evidence is not appropriate where it is premised solely on a violation of MCL 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1), a statute which relates to the exercise of authority of a police officer acting outside his own bailiwick.”
People v. Bashans, 265 N.W.2d 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“861(1), given probable cause, any citizen, including a police officer acting outside of his jurisdiction, may make an arrest for a felony being committed in his presence or when the person to be arrested has committed a felony, although not in the presence of the person seeking…”
People v. Davis, 350 N.W.2d 707 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984).
“Ill Although defendant does not dispute that there existed probable cause to arrest him, he claims that his arrest in Allen Park by the Detroit and Dearborn surveillance team was unlawful since at that time the latter were not acting in conjunction with the Allen Park police or…”
People v. Rowe, 289 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).
“Under MCL 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1), a peace officer may exercise authority and powers outside of the limits of the governmental entity when enforcing state laws in conjunction with the state police or peace officers of another governmental entity.”
People v. Moore, 446 N.W.2d 834 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989).
“861(1), which requires that a police officer may not exercise power and authority outside his own jurisdiction unless he was enforcing the laws of this state in conjunction with a peace officer affiliated with a police agency in that outside jurisdiction.”
People v. Palma, 315 N.W.2d 182 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981).
“At that point MCL 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1) became applicable: "A peace officer of a county, city, village, or township of this state may exercise authority and powers outside his own county, city, village, or township, when he is enforcing the laws of this state in conjunction with…”
People v. Oliver, 481 N.W.2d 3 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991).
“861(1), which provides: A peace officer of a county, city, village, or township of this state may exercise authority and powers outside his own county, city, village, or *205 township, when he is enforcing the laws of this state in conjunction with the Michigan state police, or…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.2a(1) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.2a(1)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.2a(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.2a(1)(c) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.2a(l) — 1 case
People v. Collins, 828 N.W.2d 392 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
“Defendant initially argues that the evidence recovered should be suppressed because the officers were *467 acting outside their jurisdiction, in violation of MCL 764.2a(l). However, assuming this to be the case, it does not provide a basis for suppression.”
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.