Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.9e (2026)

Failure to appear; rebuttable presumption; articulable reasons to overcome presumption.

✓ 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


764.9e Failure to appear; rebuttable presumption; articulable reasons to overcome presumption.

Sec. 9e.

    (1) If after the service of an appearance ticket and the filing of a complaint for the offense designated on the appearance ticket the defendant does not appear in the designated local criminal court within the time the appearance ticket is returnable, the court may issue a summons or a warrant as provided in this section.

    (2) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, in the event that a defendant fails to appear for a court hearing within the time the appearance ticket is returnable there is a rebuttable presumption that the court must issue an order to show cause why the defendant failed to appear instead of issuing a warrant.

    (3) The court may overcome the presumption and issue a warrant if it has a specific articulable reason to suspect that any of the following apply:

    (a) The defendant committed a new crime.

    (b) The defendant's failure to appear is the result of a willful intent to avoid or delay the adjudication of the case.

    (c) Another person or property will be endangered if a warrant is not issued.

    (4) If the court overcomes the presumption under subsection (2) and issues a warrant, the court must state on the record its reasons for doing so.

    

History: Add. 1968, Act 147, Eff. Nov. 15, 1968 ;-- Am. 2020, Act 394, Eff. Apr. 1, 2021

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1978–2008 · leading case: United States v. Kenneth Eugene Evans, 574 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1978).
United States v. Kenneth Eugene Evans, 574 F.2d 352 (6th Cir. 1978). “Thus, while Mich.Comp. Laws § 764.9e cited by the majority, covers procedures for appearance tickets in the latter category and would thus govern procedures for the violation of the municipal ordinance involved in the third traffic ticket, there are also separate and distinct…”
People v. Mungo, 747 N.W.2d 875 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Justice Rehnquist’s observations ring true in this case. It is not the reason for the arrest, but rather that an arrest must be made, that creates risk of harm to the arresting officer.”
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.