THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
765.26 Release of surety; arrest or detention of accused; mittimus.
Sec. 26.
(1) In all criminal cases where a person has entered into any recognizance for the personal appearance of another and such bail and surety afterwards desires to be relieved from responsibility, he or she may, with or without assistance, arrest or detain the accused and deliver him or her to any jail or to the sheriff of any county. In making the arrest or detainment, he or she is entitled to the assistance of any peace officer.
(2) The sheriff or keeper of any jail is authorized to receive the principal and detain him or her in jail until he or she is discharged. Upon delivery of his or her principal at the jail by the surety or his or her agent or any officer, the surety shall be released from the conditions of his or her recognizance.
(3) Whenever the prosecuting attorney of a county is satisfied that a person who has been recognized to appear for trial has absconded, or is about to abscond, and that his or her sureties or either of them have become worthless, or are about to dispose or have disposed of their property for the purpose of evading the payment or the obligation of such bond or recognizance or with intent to defraud their creditors, and that prosecuting attorney makes a satisfactory showing to this effect to the court having jurisdiction of that person, the court or judge shall promptly grant a mittimus to the sheriff or any peace officer of that county, commanding him or her forthwith to arrest the person so recognized and bring him or her before the officer issuing the mittimus and on the return of that mittimus may, after a hearing on the merits, order him or her to be recommitted to the county jail until such time as he or she gives additional and satisfactory sureties, or is otherwise discharged.
History: 1927, Act 175, Eff. Sept. 5, 1927 ;-- CL 1929, 17188 ;-- CL 1948, 765.26 ;-- Am. 2002, Act 659, Eff. Apr. 1, 2003
FormerLaw Notes:
See Act 98 of 1840, being CL 1857, § 6009; CL 1871, § 7877; How., § 9488; CL 1897, § 11872; CL 1915, § 15699; and Act 82 of 1877.
Notes of Decisions
Citizens for Pre-Trial Just. v. Goldfarb, 278 N.W.2d 653 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 20× “They further alleged that the provision in MCL 765.26; MSA 28.913 allowing bondsmen to unilaterally revoke the bail bond and rearrest the principal unconstitutionally deprived such individuals of liberty without due process of law.”
Citizens for Pretrial Just. v. Goldfarb, 327 N.W.2d 910 (Mich. 1982).
· cites it 12× “364(2)(3) by requiring collateral security which, either taken alone or together with the fee, exceeded the 10% limit (Count II); and 3) Whether MCL 765.26; MSA 28.913, [4] which allows bondsmen to unilaterally revoke the bail bond and re-arrest the principal, unconstitutionally…”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Evidence on Public Versus Private Law Enforcement from Bail Jumping, 47 J L & Econ 93, 94 (2004) (noting an expectation that “the felony defendants who fail to appear are the ones most likely to commit additional crimes”); see also Moore, 276 Mich App at 489 (holding that a…”
Peden v. City of Detroit, 680 N.W.2d 857 (Mich. 2004).
· cites it 2× “" See also MCL 765.26 and MCL 764.1b. Thus, the ability to effect arrests is not only a duty arising from the police officer's general obligation to maintain the peace, but it is a duty specifically imposed on police officers.”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “MCL 765.26(1). A surety is generally discharged from responsibility on the bond when the principal has been returned to custody or delivered to the proper authorities, MCL 765.”
People v. Kang, 531 N.W.2d 806 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
“MCL 765.26; MSA 28.913, which also applies to situations involving bail, provides in relevant part: In all criminal cases where any person or persons have entered into any recognizance for the personal appearance of another and such bail and surety shall afterwards desire to be…”
People v. Person, 205 N.W.2d 610 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973).
“See MCLA 765.26; MSA 28.913. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court found appellant in contempt for its prior failure to pay the judgment, levied a fine of $250 and again ordered judgment on the bond.”
In Re Sur. Bond, 529 N.W.2d 312 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “MCL 765.26; MSA 28.913. Here, Bond Bonding asserts that it "contacted" and "informed" defendant on May 20 and June 2, 1992, that he should surrender to Gratiot County officials immediately.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “MCL 765.26(1). A surety is generally discharged from responsibility on the bond when the principal has been returned to custody or delivered to the proper authorities, MCL 765.”
People v. Meadows, 208 Mich. App. 369 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 3× “MCL 765.26; MSA 28.913. Here, Bond Bonding asserts that it "contacted” and "informed” defendant on May 20 and June 2, 1992, that he should surrender to Gratiot County officials immediately.”
People v. Harbin, 276 N.W.2d 607 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“913 provides for the surety’s release from liability as follows: "In all criminal cases where any person or persons have entered into any recognizance for the personal appearance of another and such bail and surety shall afterwards desire to be relieved from his responsibility,…”
Hubbard v. Abbott Bailbonds Agency, LLC (W.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 5× “Hubbard attempts to save his claims by arguing that Defendants were acting upon “statutory authority” to apprehend Hubbard’s son and deliver him to jail, citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.26 , which states: (1) In all criminal cases where a person has entered into any recognizance…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.26(1) — 3 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
“Evidence on Public Versus Private Law Enforcement from Bail Jumping, 47 J L & Econ 93, 94 (2004) (noting an expectation that “the felony defendants who fail to appear are the ones most likely to commit additional crimes”); see also Moore, 276 Mich App at 489 (holding that a…”
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 740 N.W.2d 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“MCL 765.26(1). A surety is generally discharged from responsibility on the bond when the principal has been returned to custody or delivered to the proper authorities, MCL 765.”
People v. Moore, 276 Mich. App. 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“MCL 765.26(1). A surety is generally discharged from responsibility on the bond when the principal has been returned to custody or delivered to the proper authorities, MCL 765.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 765.26(2) — 2 cases
In Re Bail Bond Forfeiture, 852 N.W.2d 747 (Mich. 2014).
“Evidence on Public Versus Private Law Enforcement from Bail Jumping, 47 J L & Econ 93, 94 (2004) (noting an expectation that “the felony defendants who fail to appear are the ones most likely to commit additional crimes”); see also Moore, 276 Mich App at 489 (holding that a…”
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.