THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767A.3 Investigative subpoenas; issuance; circumstances; contents and scope of order; additional subpoenas; supplemental petitions; filing.
Sec. 3.
(1) A judge may authorize a prosecuting attorney in writing to issue 1 or more investigative subpoenas under this chapter if all of the following circumstances exist:
(a) A petition is properly filed under section 2.
(b) The judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed.
(c) The judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe that either of the following circumstances exists:
(i) The person who is the subject of the investigative subpoena may have knowledge regarding the commission of the felony.
(ii) The records, documents, or physical evidence are relevant to investigate the commission of a felony described in the petition.
(2) An order issued by the judge authorizing a prosecuting attorney to issue 1 or more investigative subpoenas under this chapter shall contain all of the following:
(a) A statement identifying each felony to be investigated.
(b) A statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.
(c) A statement listing the records, documents, or physical evidence subject to production under an investigative subpoena. The statement shall describe the records, documents, or physical evidence with sufficient definiteness to permit those records, documents, or physical evidence to be fairly identified.
(3) A prosecuting attorney may issue investigative subpoenas to the extent authorized by the judge in the authorization order.
(4) If additional investigative subpoenas are required to conduct the investigation, the prosecuting attorney may file 1 or more supplemental petitions with the judge who issued the authorization to conduct the investigation requesting those additional investigative subpoenas. A supplemental petition under this subsection may incorporate the original petition for an investigative subpoena by reference. The petition shall be filed in the same manner that an original petition is filed under section 2.
History: Add. 1995, Act 148, Eff. Oct. 1, 1995
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2021 · leading case:
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “2d 342 (2000), citing MCL 767A.3(1). Investigative subpoenas must include a statement that a person may have legal counsel present at all times during questioning, MCL 767A.”
People v. Gadomski, 731 N.W.2d 466 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “He claimed that because no charges had been filed against him at the time the subpoenas were issued, the subpoenas did not comply with MCL 767A.3, the statutory provision permitting investigative subpoenas, i.”
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“in Obviously, because investigative subpoenas may be used to obtain information from any person reasonably believed to have knowledge regarding the felony being investigated, see MCL 767A.3; MSA 28.1023A(3), use of the subpoenas extends beyond obtaining the “statements by a…”
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“2(2)(d) and MCL 767A.3(l)(c). This standard falls far short of the standard enunciated for overcoming the statutory privilege by the Court in Stanaway .”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“§ 767A.3(1)(c). This standard falls far short of the standard enunciated for overcoming the statutory privilege by the Court in Stanaway .”
In re Subpoenas to News Media, 613 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“MCL 767A.3(1); MSA 28.1023A(3)(1). Once served, the subject of an investigative subpoena must appear before the prosecuting attorney and answer questions concerning the felony being investigated or present any physical evidence that the subject is required to produce.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
Hill v. Washtenaw Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(1). Plaintiff does not allege that Judge Swartz’s signature on the subpoena was “predicated on the misrepresentation or omission of material facts.”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
““A judge may authorize” the prosecutor to issue a subpoena if the prosecutor properly petitions the court under MCL 767A.2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe…”
People of Michigan v. William Gale Melendez (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
““A judge may authorize” the prosecutor to issue a subpoena if the prosecutor properly petitions the court under MCL 767A.2, “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed,” and “the judge determines there is reasonable cause to believe…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(1) — 7 cases
People v. Farquharson, 731 N.W.2d 797 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
“2d 342 (2000), citing MCL 767A.3(1). Investigative subpoenas must include a statement that a person may have legal counsel present at all times during questioning, MCL 767A.”
In re Subpoenas to News Media, 613 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“MCL 767A.3(1); MSA 28.1023A(3)(1). Once served, the subject of an investigative subpoena must appear before the prosecuting attorney and answer questions concerning the felony being investigated or present any physical evidence that the subject is required to produce.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
Hill v. Washtenaw Cnty. Prosecutor's Off. (E.D. Mich. 2021).
“Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(1). Plaintiff does not allege that Judge Swartz’s signature on the subpoena was “predicated on the misrepresentation or omission of material facts.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(1)(c) — 1 case
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“§ 767A.3(1)(c). This standard falls far short of the standard enunciated for overcoming the statutory privilege by the Court in Stanaway .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(2) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“” MCL 767A.3(1). The order authorizing the subpoenas must, in relevant part, include a “statement identifying each felony to be investigated” and a “statement listing each person to whom an investigative subpoena may be issued.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.3(l)(c) — 1 case
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“2(2)(d) and MCL 767A.3(l)(c). This standard falls far short of the standard enunciated for overcoming the statutory privilege by the Court in Stanaway .”
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.