THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Act 175 of 1927
767A.6 Motion to order compliance with subpoena; filing; notice; hearing; court order; order violating statutory privilege or constitutional right prohibited; further protections; disclosure by reporter of informant or related information; circumstances.
Sec. 6.
(1) If a person files an objection to, or fails or refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence set forth in an investigative subpoena, the prosecuting attorney may file a motion with the judge who authorized the prosecuting attorney to issue the subpoena for an order compelling the person to comply with that subpoena. The prosecuting attorney shall serve notice of the motion under applicable court rules.
(2) If the prosecuting attorney files a motion with the court for an order under subsection (1), the court shall hold a hearing on the motion. The person has the right to appear and be heard regarding the motion and to have legal counsel present.
(3) If the court determines the question or evidentiary request of the prosecuting attorney is appropriate and within the scope of the authorization, the court shall order the person to answer the question or to produce the record, document, or physical evidence.
(4) If the court determines the question or request is inappropriate or outside the scope of the authorization, the court may order the prosecuting attorney to modify the question or the request or may disallow the question or the request.
(5) The court shall not compel the person to answer a question or produce any record, document, or physical evidence if answering that question or producing that record, document, or physical evidence would violate a statutory privilege or a constitutional right. Upon motion by the person and for good cause shown, the court may make any further order in the proceedings that justice requires to protect the person from unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense.
(6) A reporter or other person who is involved in the gathering or preparation of news for broadcast or publication is not required to disclose the identity of an informant, any unpublished information obtained from an informant, or any unpublished matter or documentation, in whatever manner recorded, relating to a communication with an informant, in any inquiry conducted under this chapter. A reporter or other person who is involved in the gathering or preparation of news for broadcast or publication is subject to an inquiry under this chapter only under the following circumstances:
(a) To obtain information that has been disseminated to the public by media broadcast or print publication.
(b) If the reporter or other person is the subject of the inquiry.
History: Add. 1995, Act 148, Eff. Oct. 1, 1995
Notes of Decisions
People v. Seals, 776 N.W.2d 314 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
“MCL 767A.6 provides, in part: (1) If a person files an objection to, or fails or refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence set forth in an investigative subpoena, the prosecuting attorney may file a motion with the judge who…”
Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2008).
“, Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(5) (a court shall not compel a person to answer a subpoena that interferes with a constitutional right).”
In Re Investigative Subpoena Re Homicide of Morton, 671 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “The trial court authorized the subpoena, but Garden City’s police chief objected to it under MCL 767A.6, arguing that producing the statements would violate the police officers’ right to be free from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
People v. Pastor, 463 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2000).
· cites it 10× “To the extent that the Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) at that time, its consideration was limited to whether MCL 767A.”
In re Subpoenas to News Media, 613 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 5× “MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) sets forth the procedure to be used when a person refuses to produce any evidence sought by investigative subpoena and identifies certain circumstances under which disclosure of information cannot be compelled.”
People v. Pruitt, 580 N.W.2d 462 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998).
“A person who refuses to answer any question or to produce any record, document, or physical evidence may be ordered to do so by the judge who authorized the issuance of the subpoena, MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6), and is in contempt if the court order is *85 disobeyed.”
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 767A.6(5) provides, in relevant part: The court shall not compel the person to answer a question or produce any record, document, or physical evidence if answering that question or producing that record, document, or physical evidence would violate a statutory privilege or a…”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 767A.6(5) provides, in relevant part: The court shall not compel the person to answer a question or produce any record, document, or physical evidence if answering that question or producing that record, document, or physical evidence would violate a statutory privilege or a…”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Keyante Andrew-Michael Newbern (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “And, under MCL 767A.6, if a person refuses to comply with an investigative subpoena, then the prosecuting attorney can seek court assistance to compel the person’s testimony.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(1) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(2) — 2 cases
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(4) — 1 case
In Re Investigative Subpoena Re Homicide of Morton, 671 N.W.2d 570 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“The trial court authorized the subpoena, but Garden City’s police chief objected to it under MCL 767A.6, arguing that producing the statements would violate the police officers’ right to be free from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(5) — 8 cases
Fieger v. Cox, 524 F.3d 770 (6th Cir. 2008).
“, Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(5) (a court shall not compel a person to answer a subpoena that interferes with a constitutional right).”
In re Request for Investigative Subpoena, 256 Mich. App. 39 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 767A.6(5) provides, in relevant part: The court shall not compel the person to answer a question or produce any record, document, or physical evidence if answering that question or producing that record, document, or physical evidence would violate a statutory privilege or a…”
In Re Investigation of Death of White, 662 N.W.2d 69 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003).
“MCL 767A.6(5) provides, in relevant part: The court shall not compel the person to answer a question or produce any record, document, or physical evidence if answering that question or producing that record, document, or physical evidence would violate a statutory privilege or a…”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
People of Michigan v. Malcolm Xavier Jeffries (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
“Under MCL 767A.6(1), a prosecutor must seek a court order to compel compliance with the subpoena if the person objects to, or fails or refuses to comply with, the subpoena.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(6) — 3 cases
People v. Pastor, 463 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2000).
“To the extent that the Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) at that time, its consideration was limited to whether MCL 767A.”
In re Subpoenas to News Media, 613 N.W.2d 342 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
“MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) sets forth the procedure to be used when a person refuses to produce any evidence sought by investigative subpoena and identifies certain circumstances under which disclosure of information cannot be compelled.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(6)(a) — 2 cases
People v. Pastor, 463 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2000).
“To the extent that the Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) at that time, its consideration was limited to whether MCL 767A.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 767A.6(6)(b) — 2 cases
People v. Pastor, 463 Mich. 378 (Mich. 2000).
“To the extent that the Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 767A.6; MSA 28.1023A(6) at that time, its consideration was limited to whether MCL 767A.”
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.