Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 771 / Act 175 of 1927
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.3f (2026)

Electronic monitoring device; removal, destruction, or circumvention prohibited; interference with signal, impulse, or data prohibited; exceptions; violation as felony; penalties; "electronic monitoring device" defined.

✓ 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


771.3f Electronic monitoring device; removal, destruction, or circumvention prohibited; interference with signal, impulse, or data prohibited; exceptions; violation as felony; penalties; "electronic monitoring device" defined.

Sec. 3f.

    (1) A person shall not knowingly and without authority remove, destroy, or circumvent the operation of an electronic monitoring device or knowingly interfere with a signal, impulse, or data that is being transmitted by or stored within an electronic monitoring device worn or otherwise used by an individual as a condition for any of the following:

    (a) Work release or house arrest.

    (b) Bond or other pretrial release.

    (c) Probation.

    (d) Parole.

    (e) Postrelease supervision or postconviction bond.

    (f) Release under section 3e.

    (2) A person shall not knowingly and without authority request or solicit any other person to remove, destroy, or circumvent the operation of an electronic monitoring device or knowingly interfere with a signal, impulse, or data that is being transmitted by or stored within an electronic monitoring device worn or otherwise used by an individual as described in subsection (1).

    (3) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to either of the following:

    (a) The owner of the electronic monitoring device or his or her agent while performing proper maintenance and repairs on that device.

    (b) A person who removes the electronic monitoring device at the direction of a physician due to an immediate medical necessity.

    (4) A person who violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 2 years or a fine of not more than $4,000.00, or both.

    (5) As used in this section, "electronic monitoring device" includes any electronic device or instrument that is used to track the location of a person or detect the presence of alcohol.

History: Add. 2012, Act 612, Eff. Mar. 1, 2013

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 2016–2024 · leading case: People of Michigan v. James Osakwe White (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
People of Michigan v. James Osakwe White (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Defendant was a parolee under the supervision of agent Randy Dockins. As part of his parole, defendant was subject to electronic monitoring, which required him to wear an ankle bracelet and to carry or possess a GPS tracking device at all times.”
People of Michigan v. Terry Donald Devowe (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Defendant, Terry Donald Devowe, was convicted by a jury of tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f, and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Terry Donald Devowe (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “Defendant, Terry Donald Devowe, was convicted by a jury of tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f, and was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Earl Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Defendant, Ronald Earl Williams, appeals as of right his bench trial conviction of tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f. Defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Ronald Earl Williams (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “Defendant, Ronald Earl Williams, appeals as of right his bench trial conviction of tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f. Defendant was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Steven Shaun Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “The record evidence suffices to support the conviction, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Alexander had been placed on house arrest and ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device (an ankle tether) as a condition of his parole for an earlier offense.”
People of Michigan v. Michael Robert Miller (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “10, to prison terms of 2 to 7½ years for prison escape and 14 months to 3 years for tampering with an electronic monitoring device, to be served consecutively to the parole sentence being served at the time he committed the sentencing offenses.”
People of Michigan v. Samantha Lynn Hughes (Mich. Ct. App. 2019). “Defendant appeals by leave granted1 her sentence of 13 to 24 months’ imprisonment for her plea-based conviction of tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f. We reverse, vacate defendant’s sentence, remand with instructions that a different judge resentence…”
People of Michigan v. Anthony Francis Iannotti (Mich. Ct. App. 2020). “110(a)(4); tampering with electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f (file no. 2017- 000118-FH); second-degree murder, MCL 750.”
People of Michigan v. Alonte Perton Smith (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “224f; and one count of tampering with an electronic-monitoring device, MCL 771.3f. -8- The trial court sentenced defendant, as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Rico Montez Chandler (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “529; and knowingly circumventing or interfering with the signal, impulse, or data transmitted by an electronic monitoring device (tampering with a tether), MCL 771.3f(1).2 The trial court sentenced Walker as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. Steven Loy Lockwood (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “Defendant pleaded guilty to tampering with an electronic monitoring device, MCL 771.3f, and the trial court sentenced him as a third-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 771.3f(1) — 4 cases
People of Michigan v. James Osakwe White (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “Defendant was a parolee under the supervision of agent Randy Dockins. As part of his parole, defendant was subject to electronic monitoring, which required him to wear an ankle bracelet and to carry or possess a GPS tracking device at all times.”
People of Michigan v. Rico Montez Chandler (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “529; and knowingly circumventing or interfering with the signal, impulse, or data transmitted by an electronic monitoring device (tampering with a tether), MCL 771.3f(1).2 The trial court sentenced Walker as a fourth-offense habitual offender, MCL 769.”
People of Michigan v. John Harvey Gaddy (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
People of Michigan v. Steven Shaun Alexander (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “The record evidence suffices to support the conviction, and we affirm. I. BACKGROUND Alexander had been placed on house arrest and ordered to wear an electronic monitoring device (an ankle tether) as a condition of his parole for an earlier offense.”
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.