|
In
the Capitol
The Michigan House of Representatives and Senate are recessed until August
4th.
FOCUS: Drug Treatment Courts
On July 21, 2004, Governor Jennifer Granholm signed into law legislation
that will allow all state counties to create drug treatments courts within
their judicial systems. Drug treatment courts are already used on a pilot
basis in some counties. The State Bar of Michigan supports the institutionalization
and availability of drug treatment courts. See Also: State News.
Please refer to the following legislation for detailed information:
HB
5647 – PA 219 (Howell) Criminal procedure; probation; conditions
of probation; include participation in drug treatment court. TIE BAR WITH
SB 998.
HB
5674 – PA 220 (Acciavatti) Criminal procedure; sentencing; sentencing
procedures; include references to drug treatment courts.
HB 5716 – PA 221 (Meisner) Juveniles; criminal procedure; commitment
of juvenile to drug treatment court; allow. TIE BAR WITH SB 998.
HB
5928 – PA 223 (Condino) Courts; other; referral to drug treatment
court for certain persons eligible for deferred sentence and dismissal
of charge; provide for. TIE BAR WITH SB 998.
HB
5932 – PA 222 (Lipsey) Courts; other; reporting of certain dispositions
of drug treatment court that do not result in convictions; allow for.
TIE BAR WITH HB 5674 and SB 998.
SB 998 – PA 224 (Cropsey) Courts; other; drug treatment courts;
establish.
SB
999 – PA 225 (Sanborn) Controlled substances; penalties; eligibility
for probation and dismissal of charges; coordinate with drug treatment
courts. TIE BAR WITH SB 998.
SB 1000 – PA 226 (Patterson) Criminal procedure; youthful trainees;
eligibility for youthful trainee program; coordinate with drug treatment
courts. TIE BAR WITH SB 998.
Complete
Committee Meeting List
Capitol Agenda
View
Full Text
Detroit News (7/24/04)
At
the Bar
The Board of Commissioners
met on Friday, July 23, 2004. The following public policy positions were
adopted by a unanimous vote.
HB
5338 (Howell) Civil procedure; other; procedure for affidavit of merit
for medical malpractice; revise.
Status: 07/06/04 Substitute H-4 adopted and amended; Placed on third reading;
Placed on immediate passage; Passed; given immediate effect; Title amended
RESCIND POSITION: Support in Principle with
amendment that would provide an equal filing time of 63 days for both
parties; adopted by unanimous vote.
ADOPT POSITION: Support in Principle
HB
5905 (Howell) Torts; malpractice; retroactive effect of amended affidavit
of meritorious defense in medical malpractice action; allow only with
showing of good cause. TIE BAR WITH HB 5338.
Status: 07/06/04 Substitute H-3 adopted and amended; Placed on third reading;
Placed on immediate passage; Passed; given immediate effect
RESCIND POSITION: Support in Principle with
amendment that would provide an equal filing time of 63 days for both
parties; adopted by unanimous vote.
ADOPT POSITION: Support in Principle
HB
5680 (Middaugh) – Civil procedure; garnishment and attachment;
stay of garnishment of bank account or tax refund when installment payments
are made on judgment; provide for.
Status: 07/01/04 Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee
POSITION: Support in Principle
HB
5718 (Gaffney) – Probate; wills and estates; provisions to allow
and establish requirements for living wills; enact.
Status: 03/30/04 Referred to the House Judiciary Committee
POSITION: Support in Principle. The State
Bar has historically promoted the use of living wills.
HB
5846 (Stakoe) – Criminal procedure; prosecuting attorneys; notification
period to surety for defendant's failure to appear; extend to 14 days.
Status: 07/01/04 Reported by Committee of the whole favorably without
amendment; Placed on order of third reading
POSITION:
Support in Principle
SB
929 (Hammerstrom) – Counties; employees and officers; reference
to register of deeds accepting funds with redemption on a foreclosure;
eliminate.
Status: 01/28/04 Referred to the Senate Local, Urban and State Affairs
Committee
SB
930 (Hammerstrom) – Counties; employees and officers; reference
to register of deeds accepting funds with redemption on a foreclosure;
eliminate.
Status: 01/28/04 Referred to the Senate Local, Urban and State Affairs
Committee
POSITION: Oppose in Principle. The State
Bar recognizes that some mortgagors are difficult to find and may not
want to accept payments, and therefore the State Bar supports the continuing
practice of a neutral party (register of deeds) accepting payments.
SB
1263 (Sanborn) – Criminal procedure; warrants; requirement to
establish paper quality and durability standards for arrest warrants;
eliminate.
Status: 07/06/04 Placed on third reading; Placed on immediate passage;
Passed; given immediate effect; Inserted full title; Returned to Senate
POSITION:
Support in Principle
|
Federal
News
High
Court Asked To End Child Executions
View
Full Text
(Washington Post, 07/19/04)
Bush Signs Bill To Stockpile Antidotes
View
Full Text
(Traverse City Record-Eagle, 07/21/04
FORUM: The following article was written by State
Bar member Robert S. Anderson in collaboration with Peter Psarouthakis
regarding
federal bill HR 2971. At this time, the State Bar of Michigan does
not have a position on the bill. Contrary viewpoints are welcome and may
be submitted by e-mail to elyon@mail.michbar.org.
HR
2971, the “Social Security Number Privacy and Identity Theft
Prevention Act of 2004” as ordered reported by the Sub-committee
on Social Security. The legislation would have a severe impact on the
nation’s ability to fight identity theft, consumer fraud and would
hamper the entire judicial system.
The purpose of the legislation is commendable. Provisions limiting the
public display of Social Security numbers or the sale of SSN’s for
illicit purposes and stronger penalties for identity theft are all positive.
But two provisions of HR 2971 would have substantial negative impacts
on the court system and will make it more difficult for law enforcement
and private security to fight the scourge of identity theft. Section
109 of the bill would deny access to “credit headers,”
which is non-credit identifying information utilized by attorneys and
their investigators to locate witnesses, heirs, fraudsters, and others.
The use of “credit header” information is a cost-effective
way to locate individuals for legitimate purposes.It is only available
to those companies contracting with information providers which can show
a legitimate use of the information. Attorneys and Investigators utilizing
the information are subject to audit by the providers.
If Congress denies access for the use of credit headers for attorneys
and their support personnel, the cost of locating witnesses will increase
substantially. The impact of the decision will adversely affect indigent
defendants and close the courthouse doors to others of limited means.
Section 108 outlaws the sale of SSN information in most
instances. There are thousands of Americans with identical names. We need
to be able to identify the correct John Smith when seeking to locate a
witness, for example. Because there are tens of thousands of them, many
share the same birth date! How can we assure the court we have the right
person without the use of the SSN? There are only very limited exceptions
to the prohibition listed in the legislation.
It was hoped that HR 2971 would be improved during subcommittee markup.
But instead it has become worse. How can one justify a new provision making
it illegal to provide someone else’s SSN to a government agency
without the person’s permission? Example: If an attorney is retained
to help a client reclaim their "stolen" identity they, or their
investigator, may end up locating an identity thief with 10 SSN’s
in his/her possession. The bill says that a person cannot provide this
information to the authorities without the identity thief's permission.
Although the bill says that a person could do so if required by the authorities,
the fact is that in most cases of identity theft the authorities need
to be persuaded to become involved. They won’t mandate anything
until shown the evidence. Likewise, an employer given a suspicious ID
by a job applicant would not be able to send the information to authorities.
Clearly, this legislation needs further review. Despite several hearings,
a large amount of testimony, by interested groups, the measure has not
improved. The consequences of enacting the bill without full consideration
of its ramifications will be considerable. All of us want to protect against
identity theft. Does it make any sense to take away the tools being used
to fight it?
One particular group that is strongly behind the fight to fix this bill
is the National Council of Investigation and Security Services (NCISS).
On their web site, www.nciss.org, testimony
that was given to the sub-committee on Social Security can be viewed.
The NCISS Michigan representative is Peter Psarouthakis. He is also the
Vice President of the Michigan Council of Private Investigators. For further
information on this bill he can be reached at peter@ewiassociates.com
or 734-433-2670."
Please note that
this article was transmitted because of its perceived relevance to the
legal community. The State Bar of Michigan is not responsible for the
views expressed in this article.
State
News
Lawmakers
To Tackle Budget Impasse
View Full
Text
(Lansing State Journal, 7/19/04)
See Related:
House, Senate To Meet After Primary
View
Full Text
(Lansing State Journal, 7/20/04)
Nader To Stay On State Ballot
View Full
Text
(Lansing State Journal, 7/20/04)
Law Paves Way For More Drug Courts
View
Full Text
(Lansing State Journal, 7/22/04)
See Also: Focus: Drug Treatment Courts
Sentencing Guidelines Defended
View
Full Text
(Detroit News, 7/23/04)
Overturned Sex Harassment Verdict Is Partial DaimlerChrysler Victory
View
Full Text
(Detroit News, 7/23/04)
Howell Reviews Sign Law
View
Full Text
(Detroit News, 7/23/04)
Clerks Say Voter Turnout Has Slow Start
View Full
Text
(Lansing State Journal, 7/25/04)
|
