FOCUS: United States Supreme Court Rules on Maryland v. King
In an opinion released today, June 3, the United States Supreme Court ruled that arresting officials are allowed to take DNA samples from those in custody. Bills have been introduced in the Michigan Senate (SB 105, SB 106 and SB 107) that would require the collection of a DNA sample from anyone arrested for committing or attempting to commit a felony. The State Bar of Michigan opposes the bills because individuals who are acquitted or have their cases dismissed would be required to petition the court to have their DNA destroyed.
Supreme Court Says Police Can Take DNA From Arrestee Without Warrant
(Washington Post, 6/3/13)
Justices Allow Police to Take D.N.A. Samples After Arrests
(New York Times, 6/3/13)
Routine DNA Testing After Arrest Upheld by Top U.S. Court
Supreme Court Upholds Warrantless Collection of DNA
Court: Police Can Take DNA Swabs From Arrestees
Supreme Court OKs DNA Swab in Serious Arrests
(USA Today, 6/3/13)
Supreme Court: DNA Swab After Arrest is Legitimate Search
In the Capitol
Committee meetings of interest for the week of 6/3
6/4 Senate Judiciary
Agenda: **PLEASE NOTE TIME**
SB 300 Implement statewide standards and accountability measures of trial-level indigent criminal defense services, and create the Michigan indigent defense commission act;
SB 301 Modify appointment of counsel to indigent person charged with felony;
HB 4064 Allow digital court records and electronically filing court papers;
HB 4532 Permit digital court records and electronically filing court papers as established by the supreme court; And any other business properly before the committee.
SBM Position on SB 300 and SB 301: Support.
SBM Position on HB 4064: Support.
Civil Procedure & Courts Committee Position on HB 4064: Support.
SBM Position on HB 4532: Support.
6/4 House Judiciary, Joint Meeting with Health Policy
HB 4694 Create mental health court;
HB 4695 Create mental health court;
HB 4696 Create mental health court;
HB 4697 Create mental health court;
(Bills are before the Judiciary Committee).
6/5 House Criminal Justice
SB 221 Establish registration fee for nonincarcerated offenders on an annual basis;
HB 4501 Prohibit obtaining service or property by fraud or deception, and provide penalties;
HB 4502 Enact sentencing guidelines for obtaining service or property by fraud or deception;
HB 4525 Modify sentencing guidelines for certain crimes for crime class categories;
HB 4567 Increase penalties for certain alcohol- and drug-related driving violations;
HB 4568 Revise sentencing guidelines for certain alcohol- and controlled substance-related driving violations.
Complete Committee Meeting List
New Public Acts
In the Hall of Justice
Jill M. Booth named new Region V Administrator for State Court Administrative Office
Jana L. Benjamin named Executive Director, Board of Law Examiners
National Center for State Courts report on the 36th District Court
Court of Appeals Judge Michael J. Talbot appointed to serve as special administrator of Detroit's 36th District Court; aims to address court's financial crisis
Appointment of a special judicial administrator for the 36th District Court
Guilty plea rules on agenda for Supreme Court's May 29 administrative hearing
2005-11 – Amendments of Canons 2, 4, 5, and 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Amendment of Rule 8.2 of the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct
These amendments reflect an effort to make the judicial canons consistent regarding law-related and nonlaw-related extrajudicial activities in which judges may participate, and to clarify the activities that are allowed or prohibited. The proposal retains the explicit prohibition on a judge individually soliciting funds, and likewise prohibits the use of the prestige of the office for that purpose. The newly-constituted Canon 4, which consolidates previous Canon 4 and Canon 5 into one canon, permits a judge to engage in various specific activities, including serving as a member of an honorary committee or joining a general appeal, speaking at or receiving an award at an organization’s event, and allowing the judge’s name to be used in support of a fundraising event. The proposal also includes several suggested revisions that were recommended during the public comment period.
In addition to combining Canons 4 and 5 into one canon, the amendments eliminate the language of Canon 7C that prohibited a judge from accepting a testimonial, and move the reformulated language from Canon 7C(2) prohibiting a judge from accepting a contribution of money to Canon 2G. Also, the proposal clarifies Canon 2 so that activities allowed under Canon 4 are not considered a violation of the principle of use of the prestige of office. Further, the amendments clarify that certain canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct (specifically Canons 1, 2, 4[A]-[D] and 7) apply to all candidates for judicial office as part of the new language inserted as Canon 5. Finally, MRPC 8.2 (which applies to lawyers) is amended to reflect that the judicial canons applicable to judicial candidates are set out in new Canon 5.
Nearly all of the current language in Canon 2, 4, 5, and 7 is retained in this proposal. The new language adds explicit provisions to describe the types of activities that are allowed or prohibited for judges which until now had been undefined and therefore the source of confusion.
Issued: May 29, 2013
Effective: August 1, 2013
At the Bar
Vote Now in the 2013 State Bar of Michigan Elections