Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Home - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The Michigan Supreme Court, in <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/SCT/PUBLIC/ORDERS/20160129_S152534_38_01_152534_2016-01-29_or.pdf">People v. Feeley</a>, No. 152543, granted mini-oral argument on the application for leave to appeal to consider whether the term “police officer” in MCL 750.81d(7)(b)(i) encompasses reserve police officers.  Defendant was arrested and charged with resisting and obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d, for failing to comply with the command of a Brighton reserve police officer.  The <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/opinions/final/coa/20150915_c325802_28_325802.opn.pdf">Court of Appeals</a> found that the plain language of the statute does not apply to a reserve police officer. 
 
To read our previous post about the Court of Appeals decision, click <a href="http://www.wnj.com/Blogs/Appellate/September-2015/COA-Reserve-police-officer-is-not-a-police-officer">here</a>.

core/freeform

Partner

Madelaine C. Lane

Labor and Employment

MSC grants MOA to consider whether the term “police officer” encompasses reserve police officers

The Warner Norcross + Judd LLP lawyer responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website is managing partner <a href="/people/mark-j-wassink/" aria-label="Mark Wassink">Mark Wassink</a> who can be reached at <a href="mailto:mwassink@wnj.com" aria-label="email Mark Wassink">mwassink@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2189. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website.

MSC grants MOA to consider whether the term “police officer” encompasses reserve police officers

professionals