- Posted April 30, 2012
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Calley signs bills to guarantee factual information in criminal investigations
Lt. Gov. Brian Calley has signed bills making it a crime to deliberately lie or conceal facts from a state or local police officer.
Federal law prohibits lying to federal agents, but Michigan had no law protecting local or state investigations. Whether written or verbal, deceptions waste police time and resources and allow criminals to remain on the streets.
House Bills 5050 and 5051 make it a crime to conceal material facts or provide misleading statements in a criminal investigation. The bill would not apply to alleged victims of crime or prevent anyone from declining to speak with a police officer.
The severity of the penalty for concealing or lying about information would directly relate to the severity of the crime being investigated.
"Public safety is a key priority in Michigan, and police officers need to be guaranteed factual information in criminal investigations," Calley said. "Ensuring the truth of statements in criminal investigations is simply a common-sense step to providing the best criminal justice system possible."
The bills, sponsored by state Rep. John Walsh, now are Public Acts 104 and 105.
Published: Mon, Apr 30, 2012
headlines Washtenaw County
- MSU Law celebrates 25 years of the Geoffrey Fieger Trial Practice Institute
- Marching on: Expert in liquor law overcomes more than her share of hurdles
- The time has come to put an end to electoral vote in U.S.
- Business helps clients take empowering step forward
- Stride for Justice charity event slated for April 18
headlines National
- Exodus: Thousands of federal lawyers left their jobs by choice or by force in 2025
- Wisconsin moves to UBE to ease access-to-justice woes
- The Burton Book Review: A discussion on ‘When You Come at the King’
- Facebook, Instagram pulling ads from lawyers looking for plaintiffs ... to sue them
- Florida law school pressed to include chapter of Charlie Kirk’s Turning Point USA
- BigLaw firm faces questions over $35M bill




