The Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that the resisting and obstructing statute at MCL 750.81d does not apply to a failure to comply with the command of a reserve police officer.

The court applied the rule of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius which is Latin and means that the express mention in a statute of one thing implies the exclusion of other similar things.

The resist and obstruct statute lists several types of officers that it applies to to include: a police officer, a motor carry officer, a capital security officer, a police officer on a college campus, a conservation officer, a US Conservation Officer, a sheriff, a deputy, a constable,  a firefighter, emergency service personnel, and search and rescue personnel. Since the listing of these very specific types of officers did not include another known type of officer, that is, a “reserve police officer,” then it is presumed the legislature did not want that word used in the statute.

The case can be found at People v Feeley. A request by the prosecutor for appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court is pending.





Nye & Associates, PLLC specialize in criminal cases in Roscommon County, Crawford County, Saginaw County, and the surrounding area.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Comments are closed.