SerpApi.Org
A dismissed stop sign violation case could be heard again after Huron County prosecutors argued they did not receive timely notice of the ruling.
The Huron County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office appealed on behalf of the plaintiff, asking that the June 8 dismissal be set aside because prosecutors did not receive notice in time to exercise the plaintiff’s right to appeal.
Huron County District Judge Julienne M. Ferris dismissed a citation at Port Hope and Filion roads, which has been the subject of local controversy in recent months.
A neighbor reported the alleged violation May 1, saying he saw a silver Dodge Caravan travel west on Filion Road, turn north onto Port Hope Road and disregard the stop sign, according to a police report obtained by the Huron Daily Tribune.
The responding officer went to the driver’s house. The driver acknowledged driving the vehicle through the intersection but said he stopped at the stop sign. The officer issued the driver a citation and told him to respond to it or contact the district court within 14 days.
The citation was dismissed at an informal hearing June 8, according to documents obtained by the Tribune.
According to a June 23 memorandum from the Huron County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office obtained by the Tribune, when defendants in state-law civil infraction cases request an informal hearing, the issuing officer appears for the plaintiff. If the court enters a judgment against the plaintiff, including a finding that the defendant is not responsible or a dismissal, the plaintiff may appeal.
Appeals from informal hearings must be submitted within seven days by the prosecuting attorney’s office. The memorandum advises law enforcement officers to contact the office immediately if they believe a decision should be appealed because the office may not receive notice of an informal hearing decision.
A claim of appeal of right filed June 23 states that the prosecuting attorney’s office did not learn about the dismissal until June 22, two weeks after the appeal deadline. The office asked the district court either to accept the appeal as timely because it was filed immediately after prosecutors learned of the adverse judgment or to set aside the June 8 judgment because the lack of notice deprived the plaintiff of a meaningful opportunity to appeal.
An order on the plaintiff’s claim of appeal dated June 26 said that while the testimony of both witnesses given June 8 was found to be reliable, they opposed each other and “nothing from either witness tipped the scale in favor of one over the other.” Thus, the matter was dismissed in favor of the defendant. It also states that both parties were advised of their right to appeal within seven days.
The order also states that the ticket must be dismissed for being "invalid on its face" for failure to comply with MCL 257.742(3), which states that an officer can issue a traffic citation to a driver involved in an accident even if the officer did not witness the crash, provided the officer has reasonable cause to believe the driver committed a civil infraction based on personal investigation at the scene.
Ferris denied the appeal because it was outside the appeal window.
The prosecuting attorney's office then appealed to the 52nd Judicial Circuit Court on June 26. According to documents obtained by the Tribune, the office argued that the district court's ruling "deprived the Plaintiff of a meaningful opportunity to exercise an appeal of right" and raises the issue of whether the court "correctly applied the statutory and court-rule procedure governing appeals from informal hearings," citing MCL 257.746(5) and MCL 4.101(H)(2), according to documents obtained by the Tribune.
- MCL 257.746(5) states that the plaintiff and defendant are entitled to appeal an adverse judgment entered at an informal hearing. If the informal hearing is conducted by a district judge, then the appeal is heard de novo, or anew, by a different district judge.
- MCL 4.101(H)(2) states that an appeal following an informal hearing is a matter of right and must be asserted in writing within seven days following the decision. The appeal must be asserted by the prosecuting authority responsible for providing the plaintiff's attorney during the formal hearing. In this case, that authority belongs to the prosecuting attorney's office.
The office first argues that there is an error in the district court's ruling dismissing the appeal as untimely because the prosecutor was not aware of the informal hearing judgment until after the seven-day period expired, forcing the plaintiff's right to appeal to depend on chance.
"The citing officer may appear at the informal hearing, but the prosecutor is the official required to assert the plaintiff's appeal. That distinction is critical," the argument reads. "The appeal period is only seven days. When the prosecutor receives no notice that an adverse judgement was entered, strict enforcement of the seven-day period extinguishes the appeal before the authorized appellant has any practical ability to act."
Because the district court treats notice to the prosecutor as irrelevant, the office argues, the plaintiff's appeal window can close without the office knowing the judgment exists.
The prosecuting attorney's office's second point focuses on the district court's dismissal of the ticket for failure to comply with MCL 257.742(3), arguing that the court failed to specify how the citation did not comply with the law.
The argument also states that MCL 257.742(3) has a provision allowing violations on citations to be amended by the prosecuting official or law enforcement officer for the plaintiff. By citing the statute after the ruling had been made, the court gave no opportunity for the plaintiff to address whether the defect existed or correct it if possible.
The prosecuting attorney's office requested that the circuit court either take jurisdiction over the appeal and reverse the district court's decision or send the appeal back to district court with instructions to set aside the June 8 judgment and schedule a new formal hearing under a different district judge.
If a new district judge must review the case, Chief Judge Gierhart of the Tuscola County Circuit Court could assign a judge from outside the county, or Prill could sit as a district judge by designation.
