House panel hears testimony on bills to add mandatory minimums for fleeing and eluding

Representative Linton and Representative Mueller appeared before the Michigan House Judiciary Committee on a pair of bills, House Bill 4690 and House Bill 4691, that would add tiered mandatory minimum sentences for fleeing and eluding police.

The bills were presented as a response to what law enforcement witnesses described as an increase in high‑speed, dangerous pursuits that have caused severe injuries and fatalities. "This bill is about one thing, holding criminals accountable for endangering lives through reckless high speed attempts to evade law enforcement," Representative Linton said. "There must be consequences to putting innocent lives at risk." Deputy Police Chief Archie Hamilton of Wyandotte testified that his department has seen a sharp rise in pursuits and showed dash‑cam and body‑cam video of multiple incidents that he said resulted in severe injury or death.

The legislation would add what sponsors described as "measured tiered levels of mandatory minimum punishment" intended to deter dangerous flight from police. Hamilton described recent incidents in which suspects with multiple prior fleeing and eluding contacts led officers on chases that ended with severe injury to victims, a vehicle occupant with lifelong injuries, and property damage. He said Wyandotte has seen pursuits climb from under 10 per year in the early 2000s to roughly 50 per year more recently.

Supporters in the room, including former and current law enforcement officers serving in the Legislature, repeatedly argued the existing penalties and local policies leave offenders insufficiently accountable. "Not holding people accountable certainly does not help the issue," Representative Mueller said, and several members representing Downriver and surrounding counties recounted fatal or severe collisions they said were caused by fleeing drivers.

Other committee members urged caution. Representative Reen asked for comparative evidence from other states and questioned removing judicial discretion. "How does this compare to other states, and how do you feel about resting judicial discretion away from these locally elected officials?" she asked. Rep. Reen and others requested a breakdown showing, by county, how many fleeing‑and‑elude cases were charged, adjudicated, and resulted in jail or prison time. Representative Schuette and Representative Harris also pressed witnesses on whether prosecutors and judges already impose meaningful penalties in many cases.

Chief Hamilton and other witnesses pushed back that many fleeing‑and‑elude cases do not result in prison when prosecuted alone and that the current practice creates a perception among some offenders that flight carries little risk of long sentences. "They will not run anymore. Instead, they will park that car and they can run on foot, and that's fine. Let them run all day on foot. Our officers are trained for that," Hamilton said, describing how suspects perceive non‑pursuit policies.

Committee members asked staff to assemble additional data — including county‑level prosecution and sentencing outcomes and comparisons to other states — to better assess whether mandatory minimums would reduce harms or simply limit judicial discretion without improving outcomes. Several written position cards were read into the record: the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police indicated support; representatives of Detroit‑based advocates and a FAM representative registered opposition.

The committee did not take a vote on either bill during the hearing. Sponsors and committee members agreed to follow up with requested data and further discussion in coming weeks.

Prosecutors, judges and sentencing practices were repeatedly referenced by members as important context; committee members requested detailed prosecution and sentencing data before advancing the bills.