Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Juvenile Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee considers bill allowing single-vehicle transport of juvenile and adult co‑defendants under limited conditions
Summary
Rep. Mueller and the Michigan Sheriffs Association urged support for HB 4018, which would permit, under specific conditions, officers to transport a juvenile and an adult who committed the same offense in one vehicle and separate them at a secure facility as soon as practicable; DHHS and others registered opposition, citing prior veto and differing definitions of 'facility'.
Rep. Mueller introduced House Bill 4018 to the House Judiciary Committee as a public‑safety and officer‑safety measure addressing logistical challenges, particularly in rural areas. The bill would allow police, in limited circumstances, to transport an adult and a juvenile who are co‑defendants in the same criminal transaction in the same vehicle, with the requirement that they be sight‑and‑sound separated once they reach a secure facility as soon as practicable.
Dan Fannes, deputy director for the Michigan Sheriffs Association, testified the Association supports HB 4018. He said the change addresses staffing and safety issues and asserted federal sight‑and‑sound restrictions apply to secure facilities, not to the initial detention or transport phase. "These restrictions only apply to juvenile offenders that are being held in a secure facility," Fannes said, arguing that the bill addresses a pre‑charging, transport‑phase problem.
Rep. Mueller cited a prior veto and said the prior disagreement with the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) centered on whether a vehicle qualifies as a "facility." Mueller and supporters framed the proposal as permissive, not mandatory — departments could use it where appropriate. The bill includes an age‑cap provision that limits the adult to not being older than 25; Mueller said that provision was a compromise to reduce the risk of older adults manipulating juveniles.
Committee members asked about appellate rights, alternative dispute resolution, and how often the practice occurs. Witnesses and members said the advice‑of‑rights/transport described is not a final order and thus not appealable at the initial stage; frequency estimates were not provided, and several members said they could not put a firm number on how often police temporarily transport juveniles and adults together in practice. DHHS (written card by Shardae Burton) opposed the bill and earlier executive branch action had vetoed similar language.
Cards for HB 4018 included support from the Michigan Association of Police Chiefs, the Police Officers Association of Michigan, the Michigan Association of Counties and the Michigan Fraternal Order of Police; Shardae Burton (DHHS Legislative Affairs) registered opposition in writing. No committee vote on HB 4018 is recorded in the transcript.
The committee discussion emphasized that the measure is intended as a limited operational tool for law enforcement, not a mandate, and that if persons are taken to a secure facility the full federal sight‑and‑sound protections would apply there.
