BOND VIOLATIONS AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

Bond, Pretrial Release, JAMs Testing, and Contempt of Court in Michigan DUI Cases

If you violate your bond, the court may terminate the pretrial release order. MCR 6.106(I) states that, "If the defendant has failed to comply with the conditions of release, the court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant and enter an order revoking the release order and declaring the bail money deposited or the surety bond, if any, forfeited." A bond violation hearing is conducted in the same manner as a probation violation hearing, and the rules of evidence do not apply at that hearing.  

A court may also charge the accused with contempt of court, but this is controversial and quite possibly unlawful. There are two types of contempt proceedings in Michigan, civil and criminal contempt. Civil contempt is a coercive technique, whereby a person can be held in jail until he or she agrees to do what the court orders. In civil contempt cases, the defendant holds the keys to his own cell. A court might order a person accused of a crime to report to probation for pretrial monitoring assessment, and the accused refuses. The court could use civil contempt remedies to force the person to choose between remaining in jail or reporting to the probation department. 

Criminal contempt, by contrast, is reserved for the worst and most immediate offenses, such as an outburst in court or direct violation of a court's order. In People v Mysliwiec, ___NW2d___; 2016 Mich. App. LEXIS 1051 (Michigan Court of Appeals, May 24, 2016), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a person charged with OWI who has been ordered to refrain from consuming alcoholic beverages may be subject to contempt of court charges. "Contempt of court is defined as a 'wilful act, omission, or statement that tends to impair the authority or impede the functioning of a court.' In re Contempt of Robertson, 209 Mich App 433, 436; 531 NW2d 763 (1995). MCL 600.1701 provides statutory authority to punish a person for contempt. It provides, in relevant part, that courts of record 'have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: . . . (g) Parties to actions, attorneys, counselors, and all other persons for disobeying any lawful order, decree, or process of the court.'" The defendant in Mysliwiec was ordered to jail for a period of 68 days for violating his bond.

Because criminal contempt is a separate act, it doesn't matter if the accused was acquitted on the drunk driving charge. Moreover, the contempt charge provides no jail credit towards the underlying offense. Criminal contempt, like any other criminal charge, must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but the accused does not have the right to a jury trial. This means that, if a judge is keen to find a violation, the hearing might be conducted quickly before the trial court, who makes all findings and hands down the sentence. Such an awesome power cannot be taken lightly. Rare abuses of criminal contempt powers have raised serious questions by the Michigan Supreme Court, which has repeatedly held that this power must be used sparingly.  

 

 

Mysliwiec is unpublished, which means that it holds no precedential value. It cannot be cited as "the law" and it is not binding, but at least a few courts are using this decision to put people in jail for criminal contempt. The decision is currently being reviewed by the Michigan Supreme Court. I believe that Mysliwiec was wrongly decided. It encourages courts to use criminal contempt, which should be used only in rare cases as a last resort. There are clear procedures and available remedies available for bond violations under MCR 6.106.