House Bill 4353 amends the definitions section of 2006 PA 563, the law that restricts the use and disclosure of certain statements made by law enforcement officers. The bill broadens the category of “law enforcement officer” for purposes of that act to expressly include emergency dispatch workers employed by a law enforcement agency, in addition to licensed or certified police officers and local corrections officers. It also retains the existing definition of “involuntary statement,” meaning information compelled under threat of dismissal or other employment sanction by the employing agency.
The bill is structured as a tie-bar measure, meaning it would not take effect unless either Senate Bill No. ____ (request no. S02305'25) or House Bill 4352 (request no. H02305'25) becomes law. In practical terms, HB 4353 would expand the statutory protections and restrictions in MCL 15.391 to cover a larger group of public safety personnel, including dispatch staff who are part of law enforcement agencies. The bill does not create a new standalone regulatory scheme; instead, it modifies who is covered under an existing confidentiality/use-limitation statute.
Impact
HB 4353 would amend MCL 15.391 to expand the scope of the law governing involuntary statements by law enforcement personnel. The main legal effect is to include emergency dispatch workers employed by law enforcement agencies within the statute’s protections and restrictions, which could affect how statements obtained from those workers are used or disclosed in disciplinary, administrative, or related proceedings. Because it is tie-barred, the amendment would only become operative if the linked legislation is enacted, so its impact depends on passage of the companion bill(s).
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad support for the bill. It was reported from committee with a 14-0 vote and later passed the House on third reading by an 85-18 vote, indicating that most lawmakers viewed the change favorably. No committee transcript was provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee debate to show extensive opposition, but the final vote shows some dissent remained.
Contention
The likely point of contention is the expansion of statutory coverage to emergency dispatch workers, which may raise questions about how far the protections for involuntary statements should extend beyond sworn officers and corrections personnel. Another possible issue is the bill’s tie-barred structure, since its effectiveness depends on enactment of related legislation, making it part of a broader package rather than a standalone change. The recorded opposition in the House suggests some members may have objected either to the scope of the expansion or to the linked-legislation approach, though no transcript is available to identify specific arguments.