Michigan House Bill HB4525

Michigan 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 5/22/25
• Refer: 5/22/25

Caption

Criminal procedure: other; electronic monitoring by global positioning devices of certain individuals released without bail; require. Amends sec. 6b, ch. V of 1927 PA 175 (MCL 765.6b).

Summary

HB 4525 would amend Michigan’s Code of Criminal Procedure to expand and standardize the use of electronic monitoring as a condition of pretrial release for certain defendants. The bill focuses on defendants charged with aggravated domestic violence, domestic violence, assaultive crimes, and certain alcohol/drug-related driving offenses. It authorizes or requires courts to impose GPS-based monitoring in specified cases, and in aggravated domestic violence cases it would require the court to order electronic monitoring unless the court makes a written finding that monitoring is unnecessary to protect the victim. The bill also adds detailed procedures for victim notification and participation. In some cases, with the victim’s informed consent, the court may order the defendant to provide the victim with a receiver device that alerts them when the defendant is nearby, and the victim may identify areas the defendant should be barred from entering. The bill requires courts and law enforcement to enter and remove orders in the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), and it requires defendants subject to monitoring to pay the cost of the device and monitoring or perform community service in lieu of payment. It also adds a firearm-possession restriction when electronic monitoring is ordered in certain cases.

Impact

HB 4525 would amend MCL 765.6b to create more specific pretrial release conditions for defendants accused of domestic violence, aggravated domestic violence, assaultive crimes, and certain intoxicated-driving-related offenses. It would strengthen court authority to impose electronic monitoring, require firearm restrictions in some monitored cases, and establish LEIN reporting requirements for protective orders and amended orders. The bill also defines key terms such as aggravated domestic violence, electronic monitoring device, and informed consent, and it sets a 90-day delayed effective date after enactment.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a victim-safety and public-protection proposal, with an emphasis on preventing contact, stalking, or further violence before trial. The structure of the bill suggests a generally protective approach toward victims and law enforcement coordination.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the expanded use of mandatory or discretionary electronic monitoring, the cost-shifting requirement that defendants pay for monitoring or perform community service, and the added firearm-possession restriction. Another likely issue is the victim-participation framework: the bill allows victim notification devices and area exclusions only with informed consent, but it also requires victims to be given extensive information and permits them to withdraw from participation without sanction. Courts may also need to balance public safety against the bill’s requirement that, in aggravated domestic violence cases, they either order monitoring or make a written finding that it is unnecessary.