Law enforcement: reports; missing senior or vulnerable adult alert; including missing veterans at risk. Amends sec. 2 of 2012 PA 176 (MCL 28.712).
Summary
HB 5387 amends Michigan’s Mozelle senior or vulnerable adult medical alert act to expand and clarify who qualifies as a “missing senior or vulnerable adult” for purposes of the state’s alert and response system. The bill keeps the existing categories for seniors age 60 and older, vulnerable adults, and individuals missing while suffering from senility or another physical or mental condition that creates immediate danger, while adding a new category for a “missing veteran at risk.”
The bill also defines “missing veteran at risk” as an active-duty member, veteran of the U.S. Armed Forces, or member of the Michigan National Guard who is reported missing and believed by a person familiar with the individual to have a physical or mental health condition. It further revises the definition of “person familiar with the missing senior or vulnerable adult” to include guardians, custodians, guardians ad litem, home health aides, health care power-of-attorney holders, and others with relevant medical or personal knowledge.
Impact
The bill would amend section 2 of 2012 PA 176, codified at MCL 28.712, by broadening the statutory definitions that determine when law enforcement and alert procedures may be used for missing-person cases involving older adults, vulnerable adults, and now veterans at risk. In practical terms, it expands the pool of individuals who can trigger or support a missing senior or vulnerable adult alert and clarifies who may provide the information needed to identify the missing person’s condition or risk status. The change affects law enforcement agencies, families, caregivers, health care proxies, and veterans’ support networks.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support for the bill. It was reported from committee without amendment on a 7-0 vote and later passed the House on third reading by a wide margin, 100-2, with immediate effect. The lack of committee transcripts limits insight into debate, but the overwhelming votes indicate the measure was generally viewed as a practical public-safety and missing-person response update rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
No major points of contention are evident in the provided record. The main policy choice in the bill is whether to extend the alert framework to missing veterans at risk and to refine who counts as a person familiar with the missing individual. Any disagreement would likely center on the scope of the new veteran category, the evidentiary threshold for reporting someone as missing and at risk, or the administrative implications for law enforcement and alert issuance, but the strong vote totals suggest little opposition in practice.