Crimes: terrorism; crime of making terrorist threat or false report of terrorism; modify. Amends sec. 543m of 1931 PA 328 (MCL 750.543m).
Summary
SB 502 amends Michigan’s penal code provision on terrorist threats and false reports of terrorism. The bill makes it a felony to threaten to commit an act of terrorism and communicate that threat either knowingly or with reckless disregard for the risk that it will be viewed as threatening violence. It also continues to criminalize knowingly making a false report of terrorism. The bill clarifies that a defendant does not have to actually intend or be capable of carrying out the threatened act for the offense to apply.
The measure also defines “reckless disregard” as consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the communication will be viewed as threatening violence. A violation remains punishable by up to 20 years in prison, a fine of up to $20,000, or both, and the act would take effect 90 days after enactment.
Impact
The bill would amend section 543m of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.543m), expanding and clarifying the offense of making a terrorist threat by adding an explicit reckless-disregard standard alongside the existing knowing-threat standard. It would also preserve the separate offense for false reports of terrorism and maintain the current felony penalties. The practical effect is to broaden prosecutorial reach over threatening communications and false terrorism reports, while codifying a specific mental-state definition for courts and law enforcement to apply.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong bipartisan or at least unanimous support for the bill. It was reported favorably out of committee 5-0 and later passed the Senate 35-0. No committee transcript is provided, but the unanimous votes indicate broad agreement that the bill addresses public safety concerns related to terrorism threats and hoaxes.
Contention
No direct opposition is reflected in the available materials, but the main policy issue embedded in the bill is the expansion of liability to communications made with reckless disregard rather than only knowing threats. Supporters likely view this as necessary to capture dangerous threat-making and false alarms, while any potential concern would center on whether the standard could sweep in ambiguous speech or raise free-speech and overcriminalization questions. The bill’s clarification that actual intent or capability is not a defense also reinforces a broad enforcement approach.