1.9Miscellaneous Authority of District Court Magistrates

The primary authorities of district court magistrates are discussed in detail throughout this manual, including the issuance of arrest and search warrants, pretrial release, arraignment, pleas, sentencing, civil infraction cases, small claims proceedings, and marriage ceremonies. This section addresses some additional areas where district court magistrates have authority.

A.Suspend Payment of Court Fees

“If authorized by the chief judge of the district, a district court magistrate may . . . [s]uspend payment of court fees by an indigent party in any civil, small claims, or summary proceedings action, until after judgment has been entered.” MCL 600.8513(2)(b).

B.Execute and Issue Process

“If authorized by the chief judge of the district, a district court magistrate may . . . [e]xecute and issue process to carry into effect authority expressly granted by law to district court magistrates.” MCL 600.8513(2)(d).

C.Administer Oaths and Affirmations

“[D]istrict court magistrates may administer oaths and affirmations[.]”¹ MCL 600.8317.

“Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience.” MRE 603.

Under MRE 603, “no particular form or language is necessary[.]” Donkers v Kovach, 277 Mich App 366, 372-373 (2007) (holding that the witness was not required to raise her hand while affirming to tell the truth).

“The usual mode of administering oaths now practiced in [Michigan], by the person who swears holding up the right hand, shall be observed in all cases in which an oath may be administered by law except as otherwise provided by law. The oath shall commence, ‘You do solemnly swear or affirm’.” MCL 600.1432(1).

“If an oath or affirmation is administered by electronic or electromagnetic means of communication pursuant to [MCL 780.651], or pursuant to [MCL 764.1], the oath or affirmation is considered to be administered before the justice, judge, or district court magistrate.” MCL 600.1432(2).

Foreign language interpreters. “The court shall administer an oath or affirmation to a foreign language interpreter substantially conforming to the following: ‘Do you solemnly swear or affirm that you will truly, accurately, and impartially interpret in the matter now before the court and not divulge confidential communications, so help you God?’” MCR 1.111(G). See also MRE 604 (stating interpreters must be qualified and must give an oath or affirmation to make a true translation). 

D.Collecting and Recording Payment of Fines and Costs

“Except [in the 36th District Court], district court magistrates shall pay all fines and costs received by them to the clerk of the district court on or before the last day of the month following receipt of those funds, which shall be allocated as provided in [MCL 600.8379].” MCL 600.8535(1).

“In the [36th District Court], each district court magistrate shall cause all fines and costs received by the magistrate to be paid immediately to the clerk of the district court for the thirty-sixth district.” MCL 600.8535(2).

If a magistrate collects and records payments, the magistrate must follow the fiscal management guidelines regarding the receipt and deposit of money in Section 6-05 of the SCAO’s Michigan Trial Court Administration Reference Guide.

E.Dangerous Animals

“Upon a sworn complaint that an animal is a dangerous animal and has caused serious injury or death to an individual or has caused serious injury or death to a dog, a district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court shall issue a summons to the owner ordering him or her to appear to show cause why the animal should not be destroyed.” MCL 287.322(1). See also MCL 287.286a (providing similar authority pertaining only to dogs under the Dog Law of 1919, MCL 287.261 et seq.).

1.Temporary Placement of Animal Until Hearing is Held

“Upon the filing of a sworn complaint as provided in [MCL 287.322(1)], the district court magistrate, district court, or  municipal court shall order the owner to immediately turn the animal over to an animal control authority, incorporated humane society, veterinarian, or boarding kennel, at the owner’s option, to be retained until a hearing is held and a decision is made for the disposition of the animal.” MCL 287.322(2).

“The owner shall notify the person that retains the animal under this subsection of the complaint and order.” MCL 287.322(2).

“The owner is responsible for the expense of the boarding and retention of the animal.” MCL 287.322(2).

“The animal must not be returned to the owner until the animal has a current rabies vaccination and license as required by law.” MCL 287.322(2).

2.Possible Outcomes After Hearing

a.Dangerous Animal That Caused Serious Injury or Death

The district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court shall order destruction of the animal, at the owner’s expense, “if the animal is found to be a dangerous animal that caused serious injury or death to an individual or a dog[.]” MCL 287.322(3).

b.Dangerous Animal That is Likely to Cause Future Serious Injury or Death

The “district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court may order destruction of the animal, at the owner’s expense,” “if the animal has been previously adjudicated a dangerous animal or is found to be a dangerous animal that did not cause serious injury or death to an individual but is likely to cause serious injury or death to an individual in the future[.]” MCL 287.322(3).

c.Dangerous Animal That Has Not Caused Serious Injury or Death

If the district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court finds that an animal is a dangerous animal that has not caused serious injury or death to an individual, it shall notify the county animal control authority of:

•the court’s finding;

•the name of the dangerous animal’s owner, and;

•the address at which the animal was kept at the time of the finding. MCL 287.322(4).

The district court magistrate, district court, or municipal court must also order the owner of the dangerous animal to do one or more of the following:

•If the dangerous animal is a dog, have a permanent identification number assigned to the animal at the owner’s expense.

•Erect escape proof fencing or an enclosure that includes a top or roof, to prevent the animal from escaping or an unauthorized individual from entering the premises.

•Sterilize the animal.

•Obtain and maintain liability insurance coverage sufficient to protect the public from any damage or harm caused by the animal.

•Take any other action appropriate to protect the public. MCL 287.322(5)(a)-(e) (some quotation marks omitted).

3.Caselaw

Although MCL 287.321 does not define “attack,” an attack “require[s] targeted conduct by the attacker against the attackee,” e.g., for an animal “to set upon or work against forcefully, to begin to affect or to act on injuriously, to set upon with violent force, and to act on in a detrimental way, cause harm to.” In re Tato, 339 Mich App 654, 661 (2021) (cleaned up).
Thus, an animal does not “attack” where there are “individuals or animals who are simply in the area or incidentally hurt as a result of the attack.” Id. at 661. In Tato, a dog who escaped from his home attacked a smaller dog who was out on a walk with her owner. Id. at 657. The owner of the smaller dog was able to free her dog, but received minor scrapes during the incident; a group of people nearby also attempted to assist in the release of the smaller dog but they were not injured. Id. at 657, 658. The smaller dog suffered an injury to one ear that did not require stitches and was not noticeable after grooming. Id. at 658. The trial court improperly concluded that the larger dog was a dangerous animal because none of the people involved in the incident were the target of his attack and there were only incidental injuries. Id. at 662. Additionally, the injuries suffered by the smaller dog “[did] not amount to disfigurement or impairment that could be deemed to rise to the level of a ‘serious injury’ under [MCL 287.321(e)].” Tato, 339 Mich App at 662. Accordingly, the dog was not a dangerous animal under the statute because he did not attack a person and did not cause serious injury to an animal. Id. at 662, 663.

4.Additional Requirements for Dogs Under Dog Law of 1919

A district court magistrate must issue a summons to show cause why a dog should not be killed upon a sworn complaint that any of the following exist:

“(a) After January 10 and before June 15 in each year a dog over 6 months old is running at large unaccompanied by its owner or is engaged in lawful hunting and is not under the reasonable control of its owner without a license attached to the collar of the dog.

(b) A dog, licensed or unlicensed, has destroyed property or habitually causes damage by trespassing on the property of a person who is not the owner.

(c) A dog, licensed or unlicensed, has attacked or bitten a person.

(d) A dog has shown vicious habits or has molested a person when lawfully on the public highway.

(e) A dog duly licensed and wearing a license tag has run at large contrary to [the Dog Law of 1919].” MCL 287.286a(1)(a)-(e).

After a hearing on the complaint, the district court magistrate may either order the dog killed or order the dog confined to the owner’s premises.

If the owner disobeys the order, the owner may be punished under MCL 287.286.² MCL 287.286a(2). “Costs as in a civil case shall be taxed against the owner of the dog, and collected by the county. The county board of commissioners shall audit and pay claims for services of officers rendered pursuant to this section, unless the claims are paid by the owner of the dog.” Id.

F.Abandoned Vehicles³

“A hearing under this section [held upon the filing of a petition prescribed in MCL 257.252a, MCL 257.252b, or MCL 257.252d] shall be conducted by a district court magistrate, if a district court magistrate has been appointed by the court. The appeal of a district court magistrate’s decision under this section shall be heard by a judge of the district court.” MCL 257.252f.