The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5158 July 19, 1977 COUNTIES: Authority to establish a law enforcement central dispatch organization. TOWNSHIPS: Authority to establish a law enforcement central dispatch organization. VILLAGES: Authority to establish a law enforcement central dispatch organization. CITIES: Authority to establish a law enforcement central dispatch organization. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY: Liability of a law enforcement central dispatching organization. Two or more counties, cities, villages and townships adjacent to each other may join together by contract or by establishment of an inter-municipal police authority to provide police services to the respective counties, cities, villages and townships. A law enforcement central dispatching unit is engaged in a governmental function and is therefore immune from liability for the actions of police agencies which it dispatches to the scene of a crime or accident. Paul A. Rosenbaum Chairman House Judiciary Committee House of Representatives P.O. Box 30014 Lansing, Michigan 48909 I am in receipt of your inquiry which poses the following two questions: '1. Does Attorney General Opinion 5031 only identify and delineate the authority of local officers working in conjunction with State Police officers or is the opinion also applicable to the law enforcement activities of police officers acting outside their own jurisdiction but in conjunction with officers of the jurisdiction where the law enforcement activity is taking place? '2. What is the authority and liability of a central dispatching organization when a patrol unit of one agency is ordered into the area of another law enforcement agency to answer a call when all units of the jurisdiction where the activity is taking place are otherwise occupied?' Regarding your first question, OAG, 1975-1976, No 5031, p ___ (September 17, 1976) stated that, pursuant to 1927 PA 175, Sec. 2a; MCLA 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1), local peace officers may exercise police powers outside their own jurisdiction in conjunction with the Michigan State Police. However, 1927 PA 175, Sec. 2a; MCLA 764.2a; MSA 28.861(1), plainly allows peace officers who derive their authority from one jurisdiction to exercise that authority in conjunction with peace officers of other jurisdictions as well as the Michigan State Police. Therefore, the answer to your first question is that although OAG, 1975-1976, No 5031, supra, was limited to defining the authority of peace officers to act in another jurisdiction in conjunction with the Michigan State Police, the statute also authorizes local peace officers to exercise their authority in another jurisdiction in conjunction with peace officers of that jurisdiction. Turning to your second question, as to the authority by which a central dispatching organization may be established, pursuant to 1967 PA 236, Sec. 4; MCLA 123.814; MSA 5.3323(4), counties, cities, villages or townships adjacent to each other may, by entering into a contract or by the establishment of an inter-municipal police authority, provide police services to the respective contracting governmental agencies. An arrangement agreed upon pursuant to this statute must be approved by the governing bodies involved. As to the liability of a central dispatching organization, the Court of Appeals has summarized the current state of the law of governmental immunity in Beauchamp v Saginaw Township, 74 Mich App 44; ---- NW2d ---- (1977). In Beauchamp the Court stated: 'Recently, the Michigan Supreme Court has had occasion to apply and interpret the above statute. (1) As of this date, we have been presented with three of these decisions. These three cases contain within them 11 separate opinions. Justice Williams has summarized the general consensus to be that 'the test of whether a governmental agency can claim immunity under the statute is whether the specific activity alleged against the governmental defendant falls within 'the exercise or discharge of a governmental function". Galli v Kirkeby, 398 Mich 527, 536; 248 NW2d 149 (1976), opinion by WILLIAMS, J. Our inquiry thus becomes, is the construction of a sewer by a municipal corporation activity in discharge of a governmental function? 'The majority opinion in Thomas v Department of State Highways, 398 Mich 1; 247 Nw2d 530 1976, generally defines 'governmental function' as: "a term of art which has been used by the courts of this state to describe those activities of government which due to their public nature should not give rise to liability at common law.' 398 Mich at 9. 'In utilizing that definition a majority of our Supreme Court agrees that maintenance and improvement of a highway is a governmental function, Thomas v Department of State Highways, supra, the malicious activity of state hospital employees in discouraging plaintiff's customers from doing business with his newspaper is not activity within the exercise of a governmental function, McCann v Michigan, 398 Mich 65; 247 NW2d 521 (1976), and screening, hiring and supervision of school personnel are governmental functions, Galli v Kirkeby, supra. 'We have been instructed that in making determinations of whether a given activity is or is not a governmental function we should analyze the given situations on a case by case basis. Our tools include the available case law, and, when the same is not clear, we are to utilize our 'own creative genius' in adapting the case law to resolve the problem at hand. Thomas v Department of State Highways, supra, at 11. . . .' Beauchamp involved the question of whether the construction of a sewer as a public health measure is a governmental function and concluded that such an activity is a governmental function so that the governmental agency is not liable for damages for personal injuries arising from an accident that occurred during the construction of a sewer. It is my opinion, therefore, that a central dispatching unit is engaged in the governmental function of law enforcement and is immune from liability for the actions of police agencies which it dispatches to the scene of a crime or accident. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)
'Except as in this act otherwise provided, all governmental agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all cases wherein the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.'