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. 5264 February 7, 1978 HOME RULE CITIES: Authority to adopt ordinance requiring installation of smoke detectors. STATE CONSTRUCTION CODE: Authority of home rule cities to adopt ordinance requiring installation of smoke detectors. FIRES AND FIRE PROTECTION: Authority of home rule cities to adopt ordinance requiring installation of smoke detectors. A home rule city is authorized to adopt an ordinance requiring installation of smoke detectors in structures built prior to the effective date of the State Construction Code. Honorable James DeSana State Senator 11th District The Capitol Lansing, Michigan You have requested my opinion on the following question relative to smoke detectors: 'May a Home Rule City impose by ordinance a duty on a homeowner, landlord, apartment owner, etc. . . . to install smoke detectors in housing built prior to the effective date of the State Construction Code?' The State Construction Code governing the construction, use and occupation of buildings and structures was promulgated in 1974 by the State Construction Code Commission pursuant to section 4 of the State Construction Code Act of 1972, 1972 PA 230; MCLA 125.1501 et seq; MSA 5.2949(1) et seq. City of Warren v State Construction Code Commission, 66 Mich App 493; 239 NW2d 640 (1976). The Code requires the installation of approved smoke detectors in all new constructions or building alterations commenced after its promulgation date, but does not impose this requirement on pre-existing structures. (1) Authority to adopt ordinances for the protection of the health and safety of municipal residents, particularly in regard to fire prevention, is found in section 3 of the home rule cities act, 1909 PA 279, MCLA 117.3; MSA 5.2073, which provides in part: 'Each city charter shall provide: (j) For the public peace and health and for the safety of persons and property. '(k) For adopting, continuing, amending, and repealing the city ordinances and for the publication of all ordinances before they become operative. Each city shal have power, whether so provided in its charter or not, to adopt any law, code, or rules which have been promulgated and adopted by a duly authorized agency of the state pertaining to fire, fire hazards, fire prevention, or fire waste, and any fire prevention code, plumbing code, heating code, electrical code, building code, refrigeration machinery code, piping code, boiler code, boiler operation codes or elevator machinery code, or codes pertaining to flammable liquids and gases, as well as to hazardous chemicals, which have been promulgated by the state, or by a department, board, or other agency thereof, or by an organization or association which is organized and conducted for the purpose of developing the code or codes, by reference thereto in an adopting ordinance and without publishing the code in full. . . .' Thus, pursuant to these provisions of the home rule cities act, a home rule city may adopt an ordinance requiring installation of smoke detectors in buildings within the city. The city may draft its own ordinance specifying the type or style of smoke detector required in each classification of buildings or adopt by reference the law, code or rules of a state agency or other organization which provides for smoke detection devices. In addition, the Housing Law of Michigan, 1917 PA 167, MCLA 125.401 et seq; MSA 5.3475(101) et seq, specifically authorizes cities and villages to exceed the minimum fire prevention requirements established therein for inhabited dwelling units. 1917 PA 167, supra, Sec. 8 provides: 'The provisions of the act shall be held to be the minimum requirements laid down in this act relative to light, ventilation, sanitation, fire prevention, egress, occupancy, maintenance and use for dwellings; nor be deemed to prevent any city or organized village or the board of health of any such city or village from enacting and putting in force from time to time ordinances and regulations imposing requirements higher than the minimum requirements laid down in this act; nor shall anything herein contained be deemed to prevent such cities and organized villages or the board of health of any such city or village from prescribing for the enforcement of such ordinances and regulations, remedies and penalties similar to those prescribed herein. And every such city and organized village or the board of health of any such city or village is empowered to enact such ordinances and regulations and to prescribe for their enforcement. . . .' [Emphasis added] 1917 PA 167, supra, Sec. 82 sets out the fire prevention and safety requirements for certain classes of housing. Among other things, in certain multiple dwellings not of fireproof construction, this section requires a manually operated 'bell, gong, siren or other approved alarm, of sufficient size and adequacy to be heard in every room or apartment of the building by a person of normal auditory perception.' Since pursuant to 1917 PA 167, Sec. 8, supra, a home rule city may enact an ordinance exceeding these minimum fire prevention requirements, an ordinance requiring smoke detection devices in buildings within the city is authorized. It may also be noted that a regulation adopted to protect health and safety, if reasonable, may validly be applied to pre-existing buildings as a proper exercise of the police power. As stated by the United States Supreme Court in Queenside Hills Realty Co v Saxl, 328 US 80; 66 S Ct 850; 90 L Ed 1096 (1946), upholding a New York state law requiring sprinkler systems in existing buildings: '. . . [T]he legislature may choose not to take the chance that human life will be lost in lodging house fires and adopt the most conservative course which science and engineering offer. It is for the legislature to decide what regulations are needed to reduce fire hazards to the minimum. Many types of social legislation diminish the value of the property which is regulated. The extreme cases are those where in the interest of the public safety or welfare the owner is prohibited from using his property. [Citations omitted] We are dealing here with a less drastic measure. But in no case does the owner of property acquire immunity against exercise of the police power because he constructed it in full compliance with the existing laws. [Citations omitted] The police power is one of the least limitable of governmental powers, and in its operation often cuts down property rights. . . .' 328 US 80, 84. In Wayne County Jail Inmates v Wayne County Sheriff, 391 Mich 359, 367; 216 NW2d 910, 913 (1974) the Michigan Supreme Court cited Queenside Hills Realty with approval stating: 'The objection that maintenance regulations when applied to buildings constructed before their adoption are constitutionally infirm was held to be without merit in Queenside Hills Realty v Saxl, 328 US 80; 66 S Ct 850; 90 L Ed 1096 (1946), wherein the United States Supreme Court held that such regulations were a proper exercise of the police power. . . .' Accordingly, it is my opinion that a home rule city is authorized to require by ordinance the installation of smoke detectors in structures built prior to the effective date of the State Construction Code. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)