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. 5584 October 17, 1979 CONSTABLES: Abolition, restriction and limitation of authority DISTRICT COURTS: Authority to appoint a city constable to serve process issued for breaches of city ordinances MUNICIPALITIES: Authority of district court to appoint constable to serve process for breaches of city ordinances HOME RULE CITIES ACT: Authority of district court to appoint constable to serve process for breaches of city ordinances Persons appointed by the district court as district court officers may serve process issued by said court involving violation of city and township ordinances and it is not necessary that they also be constables in order to exercise such authority. Honorable Thomas J. Anderson State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 Citing section 32 of the home rule cities act, 1909 PA 279; MCLA 117.32; MSA 5.2112, and 1961 PA 236, ch 83; MCLA 600.8301 et seq; MSA 27A.8301 the following question: When a city or township abolishes the office of constable, would a district court officer have the same authority to serve process for ordinance violations as the constable had possessed? 1909 PA 279, Sec. 32, supra, provides: '(1) Except as provided in subsection (3) there may be elected or appointed in each city at least 1 constable who shall have like powers and authorities in matters in civil and criminal nature, and in relation to the service of process, civil and criminal, as are conferred by law on constables in townships. A city, by ordinance, may abolish, restrict and limit the authority conferred upon a constable by law, except that a city constable may be appointed by a district court as a district court officer and may perform duties permitted pursuant to chapter 83 of No. 236 of the Public Acts of 1961, as amended . . . A constable shall serve all process issued for breaches of ordinances of the city. . . .' [Emphasis added] District courts have jurisdiction, inter alia, of ordinance and charter violations punishable by a fine or imprisonment, or both. (1) The district court has the same powers to issue warrants as the circuit court. (2) Regarding service of process, RJA 8321 (3) provides: '(1) Civil process in the district court shall be served by a sheriff, deputy sheriff or a court officer appointed by the judges of the court of such purpose, except that officers of the department of state police may serve civil process in any action to which the state is a party and police officers of an incorporated city or village may serve civil process in any action to which the incorporated city or village is a party. '(2) Under rules of the supreme court, any other person may serve any process or order of the district court which does not require the seizure, attachment or garnishment of property or the arrest of a person. This section shall apply notwithstanding the provisions of section 1908.' [Emphasis added] District Court Rule 103, adopted by the Supreme Court, provides in pertinent part: 'Process in civil actions may be served by any person under or pursuant to section 8321(1) of the Revised Judicature Act and by any other person of suitable age and discretion who is not a party nor an officer of a corporate party upon leave of court. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no person other than a sheriff, deputy sheriff, court officer appointed by a district judge for such purpose, officers of the department of state police when the state is a party or police officers of an incorporated city or village when the incorporated city or village is a party shall serve any process or order of the district court which requires the seizure, attachment, or garnishment of property or the arrest of a person.' [Emphasis added] 1909 PA 279, Sec. 32, supra, provides that constables shall serve all process for breaches of city ordinances. Constables may be appointed as district court officers and authorized to perform the duties permitted such officers pursuant to RJA 8321 and DCR 103. A conclusion that a district court officer may not serve process issued by the district court for ordinance violations is not consistent with the express authority of the district court to exercise jurisdiction over ordinance violations. RJA 8321(1), supra, designates the officers for service of process of the district court, and RJA 8321(2), supra, authorizes service of process under the court rule by any person other than the officers designated in subsection (1), where the process or order of the district court does not require the arrest of the person. The designated officers are not within the prohibition against service of process or an order which requires the arrest of a person. The Supreme Court has provided by court rule, DCR 103, supra, for such service of process, and the rule, like RJA 8321, excepts from the prohibition district court officers inter alia. It follows that district court officers are authorized to serve process or orders of the district court which require the arrest of a person. It is, therefore, my opinion that district court officers may serve process issued by said court involving violations of city and township ordinances and it is not necessary that they also be constables in order to exercise such authority. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)
(2)
MCLA 600.8317; MSA 27A.8317.(3)
MCLA 600.8321; MSA 27A.8321.