[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

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. 6551

December 1, 1988

MOTOR VEHICLES:

Notation on driver's record of out-of-state bond forfeiture conviction

Posting of energy speed limit points for certain speed limit convictions

The Michigan Vehicle Code does not require the Secretary of State to note on a driver's record an out-of-state conviction of a Michigan driver if the abstract of conviction states that it is based upon a bond forfeiture.

The energy speed limit points set forth in the Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a(7), remain in effect.

Honorable Richard H. Austin

Secretary of State

State Treasury Building

Lansing, MI 48918

You have requested my opinion on two questions concerning the meaning and effect of certain provisions of 1987 PA 154 which amended the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq; MSA 9.1801 et seq, to increase the maximum speed limit for certain motor vehicles on interstate highways in rural areas and to provide for additional traffic enforcement measures for the protection and safety of the public.

Your first question may be stated as follows:

Does the Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a(10), as added by 1987 PA 154, require the Secretary of State to note an out-of-state conviction on a Michigan driver's record when the conviction is based upon a bond forfeiture?

1987 PA 154 amended the Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a, MCL 257.320a; MSA 9.2020(1), to add the following subsection:

"(10) If a Michigan driver commits a violation in another state that would be a civil infraction if committed in Michigan, and a conviction results solely because of the failure of the Michigan driver to appear in that state to contest the violation, upon receipt of the abstract of conviction by the secretary of state, the violation shall be noted on the driver's record, but no points shall be assessed against his or her driver's license."

Your concern is that this provision may conflict with Sec. 732(8) of the Michigan Vehicle Code which prohibits the Secretary of State from entering an out-of-state conviction on a driver's record when that conviction is based upon a bond forfeiture. The Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 732(8), MCL 257.732(8); MSA 9.2432(8), provides:

"The secretary of state shall discard and not enter on the master driving record an abstract for a bond forfeiture which occurred outside this state."

Similarly, Sec. 320a(3); MCL 257.320a(3); MSA 9.9020(1)(3), provides that "[p]oints shall not be entered for bond forfeitures." Thus, while Sec. 320a(10), as added by 1987 PA 154, appears to require the Secretary of State to note out-of-state convictions on a Michigan driver's record where the conviction is based upon a failure to appear to contest the violation, Sec. 732(8) prohibits the Secretary of State from entering such information on the Michigan driver's record if the abstract of the out-of-state conviction states that it is the result of a bond forfeiture.

I am informed that most states require an out-of-state driver to post a bond when ticketed for a traffic violation, which bond is forfeited if the driver fails to appear to contest the traffic citation. It follows that in many instances where a Michigan driver is convicted in another state "solely because of the failure of the Michigan driver to appear in that state to contest the violation," Sec. 320a(10), the conviction will involve a "bond forfeiture which occurred outside this state." Sec. 732(8).

Nevertheless, it is a well-established canon of statutory construction that where two statutes are in apparent conflict, they should be construed to give each full force and effect, if possible. People v. Cooke, 113 Mich App 272, 279; 317 NW2d 594 (1982), aff'd 419 Mich 420; 355 NW2d 88 (1984). If the newly added language in Sec. 320a(10) were construed as requiring the Secretary of State to note out-of-state convictions on a Michigan driver's record even in cases involving a bond forfeiture, it would amount to a repeal by implication of Sec. 732(8). Such implied repeals by subsequent legislation have long been disfavored by the courts:

"The presumption is always against any intention to repeal where express terms are not used, and it has long been held that repeals by implication are not favored so long as the Court can point to any other reasonable construction, Attorney General ex rel Owen v Joyce, 233 Mich 619 621; 207 NW 863 (1926). An intention to repeal by implication must be expressed in particularly clear terms, Joyce, supra; ...." Ficano v Lucas, 133 Mich App 268, 281; 351 NW2d 198 (1983).

See also, Klammer v Dep't of Transportation, 141 Mich App 253; 367 NW2d 78, lv den 422 Mich 978 (1985).

There is no clear manifestation of any legislative intention to repeal Sec. 732(8). Had the Legislature intended such a result, it would have expressly so stated in 1987 PA 154. Moreover, while it may be relatively rare that conviction of a Michigan driver for an out-of-state driving offense will not also involve a bond forfeiture, such non-forfeiture cases are nonetheless factually and legally possible. Effect may, therefore, be given to both Sec. 320a(10) and to Sec. 732(8).

It is my opinion, in response to your first question, that the Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a(10); MCL 257.320a(10); MSA 9.2020(1)(10), does not require the Secretary of State to note an out-of-state conviction on a Michigan driver's record if the abstract of the out-of-state conviction states that it is based upon a bond forfeiture.

Your second question concerns the impact of amendatory 1987 PA 154 upon the Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a(7), MCL 257.320a(7); MSA 9.2020(1)(7). Your question may be stated as follows:

Do the energy speed limit points set forth in Sec. 320a(7) of the Michigan Vehicle Code remain in effect in light of the amendments to Sec. 629b which eliminated reference to the reduction of the maximum speed limit to 55 miles per hour?

The Michigan Vehicle Code, Sec. 320a(7), provides:

"If a person is determined to be responsible for a civil infraction for a violation of a law or ordinance pertaining to speed by exceeding the lawful maximum on a street or highway which maximum was reduced by Act No. 28 of Public Acts of 1974, then points shall be entered only pursuant to the following:

"(a) Sixty miles per hour to the lawful maximum in effect before being reduced by Act No. 28 of the Public Acts of 1974 ... 1 point

"(b) Exceeding the lawful maximum in effect before being reduced by Act No. 28 of the Public Acts of 1974, by 10 miles per hour or less ... 2 points

"(c) Exceeding the lawful maximum in effect before being reduced by Act No. 28 of the Public Acts of 1974, by more than 10 but not more than 15 miles per hour ... 3 points

"(d) Exceeding the lawful maximum in effect before being reduced by Act No. 28 of the Public Acts of 1974, by more than 15 miles per hour ... 4 points"

1974 PA 28 amended a number of sections of the Michigan Vehicle Code, including Sec. 320a to add subsection (6), now Sec. 320a(7) above, and added Sec. 629b, MCL 257.629b; MSA 9.2329(2), which established a 55 mile per hour maximum speed limit on all highways after March 2, 1974. Prior to that date, the speed limit had been 70 miles per hour on all freeways. See 1963 PA 143 amending MCL 257.628(a); MSA 9.2328(a). On other highways, unless otherwise fixed, the maximum speed limit prior to March 2, 1974 had been 65 miles per hour during daylight hours and 55 miles per hour during night hours. Id.

1987 PA 154 amended Sec. 629b, eliminating any reference to the 55 mile per hour speed limit. However, there is no manifestation in 1987 PA 154 of any legislative intention to repeal the energy speed limit points set forth in Sec. 320a(7). Absent a clear expression of legislative intent to repeal, there is a strong presumption against a repeal by implication. Ficano v Lucas, supra.

In determining the Legislature's intent, it is appropriate to examine the legislative history of a statute. As the court stated in Wayne County Republican Committee v Wayne County Bd of Comm, 70 Mich App 620, 625; 247 NW2d 571 (1976):

"[C]ourts may refer to the history of the legislation, and the history of any amendatory legislation, including consideration of possible substitute bills, in order to determine the current legislative intent."

Examination of the legislative history of 1987 PA 154 demonstrates the Legislature's intention to retain energy speed limit points. The Senate passed Senate Substitute (S-3) to 1987 SB 135 to eliminate Sec. 320a(7) providing for the energy speed limit points. 1987 Journal of the Senate 2561, 2594. However, that subsection was subsequently reinstated in House Substitute (H-7) to SB 135. 1987 Journal of the House 2806. Thereafter, SB 153 was enacted with Sec. 320a(7) intact. The Legislature's rejection of the proposal to eliminate energy speed limit points is convincing evidence of its intention to retain that provision.

It is my opinion, in response to your second question, that the energy speed limit points established by Sec. 320a(7) of the Michigan Vehicle Code remain in effect.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General

[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]