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. 6887 January 30, 1996 LIQUOR CONTROL: Enforcing state and local penal laws in a municipal subdivision and having an interest in a liquor license issued to a business located in another municipal subdivision A person enforcing the penal laws of this state or penal ordinances and resolutions of a municipal subdivision may not, under section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act, have an interest in a liquor license issued to a business located in another municipal subdivision. Honorable John J. H. Schwarz, M.D. State Senator State Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48913 You have asked if a person enforcing the penal laws of this state or penal ordinances and resolutions of a municipal subdivision may, under section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act, MCL 436.18; MSA 18.989, have an interest in a liquor license issued to a business located in another municipal subdivision. Your inquiry is prompted by an attorney who is under contract with a township and a village to prosecute ordinance and building code violations and who is also simultaneously a shareholder in a golf course located in a neighboring township that is seeking a liquor license. Section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act provides, in pertinent part: (1) A person who holds ... either by appointment or election, a public office which involves the duty to enforce any of the ... penal laws of this state, or a penal ordinance or resolution of any municipal subdivision of the state, ... shall not be issued a license, or have an interest, directly or indirectly, in a license. Section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act, which only applies to public officials who enforce state penal laws or local penal ordinances or resolutions, does not contain any language limiting the licensure prohibition to liquor licenses of businesses located in the municipal subdivision in which the person enforces state or local penal laws. Rather, the prohibition is statewide. This is confirmed by the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court that, under section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act, a district court judge in the City of Madison Heights could not have an interest in a liquor license in a business located in Holly, Michigan. See In the matter of Lawrence, 417 Mich 248, 256-259; 335 NW2d 456 (1983), including the briefs and records in the case, which demonstrate that the business that had the liquor license was located in Holly, Michigan. It is my opinion, therefore, that a person enforcing the penal laws of this state or penal ordinances and resolutions of a municipal subdivision may not, under section 18 of the Michigan Liquor Control Act, have an interest in a liquor license issued to a business located in another municipal subdivision. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General