Related roll calls

Related record

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

Open script-free record →

Inspect published fields

Chamber: senate
Context text: However, not one of them gets to dress up and be a police officer. Not one of them can come in and pretend to be a police officer or look like a police officer, except for one set of inspectors in this state, and that’s the Motor Carrier Division. The Motor Carrier Division officers dress up like State Police officers and they come and pull people over, and they inspect vehicles—not just commercial vehicles either, but other vehicles as well. I think that is an egregious abuse of power that they’re able to look like police officers and it automatically puts them in an intimidating position with the citizens who are supposed to be being regulated, not being treated as if they’re committing crime. I think it would be wise for us, and my amendment proposes that they not dress in the State Police blue uniforms and they not have the insignias of the State Police on those uniforms so they are clearly not police officers when members of the public are forced to deal with them, just like it is when you deal with any other state inspector or regulator who comes to your business or to your home. I recommend a “yes” vote. Senator McBroom’s second statement is as follows: Mr. President, this amendment, similar to the previous one, but this time in regard to the vehicles that Motor Carrier drives. Once again, they drive in vehicles that are to any eye identical to the vehicles our state troopers drive around. While there is a slight label on the back side of the vehicle that tells you it’s Motor Carrier Division, that’s not something you can tell in your rearview mirror when they pull you over. I’ve seen so many hardworking citizens of Michigan—truck drivers, people with lawn care businesses, farmers—pulled over on the side of the road and dealing with someone who’s dressed like a policeman, who’s driving a car with red flashing lights like a policeman. If anybody else did these things, they’d be arrested for impersonating an officer. It’s not the right thing for our citizens to do, it’s not good for morale or for citizen understanding of their rights to be pulled over by somebody who looks like a policeman and put in a situation where they feel like they’re being treated by a policeman when it’s not a police officer, it’s a state inspector checking over a vehicle for deficiencies. We should be painting these cars a different color. My amendment doesn’t propose that we change this all at once, but as we acquire new vehicles in the future that we remove the State Police insignia, badges, and colors from these cars and that they come up with a different appearance that does not make it look like it’s State Police. I recommend a “yes” vote. Senator Runestad’s statement is as follows: I have a tremendous amount of respect for the troopers who are out on the streets protecting us everyday but there are so many issues with the higher-ups at the Michigan State Police. The Free Press did a complete exposé on issue after issue, issue of favoritism, there were allegations of people getting special treatment by getting answers to the tests in order to be promoted. People who had very little ability in terms of experience that were jumped over—many, many officers to get higher-level positions. This is something really, I believe, that we should be looking at as a Legislature, investigating the higher-ups in the Michigan State Police. The one who had resigned when the troopers thought they were going to get a much better situation with the individual who replaced them and they said it’s as bad or worse. There are so many issues. I’ll speak on this when I have my notes in front of me to walk through line by line every one of these issues, but again, I 100 percent support the troopers but there’s major, major issues that need to be dealt with at the high end of the Michigan State Police. The following bill was read a third time: Senate Bill No. 757, entitled A bill to make appropriations for the judiciary for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2025; and to provide for the expenditure of the appropriations. The question being on the passage of the bill, The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Excused: 2
Measure id: measure-6397
Motion text: The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:
Nays: 16
Not voting: 0
Result: passed
Sitting id: sitting-691
Vote date: 2024-05-09
Vote id: vote-7639
Vote number: 121
Yeas: 20

The bill was passed, a majority of the members serving voting therefor, as follows:

as follows:

The substitute was not concurred in, a majority of the members serving not voting therefor, as follows: