Legislation to safeguard Michigan residents from being prosecuted for unintentionally violating thousands of state statutes and regulations has run into a snag in the state Senate. At this writing, it is unclear whether this represents a major obstacle or just a bump in the road.

The legislation — House Bill 4713 and Senate Bill 20 — would establish a default standard for defining criminal liability, known as "mens rea," which is Latin for "the guilty mind." This standard would require that unless a law specifically states otherwise, prosecutors would have to show that a defendant intended to break the law in order to get a conviction.

Proponents of a mens rea standard argue that it is particularly important in an era where so many crimes are defined by regulatory agencies and are largely unknown by common people. One much-cited number is that the average American commits three felonies per day, mostly unknowingly.

“I fully intend to put these bills through the Senate Judiciary Committee,” said the committee chair, Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge. “However, the Senate legal counsel has expressed concerns about how language in the legislation may affect past (already existing) laws. As an example, it could potentially nullify the law against selling cigarettes to minors.”

“There’s no problem with the wording as it pertains to future laws,” Jones continued. “But due to legal counsel’s concerns over the legislation’s possible effects on past laws, a meeting of interested parties has been scheduled so we can try to address those issues.”

Proponents of the reform argue that without a mens rea standard, Michigan residents face prosecution for violating laws they don’t even know exist. Michigan’s statute books contain an estimated 3,102 crimes, including criminal sanctions for complex or obscure administrative rules that average people aren’t likely to be aware of or fully understand. Yet according to one study, 27 percent of Michigan felonies and 59 percent of state misdemeanors contain no mens rea provision.

Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen Markman has called on the Legislature to clarify statutes that criminalize administrative offenses. House Bill 4713, sponsored by Rep. Ed McBroom, R-Vulcan, and Senate Bill 20, sponsored by Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, were introduced in response to Markman’s concerns.

The specific case that brought the issue to Markman’s attention involved Alan Taylor, a Sparta business owner who unknowingly became a criminal after he expanded an employee parking lot. After the parking lot was completed the Department of Environmental Quality informed Taylor that his project had encroached on a wetland. The department's lead investigator admitted it wasn’t clear that the lot was in fact on protected land. Ultimately, though, Taylor was found guilty and ordered to pay $8,500 in fines and costs.

House Bill 4713 was adopted and unanimously reported out of the House Oversight and Ethics Committee on Sept. 24. On Oct. 1, it was passed by the full House with a 106-0 vote. Senate Bill 20 was added as part of the legislative package in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It would make mens rea the default standard for all applicable laws.

The bills specify that they would not apply to certain types of laws, including substance abuse laws, traffic laws and identity theft laws. Groups that have offered testimony generally supportive of the legislation include the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, American Civil Liberties Union, National Federation of Independent Business, U.S. Justice Action Network and Michigan Chamber of Commerce. So far, the bills face no formal opposition.

The Senate legal counsel’s apparent objections referred to by Jones have raised concerns that the bills could get watered down. But Holly Harris of the U.S. Justice Network has expressed confidence that it won't happen.

"Chairman Jones has shown incredible leadership on justice reform issues, and as a 30-year veteran of law enforcement, he speaks with great credibility on these issues,” Harris said. “Requiring that a person have a criminal intent before he or she is labeled a criminal is a common-sense, bipartisan-supported reform, and we have faith Chairman Jones will get this bill across the finish line."

Jones said his goal is for the legislation to be reported to the full Senate by December.

“I might not have quite as much control over that as I usually would,” Jones quipped. “Unfortunately a good number of my legislative colleagues will soon be taking a two-week (deer hunting) break.”

While the debate over road funding has been a prominent story in news outlets lately, few people have noticed that cameras on highways and at traffic lights could be a way for governments to take in more money from motorists. While governments may financially benefit from the cameras, the companies that lease them to governments lobby heavily for their use.

But now a bill in the Michigan Legislature seeks to clarify the state's position on traffic cameras.

Senate Bill 593, introduced by State Sen. Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, bans the use of unmanned traffic monitoring devices to detect or enforce violations related to speed limits, traffic signs, signals, markings and high-occupancy vehicle lanes.

“I think sometime next year we might just want to officially put a fork in those options and move on. The recent scandals that took place in other states show the true nature of some of these programs, and Michigan drivers have always, thankfully, valued freedom and we've avoided the added stress that cameras and their inaccurate ticketing can present,” said Shirkey.

So far, efforts in Michigan to use cameras for traffic-law enforcement have been stymied. In 2007, then-Attorney General Michael Cox declared that most tickets from cameras would be invalid. He said that railroad crossings are the only places where tickets-by-camera are allowed under state law.

According to the Governors Highway Safety Association, 12 states have a speed-enforcement camera in at least one location, while 24 states have at least one operating red-light camera. There have recently been discussions in a congressional committee to deploy cameras in schools zones under a federal highway program.

The only thing stopping the use of cameras (beyond railroad crossings) in Michigan is the attorney general’s opinion, but efforts to install them persist.

In addition to codifying the past opinions from the attorney general's office on traffic cameras, Shirkey's bill prohibits the Michigan secretary of state from adding points to a driver's license based on violations caught on cameras in other states.

The secretary of state's office cannot say how many points have been issued over the years from violations attributed to out-of-state traffic cameras. States share information on moving violations through the National Driver Register as well as the Commercial Driver’s License Information Service. Michigan law requires out-of-state violations to be recorded on license records using Michigan’s point system.

“We don’t normally know the details of a ticket, only that the person received the ticket. If someone gets a ticket for running a red light, we would record the violation on the person’s driving record regardless of whether the ticket came from a camera or a police officer sitting in a squad car,” said Fred Woodhams, spokesman for the Michigan secretary of state.

Under the bill, it is conceivable that an out-of-state ticket would not generate points if the motorist could present evidence that it was generated by a traffic camera.

Points can be costly to motorists since insurance companies often impose surcharges for up to three years after they are levied. In some instances, though, drivers can avoid having points added to their licenses if they take a state-approved safety class. The price of a class varies by sponsor, but can reach a maximum of $100. In the 2013-14 fiscal year, the secretary of state offered the opportunity to 272,070 motorists, and 72,507 completed a course.