Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Register and Subscribe Now
Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below:
PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from
The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series™:
Choose Your Subscription:
--OR--
Defendant moves to dismiss his charges on the grounds that the police officer violates the Ypsilanti City Ordinance No. 437.
When a city ordinance limits are the authority of a state law, the city ordinance is null and void.
Defendant, Joslin and Christante, was charged for possession of marijuana with the intent to deliver. The police officer, rather than filing the complaint with the Ypsilanti City Attorney, as required by statute, filed the complaint with the Washtenaw County Prosecutor. Therefore, Defendant seeks to dismiss the charges.
Whether Defendant’s charges should be dropped because the officer failed to follow the City Ordinance.
No, the Defendant’s charges should not be dropped because the officer failed to follow the City Ordinance.
Under the state law, municipal police officers are allowed to enforce the state law. Here, the officer was abiding by the state law. Therefore, the city ordinance, to the extent it restricts an officers’ ability to enforce the law should be null and void.