Willful neglect of duty in violation of MCL 750.478; Whether an obligation contained in a sheriff’s policy manual constitutes a duty “enjoined by law” for purposes of MCL 750.48; Distinguishing People v Medlyn; Comparing People v Parlovecchio; Statutory duty to maintain security of the jail under MCL 51.75; People ex rel McCallum v Gebhardt; Wayne County Sheriff’s Department (WCSD)

The court held that “an obligation imposed by a sheriff’s policy manual does not constitute a duty enjoined by law for purposes of MCL 750.478,” and that the prosecution did not identify the statutory duty imposed by MCL 51.75 as the duty defendant-former sheriff’s deputy failed to perform. Thus, the court remanded to the district court to allow the prosecution an opportunity to move to amend its complaint, and then allow defendant an opportunity to respond. It directed that if the prosecution chooses not to amend its complaint, the district court shall dismiss it. Defendant was charged with willful neglect of duty for allegedly allowing an inmate to escape the county jail as he was taking a smoke break outside. He allegedly “saw the escaping inmate and another deputy chasing the inmate, but ignored the situation and failed to assist in the inmate’s capture in violation of WCSD policy.” The district court issued a misdemeanor warrant for willful neglect of duty in violation of MCL 750.478. It later “denied defendant’s motion to quash, saying only that it based its decision on its review of the statutes and caselaw.” The circuit court affirmed, finding “it was permissible for the prosecution to cite an obligation imposed by the WCSD’s policy manual as the basis for the duty ‘enjoined by law’ that defendant allegedly neglected to perform.” On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that an obligation contained in a sheriff’s policy manual does not constitute a duty “enjoined by law” for purposes of MCL 750.48. “Like a contract, an obligation imposed by a sheriff department’s policy manual does not create a legal duty that a public officer or employee can be compelled to perform in a mandamus action[.]” A policy manual “drafted by a sheriff’s department, like a contract, is not ‘law.’ A violation of a sheriff department’s policies may result in the department taking adverse employment action against the violating employee, but we hold that such a violation cannot, standing alone, result in criminal liability under MCL 750.478.” The court declined “to opine on whether the prosecution’s allegations were sufficient to sustain a charge that defendant willfully neglected to perform” the duty enjoined by MCL 51.75 because it did not allege this in its complaint.