- Home
- Create an account
- Advanced searches
- Scorecards
- Links
- About
Public Act 107 of 2010
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Sen. Ray Basham (D) on March 4, 2009, to prohibit the installation or use of a motor vehicle tracking device without a person’s knowledge, with exceptions for legitimate services (like On-Star), or use by law enforcement.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 4, 2009.
- Reported in the Senate on May 27, 2009, with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on January 26, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance of the bill as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the Senate on January 26, 2010.
- Referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 4, 2009.
- Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate on January 27, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the House on February 2, 2010.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 2, 2010.
- Reported in the House on March 17, 2010, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-3) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on May 25, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises various details, but does not change its substance. This version was subsequently superseded by another substitute with more changes. The substitute failed by voice vote in the House on May 25, 2010.
- Substitute offered by Rep. Mark Meadows (D) on May 25, 2010, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that revises details but does not change the substance as previously described. The substitute passed by voice vote in the House on May 25, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Justin Amash (R) on May 25, 2010, to not exempt from the tracking device ban the use of these by professional investigators. The amendment failed by voice vote in the House on May 25, 2010.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Lisa Brown (D) on May 25, 2010, to clarify that an exemption for parents allowing them to track a minor child applies only to the care when operated by the minor. The amendment passed by voice vote in the House on May 25, 2010.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on February 2, 2010.
- Passed 82 to 24 in the House on May 25, 2010, to prohibit the installation or use of a motor vehicle tracking device without a person’s knowledge, with exceptions for legitimate services (like On-Star), or use by law enforcement.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Received in the Senate on June 17, 2010, to concur with the House-passed version of the bill. Passed 34 to 0 in the Senate on June 17, 2010.
Who Voted "Yes" and Who Voted "No" - Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on July 1, 2010.
Most Recent Comments
1) Re: 2009 Senate Bill 325 (Restrict vehicle tracking device use ) by albaby2 on May 27, 2010Yes, If they have a legitimate reason. Example-to track case workers to see if they are actually visiting the clients and for how long, vs spending time at the mall or at home etc. After hours-no-unless it is used to track unauthorized use of government vehicles.
Reply
I have read where parents have had these installed on teenagers cars so they can keep track of where they are. In that usage, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. It can also show that the kid WASN'T in specific area at a specific time. Basham must have friends doing something they don't want anyone to know about.
Reply
I believe this bill is intended to prevent "buy here, pay here" car dealers from putting tracking devices in cars they sell on installment contracts. The device allows the dealer to track down and repo the car when the buyer neglects to make payments. The unintended effect of this bill would be to make it more difficult and expensive for people with bad credit, often the working poor, to purchase reliable transportation. Ironical, these dealers are considered by many to be unfair because they charge more for these vehicles because of the high risk involved in lending money to people who have a history of not paying it back.
Reply
View Full Conversation
