Court Opinion

ID: 9543990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:51:06.016633+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:41.356028
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). While I agree with the majority that the trial court was correct in denying the application for mandamus, I cannot concur in its resolution of the remaining issue. I do not believe the "polygraph statute” can limit a sheriff’s ability to dismiss his deputies.
As the majority states, it is an unquestioned principle of statutory construction that a specific statute takes precedence over a general one. In Dossin’s Food Products, Inc v State Tax Comm, *403360 Mich 312, 315; 103 NW2d 474 (1960), our Supreme Court stated:
"We shall apply the well recognized rule of statutory construction holding that the repeal of a specific statute by a general statute will not be implied or assumed.”
In Labor Mediation Board v Tuscola County Sheriff, 25 Mich App 159; 181 NW2d 44 (1970), our Court found that the office of sheriff is constitutionally created, whereas the labor mediation act is purely statutory. See also Brownstown Twp v Wayne County, 68 Mich App 244; 242 NW2d 538 (1976) , and Const 1963, art 7, § 4. I conclude that the specific statute takes precedence over the more general "polygraph” statute.
It is argued that Local 1518, AFSCME v St Clair County Sheriff, 77 Mich App 145; 258 NW2d 168 (1977) , diminished the preexisting statutory authority of a sheriff over his employees where a collective bargaining agreement has been negotiated. However, as the concurring opinion in that case emphasizes, the sheriff’s power is diminished only to the extent that he has voluntarily retracted it by personally entering into a collective bargaining agreement.
I therefore concur in the holding of the trial court that the specific language authorizing sheriffs to appoint deputies and to revoke such appointments at any time is controlling in this case.