Criminal prosecutions in Wayne County typically begin with the filing of a complaint and information after an investigation has developed sufficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. The information, which must satisfy the requirements of MCL 767.45 by specifying the nature of the offense, the time as near as possible, and the location, is filed following a preliminary examination in district court at which the prosecution must establish probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the charged offense. This process—complaint, arrest or summons, arraignment, preliminary examination, circuit court arraignment, and trial—unfolds in the 36th District Court for arraignments and preliminary examinations, and in the Wayne County Circuit Court for felony trials and circuit court misdemeanors. Attorney Maze's familiarity with every stage of this process, and with the judges and prosecutors who staff it, is a practical advantage that cannot be replicated by an attorney without Wayne County experience.

The Wayne County Prosecutor's Office charging decision is made through an internal review process in which assistant prosecutors evaluate the evidence provided by law enforcement and determine whether it establishes probable cause for each element of the proposed charge and whether the case is likely to result in conviction. Defense counsel who can present counterevidence, witness statements, or legal arguments against charging before the complaint is authorized can influence this evaluation at the most consequential moment—before the charging decision is made and before the criminal justice process is set in motion. This pre-charge advocacy is available only to defendants who have retained counsel early enough to allow meaningful intervention.

Investigative subpoenas issued under MCL 767A.2 et seq. are a significant tool in the Wayne County Prosecutor's investigative arsenal. The court's authorization of investigative subpoenas requires a finding of reasonable cause to believe a felony has been committed and that the subpoena target may have knowledge concerning the commission of that felony. People v Farquharson, 274 Mich App 268 (2007). A person served with a Wayne County investigative subpoena has the right to challenge it under MCL 767A.6(1) by filing an objection with the issuing judge and seeking a determination that compliance is not required. Failure to exercise this right before testifying—as the Court of Appeals noted in People v Seals, 285 Mich App 1 (2009)—may preclude a later argument that the testimony was compelled. The right to have legal counsel present at all times during investigative subpoena questioning, guaranteed by MCL 767A.4(g), is one of the most important procedural protections available to persons under investigation by the Wayne County Prosecutor.

Electronic evidence and digital records play an increasingly dominant role in Wayne County criminal investigations. Prosecutors routinely obtain search warrants for cell phones, computers, cloud storage accounts, and social media platforms, and the particularity requirement for digital search warrants is actively litigated in Michigan courts. The Michigan Supreme Court's plurality opinion in People v Carson, ___ Mich ___ (2025), condemned a warrant that authorized a search of "every nook and cranny" of a cell phone as insufficiently particular, creating new challenges for prosecutors who seek broad authorization to search digital devices. Defense counsel must carefully evaluate the scope of any digital search warrant executed in connection with a Wayne County investigation for compliance with the Fourth Amendment's particularity requirement as interpreted in Carson and prior decisions including People v Collins, 438 Mich 8 (1991).

The Warren Court's expansion of Fourth Amendment protections in Katz v United States, 389 US 347 (1967), established that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not just places, and that the government's interception of electronic communications requires compliance with warrant procedures. Michigan follows this framework through the search warrant requirements of MCL 780.651 et seq. and the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510 et seq., which governs access to stored communications and the use of electronic surveillance. In any Wayne County investigation that has involved electronic surveillance, stored communications warrants, or cell-site location data, defense counsel must evaluate the government's compliance with both state and federal procedural requirements to determine whether suppression is available.