Articles Posted in Search and Seizure

In legal jurisprudence, one rule that often comes under scrutiny is the exclusionary rule. This principle, which is used in the United States legal system, prevents evidence collected or analyzed in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights from being used in a court of law. However, like many legal principles, the exclusionary rule is not absolute. One such exception that has been recognized in various jurisdictions, including Michigan, is the “good faith exception”. This exception allows for the use of evidence that was obtained in violation of a person’s rights if the law enforcement officials collecting the evidence had a...

In a recent opinion from a Michigan court involving drug possession, the prosecution asked for the court to reconsider its previous order allowing the defendant to suppress incriminating evidence against him. The defendant had filed a motion to suppress evidence and dismiss charges of possession of a controlled substance less than 25 grams and possession of marijuana. The trial court agreed with the defendant that the drugs should not be used as evidence against him, as the police officer that looked in his car had not followed the correct departmental protocols while conducting the search. The higher court in Michigan...

The United States Supreme Court recently issued an opinion stemming from officers’ intentional use of force to apprehend an individual. The decision will likely impact the Michigan criminal defendant’s ability to hold police accountable for misconduct. More importantly for those facing criminal charges, the opinion will also likely have implications for how courts interpret search and seizure laws. The case stemmed from an incident where investigating officers were at an apartment complex. They approached the woman’s vehicle, and the woman fled, believing the officers were attempting to carjack her vehicle. As she was fleeing, the officers fired their weapons 13...

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution protect Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures of themselves or their property by law enforcement. The Fourth Amendment holds especially dear the sanctity of a person’s home in determining whether a search or arrest is reasonable. In Michigan, people are protected from arrest in their homes unless a law enforcement officer has a warrant to enter the home or probable cause that the defendant has committed a serious crime. The Michigan Court of Appeals recently affirmed a trial court’s decision to suppress confession and breath test evidence and grant a...

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a Michigan resisting arrest case in which the defendant claimed his conviction could not stand because he was lawfully resisting a police officer’s illegal seizure. Ultimately, the court agreed with the defendant, and reversed his conviction. The Facts of the Case According to the court’s opinion, police officers received a phone call reporting a man with a gun in a trailer park. Upon the officers’ arrival, the trailer park manager explained several people were in one of the trailers who did not live in the park. One of the men, the...

Recently, a state appellate court addressed a defendant’s appeal in a Michigan homicide case, arguing that a lower court should have suppressed a statement he made to police during an interrogation because they ignored his request for an attorney. According to the record, the 19-year-old defendant lived in the same neighborhood as the victim and was friends with him since kindergarten. The state contends that the defendant shot and killed the victim in a wooded area near the neighborhood, and returned to the scene about a month later to show his girlfriend the victim’s body. The man and his girlfriend...

Recently, a Michigan appellate court issued an opinion stemming from a defendant’s motion to suppress evidence based on his Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. In this case, the defendant was a passenger in a vehicle. The police pulled over the vehicle for having cracks in the windshield. When deputies approached the car, they noticed firearms on the floor, sitting in front of the defendant. The deputies searched the car and discovered that the gun was loaded. They also discovered heroin and cocaine behind the passenger door handle. The defendant was charged with several serious...

The United States and Michigan Constitutions provide all citizens with the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. For a long time, courts have interpreted this language to require law enforcement to obtain a warrant before searching a person’s belongings. However, the language provides no remedy when a police officer violates a citizen’s rights. This is where the exclusionary rule comes into play. The Michigan exclusionary rule is a judicially created rule that precludes the prosecution from using evidence that was obtained in violation of a person’s rights. Thus, if police conduct an illegal search of a person,...

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. In general, this requires police officers, or other government officials, to obtain a warrant prior to conducting a search. However, over the years, courts have carved out several exceptions to the warrant requirement, based on the reasoning that not every search is “unreasonable,” and not everything that would seem to be a search is legally recognized as a search. Whether a search related to a Michigan airport crime is valid can depend on a number of circumstances. Most airport searches are considered administrative searches, and...

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a Michigan breaking and entering case involving law enforcement’s use of GPS data recovered from the defendant’s cellular phone. The case required the court to determine if law enforcement’s search of the defendant’s phone required suppression of the evidence that was on the phone. Ultimately, the court concluded that the search was permissible, affirming the defendant’s convictions. According to the court’s opinion, the allegations in this case spanned from December 22 to December 23, 2016. Evidently, someone broke into a Clinton County business and then stole a car...