Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Michigan opinions name it 1 courts 2014–2024 4 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Michigan courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No positive-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. | ||
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2024Defendant argued that his cell phone was seized pursuant to an impermissible warrantless search; that the police impermissibly questioned defendant regarding his ownership of the phone without having first issued Miranda2 warnings; that the affidavit in support of the police’s request for a search warrant was inadequate in that it failed to establish probable cause to 2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed2d 694 (1966). -6- believe that the cell phone would contain relevant evidence; that the prosecution had impermissibly added charges in retaliation to defendant’s motion to 2024Defendant argued that his cell phone was seized pursuant to an impermissible warrantless search; that the police impermissibly questioned defendant regarding his ownership of the phone without having first issued Miranda2 warnings; that the affidavit in support of the police’s request for a search warrant was inadequate in that it failed to establish probable cause to 2 Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed2d 694 (1966). -6- believe that the cell phone would contain relevant evidence; that the prosecution had impermissibly added charges in retaliation to defendant’s motion to | 4 | 2021–2024 |
People v. Gipson
green
1 sentence2014People v Gipson, 287 Mich App 261, 264 ; 787 NW2d 126 (2010). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
People v. Brown
green
1 sentence2014People v Gipson, 287 Mich App 261, 264 ; 787 NW2d 126 (2010). | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.