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.
6 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
People v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2004"There is no compelling reason to interpret Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11 as affording greater protection for this defendant than is provided under the Fourth Amendment." Id. at 40, 475 N.W.2d 684 . | 1 | 3 |
Sitz v. Department of State Policegreen2 sentences2026Among the most affirmed tenets of our criminal-law jurisprudence is the holding that the protections of Article 1, § 11, “have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart.” 19 In 17 Quoting Sitz v Dep’t of State Police, 443 Mich 744, 758 ; 506 NW2d 209 (1993). 18 Proposal 20-2, effective December 19, 2020. 19 People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019). 2026Among the most affirmed tenets of our criminal-law jurisprudence is the holding that the protections of Article 1, § 11, “have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart.” 19 In 17 Quoting Sitz v Dep’t of State Police, 443 Mich 744, 758 ; 506 NW2d 209 (1993). 18 Proposal 20-2, effective December 19, 2020. 19 People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Perlosgreen2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Smithgreen2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Chapmangreen2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 | 1 | 1 |
People v. Cataniagreen2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 | 1 | 1 |
People of Michigan v. David Allan Lucynskigreen2 sentences2025Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618 , 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision). 11 This Court considered the particularity requirement’s effects on the scope of a warrant-authorized search of a cell phone in Hughes 2025Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618 , 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision). 11 This Court considered the particularity requirement’s effects on the scope of a warrant-authorized search of a cell phone in Hughes | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People of Michigan v. Larry Gerald Mead
green
2 sentences2026Among the most affirmed tenets of our criminal-law jurisprudence is the holding that the protections of Article 1, § 11, “have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart.” 19 In 17 Quoting Sitz v Dep’t of State Police, 443 Mich 744, 758 ; 506 NW2d 209 (1993). 18 Proposal 20-2, effective December 19, 2020. 19 People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019). 2026Among the most affirmed tenets of our criminal-law jurisprudence is the holding that the protections of Article 1, § 11, “have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart.” 19 In 17 Quoting Sitz v Dep’t of State Police, 443 Mich 744, 758 ; 506 NW2d 209 (1993). 18 Proposal 20-2, effective December 19, 2020. 19 People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019). | 2 | 2021–2026 |
People v. Custer
green
2 sentences2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 2026See also People v Collins, 438 Mich 8, 27 ; 475 NW2d 684 (1991) (“[T]here is no evidence that those who later framed and adopted the 1963 Constitution had any intention of expanding the protection provided under Michigan’s search and seizure provision beyond that secured by the Fourth Amendment of the federal constitution.”); People v Chapman, 425 Mich 245, 252 ; 387 NW2d 835 (1986) (“The search and seizure provision of the Michigan Constitution, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, affords defendant no greater rights upon which to support the suppression than the Fourth Amendment.”); People v Catania, 42 | 1 | 2026–2026 |
People v. Bullock
green
2 sentences2025Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618 , 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision). 11 This Court considered the particularity requirement’s effects on the scope of a warrant-authorized search of a cell phone in Hughes 2025Compare People v Lucynski, 509 Mich 618 , 634 n 6; 983 NW2d 827 (2022) (noting that Const 1963, art 1, § 11 is interpreted coextensively with the Fourth Amendment unless there is a compelling reason for a different interpretation), with People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 30-31 ; 485 NW2d 866 (1992) (concluding that a textual difference between the Eighth Amendment and Const 1963, art 1, § 16 supported a broader interpretation of our state constitutional provision). 11 This Court considered the particularity requirement’s effects on the scope of a warrant-authorized search of a cell phone in Hughes | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.