source doctrine in Michigan

2017“The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Id. at 443 .

2017“The independent source doctrine allows admission of evidence that has been discovered by means wholly independent of any constitutional violation.” Id. at 443 .

2021See Utah v Strieff, ___ US ___; 136 S Ct 2056, 2061 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (explaining that “the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source”).

2021See Utah v Strieff, ___ US ___; 136 S Ct 2056, 2061 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (explaining that “the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source”).

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

1999Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich 496, 508-509 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] In Nix v Williams, 467 US 431 ; 104 S Ct 2501 ; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984), the United States Supreme Court considered whether there is an exception to the exclusionary rule for evidence that inevitably would have been discovered regardless of the constitutional violation.

2022Id.

2022Id.

2021See Utah v Strieff, ___ US ___; 136 S Ct 2056, 2061 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (explaining that “the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source”).

2021See Utah v Strieff, ___ US ___; 136 S Ct 2056, 2061 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (explaining that “the independent source doctrine allows trial courts to admit evidence obtained in an unlawful search if officers independently acquired it from a separate, independent source”).

1986Thus, while the independent source exception would not justify admission of evidence in this case, its rationale is wholly consistent with and justifies our adoption of the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the Exclusionary Rule. [ Nix, supra, 104 S Ct 2509 .] This principle was acknowledged by us in People v Harajli, 148 Mich App 189 ; 384 NW2d 126 (1986).

1986Thus, while the independent source exception would not justify admission of evidence in this case, its rationale is wholly consistent with and justifies our adoption of the ultimate or inevitable discovery exception to the Exclusionary Rule. [ Nix, supra, 104 S Ct 2509 .] This principle was acknowledged by us in People v Harajli, 148 Mich App 189 ; 384 NW2d 126 (1986).

2025Duncan, 462 Mich at 53 ; Stevens, 498 Mich at 174 ; see also MCR 2.513(B) (“The trial court must control the proceedings during trial, limit the evidence and arguments to relevant and proper matters, and take appropriate steps to ensure that the jurors will not be exposed to information or influences that might affect their ability to render an impartial verdict on the evidence presented in court.”).

2025Duncan, 462 Mich at 53 ; Stevens, 498 Mich at 174 ; see also MCR 2.513(B) (“The trial court must control the proceedings during trial, limit the evidence and arguments to relevant and proper matters, and take appropriate steps to ensure that the jurors will not be exposed to information or influences that might affect their ability to render an impartial verdict on the evidence presented in court.”).

2024While the trial court did provide two sets of jury instructions to attempt to remedy this issue, the multiple instructions themselves were a source of error. [W]e normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an ‘overwhelming probability’ that the jury will be unable to follow the court’s instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be ‘devastating’ to the defendant. [People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567, 581 ; 628 NW2d 502 (2001), quoting Greer v Miller, 483 US 756 , 767 n 8; 10

2024While the trial court did provide two sets of jury instructions to attempt to remedy this issue, the multiple instructions themselves were a source of error. [W]e normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an ‘overwhelming probability’ that the jury will be unable to follow the court’s instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be ‘devastating’ to the defendant. [People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567, 581 ; 628 NW2d 502 (2001), quoting Greer v Miller, 483 US 756 , 767 n 8; 10

2024While the trial court did provide two sets of jury instructions to attempt to remedy this issue, the multiple instructions themselves were a source of error. [W]e normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an ‘overwhelming probability’ that the jury will be unable to follow the court’s instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be ‘devastating’ to the defendant. [People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567, 581 ; 628 NW2d 502 (2001), quoting Greer v Miller, 483 US 756 , 767 n 8; 10

2024While the trial court did provide two sets of jury instructions to attempt to remedy this issue, the multiple instructions themselves were a source of error. [W]e normally presume that a jury will follow an instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence inadvertently presented to it, unless there is an ‘overwhelming probability’ that the jury will be unable to follow the court’s instructions, and a strong likelihood that the effect of the evidence would be ‘devastating’ to the defendant. [People v Dennis, 464 Mich 567, 581 ; 628 NW2d 502 (2001), quoting Greer v Miller, 483 US 756 , 767 n 8; 10

2019United States v Knights, 534 US 112, 118 ; 122 S Ct 587 ; 151 L Ed2d 497 (2001). 10 People v Loughner, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 20, 1997 (Docket No. 190286); People v Jan, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 1998 (Docket No. 196492). 11 See Brennan v Dawson, opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued September 7, 2017 (Case Nos. 16-10119). 12 The dissent notes the published decisions relying on Peterson but dismisses them because they “contain no discussion of the sour

2019United States v Knights, 534 US 112, 118 ; 122 S Ct 587 ; 151 L Ed2d 497 (2001). 10 People v Loughner, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 20, 1997 (Docket No. 190286); People v Jan, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 1998 (Docket No. 196492). 11 See Brennan v Dawson, opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, issued September 7, 2017 (Case Nos. 16-10119). 12 The dissent notes the published decisions relying on Peterson but dismisses them because they “contain no discussion of the sour

2019See People v Oswald, 208 Mich App 444, 446 ; 528 NW2d 782 (1995) (stating in dictum and without citing any authority, “Indeed, had defendant found the term of probation to be overly onerous, he could have declined the grant of probation, notified the court that he would not abide by the terms of probation, and submitted himself for sentencing directly under the [statute of conviction] . . . .”); People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484, 486 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (quoting from the partial dissent in Peterson); People v Richards, 76 Mich App 695, 699 ; 256 NW2d 793 (1977) (adopting without discussi

2019See People v Oswald, 208 Mich App 444, 446 ; 528 NW2d 782 (1995) (stating in dictum and without citing any authority, “Indeed, had defendant found the term of probation to be overly onerous, he could have declined the grant of probation, notified the court that he would not abide by the terms of probation, and submitted himself for sentencing directly under the [statute of conviction] . . . .”); People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484, 486 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (quoting from the partial dissent in Peterson); People v Richards, 76 Mich App 695, 699 ; 256 NW2d 793 (1977) (adopting without discussi

2019See People v Oswald, 208 Mich App 444, 446 ; 528 NW2d 782 (1995) (stating in dictum and without citing any authority, “Indeed, had defendant found the term of probation to be overly onerous, he could have declined the grant of probation, notified the court that he would not abide by the terms of probation, and submitted himself for sentencing directly under the [statute of conviction] . . . .”); People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484, 486 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (quoting from the partial dissent in Peterson); People v Richards, 76 Mich App 695, 699 ; 256 NW2d 793 (1977) (adopting without discussi

2019See People v Oswald, 208 Mich App 444, 446 ; 528 NW2d 782 (1995) (stating in dictum and without citing any authority, “Indeed, had defendant found the term of probation to be overly onerous, he could have declined the grant of probation, notified the court that he would not abide by the terms of probation, and submitted himself for sentencing directly under the [statute of conviction] . . . .”); People v Hellenthal, 186 Mich App 484, 486 ; 465 NW2d 329 (1990) (quoting from the partial dissent in Peterson); People v Richards, 76 Mich App 695, 699 ; 256 NW2d 793 (1977) (adopting without discussi

2010And finally, in Patrick v Young Men’s Christian Ass’n of Kalamazoo, the Court once again addressed a dedication under a plat act and settled on this descriptive term of art for the property interest at issue: “A plat conforming to the statute . . . operates as a conveyance of a fee, though probably it is a base fee.” Patrick, 120 Mich at 191 16 As discussed further below, Backus is the source of the rule in Michigan that a dedicated road that runs perpendicular to, and terminates at, the water conveys riparian rights to the receiving governmental entity.

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2006The Court has not extended the exclusionary rule to such situations since rendering its opinion in Dickerson, supra . [54] Tucker, supra at 447-448 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [55] Id. at 449 , 94 S.Ct. 2357 . [56] Id. [57] Ceccolini, supra at 280 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [58] Id. at 276-277 , 98 S.Ct. 1054 . [59] Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 , 81 L.Ed.2d 377 (1984). [60] Id. at 448-449 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [61] Id. at 444 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 . [62] Id. at 446-447 , 104 S.Ct. 2501 (internal citations omitted). [63] Hudson v. Michigan, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2964 , 162 L.Ed.2d 886 (2005). [64] See

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

2004People v. Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich. 626, 636 , 597 N.W.2d 53 (1999), quoting People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 508-509 , 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). [4] People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559 , 171 N.W. 557 (1919). [5] In Lo-Ji Sales, the local justice wholly abdicated his duty as a "detached and neutral magistrate" when he assisted in the search himself, and abandoned his judicial role when he authorized a search warrant that, except for specification of copies of two "adult" films previously purchased by an investigator, did not particularly describe the items to be seized, b

1999The source of the violation was the implicit assurance contained in the Miranda warnings “that silence will carry no penalty.” Id., 474 US 290 (citation omitted).

1999The source of the violation was the implicit assurance contained in the Miranda warnings "that silence will carry no penalty." Id., 474 U.S. at 290 , 106 S.Ct. 634 (citation omitted).

1997Three exceptions to the exclusionary rale havé emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero, 453 Mich 496, 508 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] To determine whether exclusion is proper, we must “evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule . . . .” Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590, 604 ; 95 S Ct 2254 ; 45 L Ed 2d 416 (1975).

1997Three exceptions to the exclusionary rale havé emerged: the independent source exception, the attenuation exception, and the inevitable discovery exception. [People v LoCicero, 453 Mich 496, 508 ; 556 NW2d 498 (1996) (citations omitted).] To determine whether exclusion is proper, we must “evaluate the circumstances of this case in the light of the policy served by the exclusionary rule . . . .” Brown v Illinois, 422 US 590, 604 ; 95 S Ct 2254 ; 45 L Ed 2d 416 (1975).

1996Lambert relied on the attenuation exception discussed in People v Walker, 27 Mich App 609, 617 ; 183 NW2d 871 (1970).

1996Lambert relied on the attenuation exception discussed in People v Walker, 27 Mich App 609, 617 ; 183 NW2d 871 (1970).

1996The exclusionary rule forbids the use of direct and indirect evidence acquired from governmental misconduct, such as evidence from an illegal police search. 20 Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, 21 the attenuation exception, 22 and the inevitable discovery *509 exception. 23 The Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible, relying on its holding in People v Lambert, 174 Mich App 610 ; 436 NW2d 699 (1989).

1996The exclusionary rule forbids the use of direct and indirect evidence acquired from governmental misconduct, such as evidence from an illegal police search. 20 Three exceptions to the exclusionary rule have emerged: the independent source exception, 21 the attenuation exception, 22 and the inevitable discovery *509 exception. 23 The Court of Appeals ruled the evidence admissible, relying on its holding in People v Lambert, 174 Mich App 610 ; 436 NW2d 699 (1989).