exclusionary rule in Michigan

2026In adopting the good- faith exception, our Supreme Court noted that the primary purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter “official misconduct by removing incentives to engage in unreasonable searches and seizures.” Id. at 529 .

2026GOOD FAITH EXCEPTION Relying on federal precedent, our Supreme Court adopted the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in Goldston, 470 Mich at 541 .

2026Acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the rule does not require exclusion of evidence in all cases, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, United States v Leon, 468 US 897, 907-908 ; 104 S Ct 3405 ; 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), and our Supreme Court subsequently adopted that exception, Goldston, 468 Mich at 541 .

2026Acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the rule does not require exclusion of evidence in all cases, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, United States v Leon, 468 US 897, 907-908 ; 104 S Ct 3405 ; 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), and our Supreme Court subsequently adopted that exception, Goldston, 468 Mich at 541 .

2026Acknowledging that the underlying purpose of the rule does not require exclusion of evidence in all cases, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, United States v Leon, 468 US 897, 907-908 ; 104 S Ct 3405 ; 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984), and our Supreme Court subsequently adopted that exception, Goldston, 468 Mich at 541 .

2026“The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that originated as a means to protect the Fourth Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v -9- Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 498 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003).

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2025See Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 432 Mich 656, 667-668 ; 443 NW2d 734 (1989) (stating that “although some courts have addressed the exclusionary clause before determining whether coverage exists under a policy, . . . the proper construction of a contract requires that we determine whether coverage exists and then whether an exclusion precludes coverage.”).

2025See Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, 432 Mich 656, 667-668 ; 443 NW2d 734 (1989) (stating that “although some courts have addressed the exclusionary clause before determining whether coverage exists under a policy, . . . the proper construction of a contract requires that we determine whether coverage exists and then whether an exclusion precludes coverage.”).

2024In Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 655-660 ; 81 S Ct 1684 ; 6 L Ed 2d 1081 (1961), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to state governments through the incorporation doctrine. 7 does not itself violate the Constitution. 18 Rather, a violation of the Constitution arises from the illegal search or seizure itself, and no exclusion of evidence can cure the invasion of rights a person has already suffered. 19 Moreover, nothing in the history of the rule suggests that it bars the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.

2024In Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643, 655-660 ; 81 S Ct 1684 ; 6 L Ed 2d 1081 (1961), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule applies to state governments through the incorporation doctrine. 7 does not itself violate the Constitution. 18 Rather, a violation of the Constitution arises from the illegal search or seizure itself, and no exclusion of evidence can cure the invasion of rights a person has already suffered. 19 Moreover, nothing in the history of the rule suggests that it bars the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons.

2026“Additionally, the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of an illegal search, the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 633-634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 487-488 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).

2026“Additionally, the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of an illegal search, the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 633-634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 487-488 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2026To that end, “application of the exclusionary rule is inappropriate in the absence of governmental misconduct.” People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 250 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007).

2026To that end, “application of the exclusionary rule is inappropriate in the absence of governmental misconduct.” People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 250 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007).

2022“The introduction into evidence of materials seized and observations made during an unlawful search is prohibited by the exclusionary rule.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 ; 34 S Ct 341 ; 58 L Ed 652 (1914), overruled on other grounds in Elkins v United States, 364 US 206 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961).

2022“The introduction into evidence of materials seized and observations made during an unlawful search is prohibited by the exclusionary rule.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 ; 34 S Ct 341 ; 58 L Ed 652 (1914), overruled on other grounds in Elkins v United States, 364 US 206 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960); Silverman v United States, 365 US 505 ; 81 S Ct 679 ; 5 L Ed 2d 734 (1961).

2024The order specifically cited “Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524 US 357, 364 [; 118 S Ct 2014 ; 141 L Ed 2d 344 ] (1998) (declining to extend the operation of the exclusionary rule beyond the criminal trial context); [and] Kivela v Dep’t of Treasury, 449 Mich 220 [; 536 NW2d 498 ] (1995) (declining to extend the exclusionary rule to a civil tax proceeding).” Long Lake Twp, 509 Mich at 981-982. 6 Long Lake Twp v Maxon (On Remand), 343 Mich App 319 , 323, 335-337; 997 NW2d 250 (2022) (Long Lake Twp (On Remand)).

2024The order specifically cited “Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524 US 357, 364 [; 118 S Ct 2014 ; 141 L Ed 2d 344 ] (1998) (declining to extend the operation of the exclusionary rule beyond the criminal trial context); [and] Kivela v Dep’t of Treasury, 449 Mich 220 [; 536 NW2d 498 ] (1995) (declining to extend the exclusionary rule to a civil tax proceeding).” Long Lake Twp, 509 Mich at 981-982. 6 Long Lake Twp v Maxon (On Remand), 343 Mich App 319 , 323, 335-337; 997 NW2d 250 (2022) (Long Lake Twp (On Remand)).

2026“Additionally, the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of an illegal search, the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 633-634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 487-488 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).

2026“Additionally, the exclusionary rule prohibits the introduction into evidence of materials and testimony that are the products or indirect results of an illegal search, the so-called ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ doctrine.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 633-634 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999), citing Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471, 487-488 ; 83 S Ct 407 ; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963).

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2024Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this case, we leave this question for another day. 2 See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246 ; 131 S Ct 2419 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011) (“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217 ; 80 S Ct 1437 ; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960). 3 As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created remedy designed to safegua

2024The Supreme Court observed that application of the rule in criminal trials “already punished” law enforcement officials for violating the Fourth Amendment, making further application of the exclusionary rule in a civil tax proceeding unnecessary. 31 Likewise, in Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Lopez-Mendoza, 32 the Supreme Court refused to extend the exclusionary rule to civil deportation proceedings, noting the 28 Id. at 351 . 29 Id. 30 United States v Janis, 428 US 433, 447-448, 454 ; 96 S Ct 3021 ; 49 L Ed 2d 1046 (1976). 31 Id. at 448 (quotation marks omitted). 32 Immigrations & Natura

2024The Supreme Court observed that application of the rule in criminal trials “already punished” law enforcement officials for violating the Fourth Amendment, making further application of the exclusionary rule in a civil tax proceeding unnecessary. 31 Likewise, in Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Lopez-Mendoza, 32 the Supreme Court refused to extend the exclusionary rule to civil deportation proceedings, noting the 28 Id. at 351 . 29 Id. 30 United States v Janis, 428 US 433, 447-448, 454 ; 96 S Ct 3021 ; 49 L Ed 2d 1046 (1976). 31 Id. at 448 (quotation marks omitted). 32 Immigrations & Natura

2026This exclusionary rule “is a judicially created remedy that -3- originated as a means to protect the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 498 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003).

2026“The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that originated as a means to protect the Fourth Amendment right of citizens to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v -9- Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 498 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003).

2020Moreover, in People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 250 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007), our Supreme Court, quoting the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433, 447 ; 94 S Ct 2357 ; 41 L Ed 2d 182 (1974), stated: “The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right.

2020Moreover, in People v Frazier, 478 Mich 231, 250 ; 733 NW2d 713 (2007), our Supreme Court, quoting the United States Supreme Court in Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433, 447 ; 94 S Ct 2357 ; 41 L Ed 2d 182 (1974), stated: “The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the defendant of some right.

2024The Supreme Court has, therefore, declined to order exclusion of wrongfully seized evidence when the exclusion would not deter unconstitutional law enforcement activity. 17 Limitations on the exclusionary rule are justified because the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence in a criminal proceeding 15 Id. at 392. 16 In Kivela, 449 Mich at 233 , this Court held that there was no “compelling reason” to construe the exclusionary rule as providing any greater protection than that established by the United States Supreme Court. 17 See Silverthorne Lumber Co, Inc v United States, 251 US 385, 392

2024The Supreme Court has, therefore, declined to order exclusion of wrongfully seized evidence when the exclusion would not deter unconstitutional law enforcement activity. 17 Limitations on the exclusionary rule are justified because the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence in a criminal proceeding 15 Id. at 392. 16 In Kivela, 449 Mich at 233 , this Court held that there was no “compelling reason” to construe the exclusionary rule as providing any greater protection than that established by the United States Supreme Court. 17 See Silverthorne Lumber Co, Inc v United States, 251 US 385, 392

2022See Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340, 346 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987) (extending the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule where the police conducted a warrantless search in reliance on a statute) and Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1, 16 ; 115 St Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995) (extending the good-faith exception where a search was made in reliance on clerical errors made by court employees).

2022See Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340, 346 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987) (extending the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule where the police conducted a warrantless search in reliance on a statute) and Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1, 16 ; 115 St Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995) (extending the good-faith exception where a search was made in reliance on clerical errors made by court employees).

2022The development of legal safeguards in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment fields in recent years has provided the victim of an unlawful search with realistic and orderly legal alternatives to physical resistance. [Id.] We find this reasoning persuasive10 as it is consistent with the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which “renders evidence seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant admissible as substantive evidence in criminal proceedings where the police acted in reasonable reliance on a presumptively valid search warrant that was later declared invalid.” People

2022The development of legal safeguards in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment fields in recent years has provided the victim of an unlawful search with realistic and orderly legal alternatives to physical resistance. [Id.] We find this reasoning persuasive10 as it is consistent with the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, which “renders evidence seized pursuant to an invalid search warrant admissible as substantive evidence in criminal proceedings where the police acted in reasonable reliance on a presumptively valid search warrant that was later declared invalid.” People

2024Under these facts, it is unreasonable to believe that excluding the photographs and video would deter future misconduct by law enforcement or any other actor in any way. 48 Further, “[t]he deterrent function is strongest where the unlawful conduct would result in a criminal penalty.” 49 And this case is neither criminal nor quasi- criminal; it is a civil infraction. 50 The Township is seeking only injunctive relief, which is 48 For example, applying the exclusionary rule to agents or proxies of law enforcement officers who violate the Fourth Amendment while “engaged in the often competitive en

2024Under these facts, it is unreasonable to believe that excluding the photographs and video would deter future misconduct by law enforcement or any other actor in any way. 48 Further, “[t]he deterrent function is strongest where the unlawful conduct would result in a criminal penalty.” 49 And this case is neither criminal nor quasi- criminal; it is a civil infraction. 50 The Township is seeking only injunctive relief, which is 48 For example, applying the exclusionary rule to agents or proxies of law enforcement officers who violate the Fourth Amendment while “engaged in the often competitive en

2018Thus, according to defendant, the gun and ammunition were only discovered because of the initial illegal search of defendant’s belongings and were therefore inadmissible.31 31 See generally Segura v United States, 468 US 796, 804 ; 104 S Ct 3380 ; 82 L Ed 2d 599 (1984) (“[T]he exclusionary rule [i.e., the suppression of illegally seized evidence] reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, . . . but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ”) (citations omitted); People v LoCi

2018Thus, according to defendant, the gun and ammunition were only discovered because of the initial illegal search of defendant’s belongings and were therefore inadmissible.31 31 See generally Segura v United States, 468 US 796, 804 ; 104 S Ct 3380 ; 82 L Ed 2d 599 (1984) (“[T]he exclusionary rule [i.e., the suppression of illegally seized evidence] reaches not only primary evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search or seizure, . . . but also evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality or ‘fruit of the poisonous tree.’ ”) (citations omitted); People v LoCi

2025The record lacks information on whether and to what extent such a distinction exists and, if so, whether Corporal Eaton was sufficiently trained to identify the difference. 12 In the trial court, defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to the exclusionary rule, citing Herring v United States, 555 US 135 ; 129 S Ct 695 ; 172 L Ed 2d 496 (2009).

2025The record lacks information on whether and to what extent such a distinction exists and, if so, whether Corporal Eaton was sufficiently trained to identify the difference. 12 In the trial court, defendant argued that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to the exclusionary rule, citing Herring v United States, 555 US 135 ; 129 S Ct 695 ; 172 L Ed 2d 496 (2009).

2023In determining whether the exclusionary rule applies, a court must “evaluate the circumstances of th[e] 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).

2023In determining whether the exclusionary rule applies, a court must “evaluate the circumstances of th[e] 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).

2026Additionally, “[w]e review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies.” Id. -3- III.

2024After a suppression hearing, “[we] review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies.” People v Hyde, 285 Mich App 428, 436 ; 775 NW2d 833 (2009).