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.
11 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2021 1 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. Hellstromgreen2 sentences2021“Finally, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, a warrant may be so facially deficient—i.e., in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized—that the executing officers cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” Hellstrom, 264 Mich App at 197 . 2020Under the good-faith exception, searches “pursuant to a warrant will rarely require any deep inquiry into reasonableness, for a warrant issued by a magistrate normally suffices to establish that a law enforcement officer has acted in good faith in conducting the search.” Hellstrom, 264 Mich App at 197 (quotation marks and citation omitted). | 2 | 3 |
People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherfgreen2 sentences2018People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 499 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003) The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, however, does not apply to a search or seizure conducted by a private person not acting as an agent of the government and acting without the government’s participation or knowledge. 2004Leon, supra at 906-907 ; see also People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 510-511 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687 , 711 n 19; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
People v. Hawkinsgreen2 sentences2018People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 499 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003) The prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, however, does not apply to a search or seizure conducted by a private person not acting as an agent of the government and acting without the government’s participation or knowledge. 2004Leon, supra at 906-907 ; see also People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 510-511 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687 , 711 n 19; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
People v. Goldston
green
2 sentences2020In adopting the good-faith exception, the Court explained that “[t]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct,” id., and “the goal of the exclusionary rule would not be furthered where police officers act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant,” id. at 538 . 2020In adopting the good-faith exception, the Court explained that “[t]he purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct,” id., and “the goal of the exclusionary rule would not be furthered where police officers act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant,” id. at 538 . | 8 | 2004–2020 |
People of Michigan v. Edward Michael Czuprynski
green
2 sentences2021Thus, the goal of the exclusionary rule would not be furthered where police officers act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant.” Id. at 196 (quotation marks and citation omitted.) In People v Czuprynski, 325 Mich App 449, 472 ; 926 NW2d 282 (2018), this Court explained: Reliance on a warrant is reasonable even if the warrant is later invalidated for lack of probable cause, except under three circumstances: (1) if the issuing magistrate or judge is misled by information in the affidavit that the affiant either knew was false or would have known was false except for h 2021Thus, the goal of the exclusionary rule would not be furthered where police officers act in objectively reasonable good-faith reliance on a search warrant.” Id. at 196 (quotation marks and citation omitted.) In People v Czuprynski, 325 Mich App 449, 472 ; 926 NW2d 282 (2018), this Court explained: Reliance on a warrant is reasonable even if the warrant is later invalidated for lack of probable cause, except under three circumstances: (1) if the issuing magistrate or judge is misled by information in the affidavit that the affiant either knew was false or would have known was false except for h | 1 | 2021–2021 |
United States v. Leon
green
2 sentences2004Leon, supra at 906-907 ; see also People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 510-511 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687 , 711 n 19; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). 2004Leon, supra at 906-907 , 104 S.Ct. 3405 ; see also People v. Hawkins, 468 Mich. 488, 510-511 , 668 N.W.2d 602 (2003); People v. Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich. 687 , 711 n. 19, 625 N.W.2d 764 (2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
People v. Sobczak-Obetts
green
2 sentences2004Leon, supra at 906-907 ; see also People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 510-511 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687 , 711 n 19; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). 2004Leon, supra at 906-907 ; see also People v Hawkins, 468 Mich 488, 510-511 ; 668 NW2d 602 (2003); People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687 , 711 n 19; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.