warrant requirement in Michigan

2026Moreover, the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement, which allows an officer to seize an item felt during an “authorized patdown” “if the officer develops probable cause to believe that the item felt is contraband,” People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 105-106 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996), applies.

2026Moreover, the plain-feel exception to the warrant requirement, which allows an officer to seize an item felt during an “authorized patdown” “if the officer develops probable cause to believe that the item felt is contraband,” People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 105-106 ; 549 NW2d 849 (1996), applies.

2025Each of the exceptions to the warrant requirement require “reasonableness and probable cause.” In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 266 ; 505 NW2d 201 (1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025Each of the exceptions to the warrant requirement require “reasonableness and probable cause.” In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 266 ; 505 NW2d 201 (1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“Examples of exceptions to the warrant requirement are: (1) searches incident to arrest, (2) automobile searches and seizures, (3) plain view seizure, (4) consent, (5) stop and frisk, and (6) exigent circumstances.” People v Davis, 442 Mich 1, 10 ; 497 NW2d 910 (1993).

2024“Examples of exceptions to the warrant requirement are: (1) searches incident to arrest, (2) automobile searches and seizures, (3) plain view seizure, (4) consent, (5) stop and frisk, and (6) exigent circumstances.” People v Davis, 442 Mich 1, 10 ; 497 NW2d 910 (1993).

2026“Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest.” Arizona v Gant, 556 US 332, 338 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009), citing Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 ; 34 S Ct 341 ; 58 L Ed 652 (1914).

2026“Among the exceptions to the warrant requirement is a search incident to a lawful arrest.” Arizona v Gant, 556 US 332, 338 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009), citing Weeks v United States, 232 US 383 ; 34 S Ct 341 ; 58 L Ed 652 (1914).

2023One such exception to the warrant requirement is “[t]he performance of an inventory search by the police in accordance with departmental regulations.” People v Toohey, 438 Mich 265, 271 ; 475 NW2d 16 (1991).

2023One such exception to the warrant requirement is “[t]he performance of an inventory search by the police in accordance with departmental regulations.” People v Toohey, 438 Mich 265, 271 ; 475 NW2d 16 (1991).

2026“Generally, a 2 Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI. -3- search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless there exist both probable cause and a circumstance establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 407 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2026“Generally, a 2 Const 1963, art 1, § 20; US Const, Am VI. -3- search conducted without a warrant is unreasonable unless there exist both probable cause and a circumstance establishing an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 407 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 458 ; 894 NW2d 732 (2016). -8- One of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is a Terry4 stop.

2025People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 458 ; 894 NW2d 732 (2016). -8- One of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement is a Terry4 stop.

2019See, e.g., People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 293-294 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999). 3 We note that the district court failed to recognize that consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and did not make any factual determination as to the voluntariness of defendant’s consent.

2019See, e.g., People v Borchard-Ruhland, 460 Mich 278, 293-294 ; 597 NW2d 1 (1999). 3 We note that the district court failed to recognize that consent is an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement and did not make any factual determination as to the voluntariness of defendant’s consent.

2025An established exception to the warrant requirement is a Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), investigatory stop (Terry stop).

2025An established exception to the warrant requirement is a Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), investigatory stop (Terry stop).

2011Reliance on a case involving one exception to the warrant requirement to formulate the parameters of another exception to the warrant requirement is erroneous.29 27 See ante at 15. 28 See, e.g., Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 392 ; 98 S Ct 2408 ; 57 L Ed 2d 290 (1978) (stating that “[w]e do not question the right of the police to respond to emergency situations” by making warrantless entries and searches and citing Tyler); see, generally, Decker, Emergency circumstances, pp 441-444 (1999). 29 The general rule is that “searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by ju

1977The warrant requirement embodies the fundamental precept that a search must be preceded by a neutral and objective determination of probable cause and of the proper scope of the search, "[Bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment violations 'only in the discretion of the police.’ ” Katz v United States, 389 US 347, 358-359 ; 88 S Ct 507 ; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967) (emphasis by the Court).

2026A search or seizure conducted without a warrant is unreasonable per se unless the search or seizure falls “within one of the narrow, specific exceptions to the warrant requirement.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 418 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).

2026A search or seizure conducted without a warrant is unreasonable per se unless the search or seizure falls “within one of the narrow, specific exceptions to the warrant requirement.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 418 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).

1992The United States Supreme Court held that the inadvertence requirement that had been derived from Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 469 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L *537 Ed 2d 564 (1971), was the result of dicta and that inadvertence is not required in order to establish the applicability of the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.

1992The United States Supreme Court held that the inadvertence requirement that had been derived from Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 469 ; 91 S Ct 2022 ; 29 L *537 Ed 2d 564 (1971), was the result of dicta and that inadvertence is not required in order to establish the applicability of the plain-view exception to the warrant requirement under the Fourth Amendment.

2026This includes searches conducted in reasonable reliance on statutes subsequently declared unconstitutional, Illinois v Krull, 480 US 340 ; 107 S Ct 1160 ; 94 L Ed 2d 364 (1987); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on erroneous information contained in a database maintained by judicial employees, Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1 ; 115 S Ct 1185 ; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement, People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 541, 550 ; 830 NW2d 794 (2013); and searches conducted in reasonable reliance on the community-care

2024Outrage with such a scenario would be further proof that the police officers acted reasonably in entering the condominium in this case. [Lemons, 299 Mich App at 549 .] Accordingly, Officer Toth’s warrantless entry into the motel room was justified under the emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement and the trial court did not err when it denied Wilson’s motion to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of this entry.

2023People v Slaughter, 489 Mich 302, 312 ; 803 NW2d 171 (2011); Lemons, 299 Mich App at 545 . “[T]he emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement allows police officers to enter a dwelling without a warrant under circumstances in which they reasonably believe, based on 5 We acknowledge that the standard criminal jury instructions are not binding authority.

2023People v Slaughter, 489 Mich 302, 312 ; 803 NW2d 171 (2011); Lemons, 299 Mich App at 545 . “[T]he emergency-aid exception to the warrant requirement allows police officers to enter a dwelling without a warrant under circumstances in which they reasonably believe, based on 5 We acknowledge that the standard criminal jury instructions are not binding authority.

2016One exception to the warrant requirement is for an “inventory search.” In South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 370-371 ; 96 S Ct 3092 ; 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they follow standard procedures to inventory the contents of a lawfully impounded automobile, as long as the impoundment and inventory search were not a pretext and as long as the scope of the search was reasonable.

2016One exception to the warrant requirement is for an “inventory search.” In South Dakota v Opperman, 428 US 364, 370-371 ; 96 S Ct 3092 ; 49 L Ed 2d 1000 (1976), the United States Supreme Court held that law enforcement officers do not violate the Fourth Amendment when they follow standard procedures to inventory the contents of a lawfully impounded automobile, as long as the impoundment and inventory search were not a pretext and as long as the scope of the search was reasonable.

2026“As a general rule, searches conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless the police conduct falls under one of the established exceptions to the warrant requirement.” Beuschlein, 245 Mich App at 749 .

2025In addition to consent, another exception to the warrant requirement is the exception for “exigent circumstances.” If a search is conducted in exigent circumstances, police officers “may enter a dwelling without a warrant if the officers possess probable cause to believe that a crime was recently committed on the premises, and probable cause to believe that the premises contain evidence or perpetrators of the suspected crime.” People v Beauschlein, 245 Mich App 744, 749 ; 630 NW2d 921 (2001) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017“Generally, searches or seizures conducted without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional.” Barbarich, 291 Mich App at 472 .3 “Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446 , ___; 894 NW2d 732 (2016).

2017“Generally, searches or seizures conducted without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable and, therefore, unconstitutional.” Barbarich, 291 Mich App at 472 .3 “Consent is an exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446 , ___; 894 NW2d 732 (2016).

2025Under the motor-vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the police may search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. 37 There is probable cause to search a vehicle if the facts justify the issuance of a warrant, 38 meaning “where there is a ‘substantial basis’ for inferring a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” 39 In Kazmierczak, this Court held “that the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establi

2025Under the motor-vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the police may search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. 37 There is probable cause to search a vehicle if the facts justify the issuance of a warrant, 38 meaning “where there is a ‘substantial basis’ for inferring a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” 39 In Kazmierczak, this Court held “that the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establi

2025In those instances, “[i]t is the prosecutor’s burden to show that a search and seizure challenged by a defendant were justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Galloway, 259 Mich App 634, 638 ; 675 NW2d 883 (2003).

2025In those instances, “[i]t is the prosecutor’s burden to show that a search and seizure challenged by a defendant were justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Galloway, 259 Mich App 634, 638 ; 675 NW2d 883 (2003).

2020The Court reasoned that the justifications provided in Chimel v California, 395 US 752, 762-763 ; 89 S Ct 2034 ; 23 L Ed 2d 685 (1969), for this exception to the warrant requirement-- potential harm to officers and the destruction of evidence-- are less compelling in the context of digital data.

2020The Court reasoned that the justifications provided in Chimel v California, 395 US 752, 762-763 ; 89 S Ct 2034 ; 23 L Ed 2d 685 (1969), for this exception to the warrant requirement-- potential harm to officers and the destruction of evidence-- are less compelling in the context of digital data.

2025Under the motor-vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the police may search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. 37 There is probable cause to search a vehicle if the facts justify the issuance of a warrant, 38 meaning “where there is a ‘substantial basis’ for inferring a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” 39 In Kazmierczak, this Court held “that the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establi

2025Under the motor-vehicle exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement, the police may search a vehicle without obtaining a warrant if probable cause exists to believe that the vehicle contains evidence of a crime. 37 There is probable cause to search a vehicle if the facts justify the issuance of a warrant, 38 meaning “where there is a ‘substantial basis’ for inferring a ‘fair probability’ that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” 39 In Kazmierczak, this Court held “that the smell of marijuana alone by a person qualified to know the odor may establi

1982Furthermore, it is uncontested that no search warrant was obtained. *696 In People v White, 392 Mich 404, 410 ; 221 NW2d 357 (1974), the Court stated: "To sustain the validity of a warrantless search the burden rests on the. people to demonstrate the police acted in a reasonable manner, based on probable cause and in response to an exigent circumstance bringing the search under one of the specifically established exceptions to the warrant requirement.” In People v Dugan, 102 Mich App 497, 503 ; 302 NW2d 209 (1980), we set forth the proper standards to be used in applying the exigent circumstan

1982Furthermore, it is uncontested that no search warrant was obtained. *696 In People v White, 392 Mich 404, 410 ; 221 NW2d 357 (1974), the Court stated: "To sustain the validity of a warrantless search the burden rests on the. people to demonstrate the police acted in a reasonable manner, based on probable cause and in response to an exigent circumstance bringing the search under one of the specifically established exceptions to the warrant requirement.” In People v Dugan, 102 Mich App 497, 503 ; 302 NW2d 209 (1980), we set forth the proper standards to be used in applying the exigent circumstan

2024“One of the narrow, specific exceptions to the warrant requirement is searches incident to arrest.” People v Eaton, 241 Mich App 459, 461-462 ; 617 NW2d 363 (2000).

2024“One of the narrow, specific exceptions to the warrant requirement is searches incident to arrest.” People v Eaton, 241 Mich App 459, 461-462 ; 617 NW2d 363 (2000).

2000As pointed out by the Court in People v Blasius, 435 Mich 573, 583 ; 459 NW2d 906 (1990), “the risk of destruction or removal of evidence may constitute an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement.” The Blasius Court, after observing that the “precise contours of the exigent circumstances exception remain hazy,” id., stated that “ ‘[o]ur decisions have recognized that a warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal where there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant,’ ” id., n 7, quoting Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499, 509 ;

2000As pointed out by the Court in People v Blasius, 435 Mich 573, 583 ; 459 NW2d 906 (1990), “the risk of destruction or removal of evidence may constitute an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement.” The Blasius Court, after observing that the “precise contours of the exigent circumstances exception remain hazy,” id., stated that “ ‘[o]ur decisions have recognized that a warrantless entry by criminal law enforcement officials may be legal where there is compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant,’ ” id., n 7, quoting Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499, 509 ;

2025“When a defendant moves to suppress evidence as having been illegally obtained, it is the prosecutor’s burden to show that the search and seizure were justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Jordan, 187 Mich App 582, 589 ; 468 NW2d 294 (1991).

2025“When a defendant moves to suppress evidence as having been illegally obtained, it is the prosecutor’s burden to show that the search and seizure were justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.” People v Jordan, 187 Mich App 582, 589 ; 468 NW2d 294 (1991).

2021This is necessarily so, as inventory searches are exempt from the warrant requirement precisely because they are “described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433, 441 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973).

2021This is necessarily so, as inventory searches are exempt from the warrant requirement precisely because they are “described as community caretaking functions, totally divorced from the detection, investigation, or acquisition of evidence relating to the violation of a criminal statute.” Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433, 441 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973).

2021United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ; 94 S Ct 467 ; 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973) (“It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment.”).

2021United States v Robinson, 414 US 218, 235 ; 94 S Ct 467 ; 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973) (“It is the fact of the lawful arrest which establishes the authority to search, and we hold that in the case of a lawful custodial arrest a full search of the person is not only an exception to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, but is also a ‘reasonable’ search under that Amendment.”).