judicially created exclusionary rule in Michigan

1995Although Mr. Janis was able to convince a state judge to quash the warrant in a state criminal proceeding, the United States Supreme Court held that "the judicially created exclusionary rule should not be extended to forbid the use in the civil proceeding of one sovereign of evidence seized by a criminal law enforcement agent of another sovereign." Id. at 459-460 .

1995Although Mr. Janis was able to convince a state judge to quash the warrant in a state criminal proceeding, the United States Supreme Court held that "the judicially created exclusionary rule should not be extended to forbid the use in the civil proceeding of one sovereign of evidence seized by a criminal law enforcement agent of another sovereign.” Id. at 459-460 .

2018Here, the court can consider the reliability of the claimant's testimony concerning the money's origin, its existence in her rental car[,] its intended purpose, the amount of the money in relation to her reported income, the fact that she was traveling along a known drug corridor in a rental car and that she had rented several cars in the preceding weeks, and any other circumstantial factors not specifically related to the physical characteristics of the money. [Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich at 460-463 .] Here, the trial court involuntarily dismissed the prosecution’s forfeiture case simply

2018Here, the court can consider the reliability of the claimant's testimony concerning the money's origin, its existence in her rental car[,] its intended purpose, the amount of the money in relation to her reported income, the fact that she was traveling along a known drug corridor in a rental car and that she had rented several cars in the preceding weeks, and any other circumstantial factors not specifically related to the physical characteristics of the money. [Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich at 460-463 .] Here, the trial court involuntarily dismissed the prosecution’s forfeiture case simply

2024Also relevant here, the judicially created exclusionary rule encompasses both the evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search and seizure, as well as any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,” also known colloquially as “fruit of 5 Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). 6 The circuit court neglected to evaluate the scope of Terry as it applies to Trooper Tompkins’s pat-down of Wilkins. -3- the poisonous tree,” subject to the attenuation-doctrine analysis.

2024Also relevant here, the judicially created exclusionary rule encompasses both the evidence obtained as a direct result of an illegal search and seizure, as well as any “evidence later discovered and found to be derivative of an illegality,” also known colloquially as “fruit of 5 Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1 ; 88 S Ct 1868 ; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968). 6 The circuit court neglected to evaluate the scope of Terry as it applies to Trooper Tompkins’s pat-down of Wilkins. -3- the poisonous tree,” subject to the attenuation-doctrine analysis.

2024Utah v Strieff, 579 US 232 , 237- 238; 136 S Ct 2056 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024Utah v Strieff, 579 US 232 , 237- 238; 136 S Ct 2056 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024Utah v Strieff, 579 US 232 , 237- 238; 136 S Ct 2056 ; 195 L Ed 2d 400 (2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Generally, under the judicially created exclusionary rule, “evidence that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible as substantive evidence in criminal 2 The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the Michigan Constitution is “construed as providing the same protection as that of its federal counterpart.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 634-635 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999). -3- proceedings.” Moorman, 331 Mich App at 485 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022Generally, under the judicially created exclusionary rule, “evidence that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible as substantive evidence in criminal 2 The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures in the Michigan Constitution is “construed as providing the same protection as that of its federal counterpart.” People v Stevens, 460 Mich 626, 634-635 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999). -3- proceedings.” Moorman, 331 Mich App at 485 (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2010Leon, 468 US at 906 .

2002However, the Evans Court reiterated the general rule that “state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 8 .

1995These concerns have been addressed in Janis and Tirado, supra. In Janis , the United States Supreme Court recognized that the judicially created exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct. " 'In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.’ ” Id. at 446 , quoting United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 348 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974).

1995These concerns have been addressed in Janis and Tirado, supra. In Janis , the United States Supreme Court recognized that the judicially created exclusionary rule is to deter unlawful police conduct. " 'In sum, the rule is a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent effect, rather than a personal constitutional right of the party aggrieved.’ ” Id. at 446 , quoting United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 348 ; 94 S Ct 613 ; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974).