community caretaker exception in Michigan

2026Moreover, in Hill, 299 Mich App at 411 , this Court held that: [E]ven if a constitutional violation by the officers had occurred on the basis of a lack of criteria sufficient to justify invocation of the community-caretaker exception, there is no need to invoke the exclusionary rule because the good-faith exception to the rule has gradually been extended by the courts to situations outside its traditional or historical contexts, and the police officers in this case were clearly acting in good faith.

2020This warrantless entry at least arguably qualifies for the community caretaker exception, Hill, 299 Mich App at 406 , Slaughter, 489 Mich at 310, such that defendant has not demonstrated that his counsel was not ineffective for failing to pursue a likely futile motion.

2026Here, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress concluding that, under Herring v United States, 555 US 135 ; 129 S Ct 695 ; 172 L Ed 2d 496 (2009), the good-faith exception applied because there was “no evidence of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct by the police.” But this misconstrues Herring’s holding.

2026Here, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress concluding that, under Herring v United States, 555 US 135 ; 129 S Ct 695 ; 172 L Ed 2d 496 (2009), the good-faith exception applied because there was “no evidence of deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct by the police.” But this misconstrues Herring’s holding.

2021See People v Carter, 250 Mich App 510, 518 ; 655 NW2d 236 (2002); Russell, 174 Mich App at 365 .

2013In Davis v United States, 564 US_; 131 S Ct 2419, 2426-2429 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011), the United States Supreme Court discussed the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule, the good-faith exception to the rule, and the evolution of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule: The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Amendment says nothing about suppressing evidence obtained in violation of this command.

2013In Davis v United States, 564 US_; 131 S Ct 2419, 2426-2429 ; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011), the United States Supreme Court discussed the Fourth Amendment, the exclusionary rule, the good-faith exception to the rule, and the evolution of the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule: The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Amendment says nothing about suppressing evidence obtained in violation of this command.

2011Others declare that the community caretaker exception applies, but then use law applicable to one of the other exceptions, such as the emergency doctrine.[20] 16 Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 ; 98 S Ct 1942 ; 56 L Ed 2d 486 (1978) (stating that no warrant is required for firefighters to enter a residence to fight a fire in progress); Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403 ; 126 S Ct 1943 ; 164 L Ed 2d 650 (2006) (stating that no warrant is required for police to enter a residence “to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury”). 17 See, e.g., Deneui, 2009 SD 99, at

2011Others declare that the community caretaker exception applies, but then use law applicable to one of the other exceptions, such as the emergency doctrine.[20] 16 Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 ; 98 S Ct 1942 ; 56 L Ed 2d 486 (1978) (stating that no warrant is required for firefighters to enter a residence to fight a fire in progress); Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403 ; 126 S Ct 1943 ; 164 L Ed 2d 650 (2006) (stating that no warrant is required for police to enter a residence “to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury”). 17 See, e.g., Deneui, 2009 SD 99, at

2011Others declare that the community caretaker exception applies, but then use law applicable to one of the other exceptions, such as the emergency doctrine.[20] 16 Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 ; 98 S Ct 1942 ; 56 L Ed 2d 486 (1978) (stating that no warrant is required for firefighters to enter a residence to fight a fire in progress); Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403 ; 126 S Ct 1943 ; 164 L Ed 2d 650 (2006) (stating that no warrant is required for police to enter a residence “to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury”). 17 See, e.g., Deneui, 2009 SD 99, at

2011Others declare that the community caretaker exception applies, but then use law applicable to one of the other exceptions, such as the emergency doctrine.[20] 16 Michigan v Tyler, 436 US 499 ; 98 S Ct 1942 ; 56 L Ed 2d 486 (1978) (stating that no warrant is required for firefighters to enter a residence to fight a fire in progress); Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 403 ; 126 S Ct 1943 ; 164 L Ed 2d 650 (2006) (stating that no warrant is required for police to enter a residence “to assist persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury”). 17 See, e.g., Deneui, 2009 SD 99, at

2011The Quezada Court stated that “[a] police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.”49 Thus, the warrantless entry in that case, like the entries in Tyler and Mincey v Arizona, was premised on an emergency situation, not simply that the officer was acting 46 See, e.g., Ortiz v State, 24 So 3d 596, 615 (Fla App, 2009) (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (“Other than situations involving the medical emergency exception, until today, the community caretaker exception has not be

2011The Quezada Court stated that “[a] police officer may enter a residence without a warrant as a community caretaker where the officer has a reasonable belief that an emergency exists requiring his or her attention.”49 Thus, the warrantless entry in that case, like the entries in Tyler and Mincey v Arizona, was premised on an emergency situation, not simply that the officer was acting 46 See, e.g., Ortiz v State, 24 So 3d 596, 615 (Fla App, 2009) (Orfinger, J., dissenting) (“Other than situations involving the medical emergency exception, until today, the community caretaker exception has not be

2011STANDARD OF REVIEW A court’s factual findings at a suppression hearing are reviewed for clear error, but the application of the underlying law—the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution—is reviewed de novo.12 9 Id. at 6. 10 Id. at 2-3 (METER, J., dissenting). 11 People v Slaughter, 486 Mich 1069 (2010). 12 People v Williams, 472 Mich 308, 313 ; 696 NW2d 636 (2005). 5 III.

2011STANDARD OF REVIEW A court’s factual findings at a suppression hearing are reviewed for clear error, but the application of the underlying law—the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution—is reviewed de novo.12 9 Id. at 6. 10 Id. at 2-3 (METER, J., dissenting). 11 People v Slaughter, 486 Mich 1069 (2010). 12 People v Williams, 472 Mich 308, 313 ; 696 NW2d 636 (2005). 5 III.

2011STANDARD OF REVIEW A court’s factual findings at a suppression hearing are reviewed for clear error, but the application of the underlying law—the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution—is reviewed de novo.12 9 Id. at 6. 10 Id. at 2-3 (METER, J., dissenting). 11 People v Slaughter, 486 Mich 1069 (2010). 12 People v Williams, 472 Mich 308, 313 ; 696 NW2d 636 (2005). 5 III.

1993These exceptions have been recognized by this Court in City of Troy v Ohlinger, 438 Mich 477 ; 475 NW2d 54 (1991).

1993These exceptions have been recognized by this Court in City of Troy v Ohlinger, 438 Mich 477 ; 475 NW2d 54 (1991).

1993The so-called emergency aid exception was described by the United States Supreme Court in Mincey v Arizona, supra, and what is sometimes called the community caretaker exception was recognized by that Court in Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973).

1993The so-called emergency aid exception was described by the United States Supreme Court in Mincey v Arizona, supra, and what is sometimes called the community caretaker exception was recognized by that Court in Cady v Dombrowski, 413 US 433 ; 93 S Ct 2523 ; 37 L Ed 2d 706 (1973).