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.
8 Michigan opinions name it 2 courts 1975–2026 5 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. Randolphgreen2 sentences2026Further, “allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that evidence of the crime could be found anywhere on the phone and that the incriminating data could be hidden or manipulated would ‘render the warrant a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.’ ” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). 2025In so finding, Hughes relied upon People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227 (Colo 2015), describing that case as holding that: “allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that evidence of the crime could be found anywhere on the phone and that the incriminating data could be hidden or manipulated would ‘render the warrant a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.’ ” Hughes, 506 Mich at 542, quoting Herrera, 357 P3d at 1228 . | 3 | 4 |
People v. Herreragreen2 sentences2025In so finding, Hughes relied upon People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227 (Colo 2015), describing that case as holding that: “allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that evidence of the crime could be found anywhere on the phone and that the incriminating data could be hidden or manipulated would ‘render the warrant a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.’ ” Hughes, 506 Mich at 542, quoting Herrera, 357 P3d at 1228 . 2025In so finding, Hughes relied upon People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227 (Colo 2015), describing that case as holding that: “allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that evidence of the crime could be found anywhere on the phone and that the incriminating data could be hidden or manipulated would ‘render the warrant a general warrant in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement.’ ” Hughes, 506 Mich at 542, quoting Herrera, 357 P3d at 1228 . | 1 | 4 |
People of Michigan v. Kristopher Allen Hughesgreen1 sentence2025The writ should not leave the place to be searched to the discretion of the officer; and the modern authorities are unanimous in holding that a search warrant directing an officer to search places generally is clearly illegal.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted); see also People v Hughes, 506 Mich 512 , 542; 958 NW2d 98 (2020), quoting People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227, 1228 ; 2015 CO 60 (Colo, 2015) (citing Herrera with approval and summarizing its holding as follows: “[A]llowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that evidence of the crime could | 1 | 1 |
Kentucky v. Kinggreen2 sentences2022Kentucky v King, 563 US 452, 462-463, 469 ; 131 S Ct 1849 ; 179 L Ed 2d 865 (2011). 2022Kentucky v King, 563 US 452, 462-463, 469 ; 131 S Ct 1849 ; 179 L Ed 2d 865 (2011). | 1 | 1 |
Riley v. Cal. United Statesgreen1 sentence2020Such a per se rule would effectively nullify the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment in the context of cell-phone data and rehabilitate an impermissible general warrant that “would in effect give ‘police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.’ ” Riley, 573 US at 399, quoting Arizona v Gant, 556 US 332, 345 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009); see also People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227, 1228, 1233 ; 2015 CO 60 (Colo, 2015) (holding that allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that eviden | 1 | 1 |
In Re Forfeiture of $176,598green1 sentence2000In In re Forfeiture of $176,598, supra at 271, the Michigan Supreme Court considered the exigent circumstances exception to the general warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment: Pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception, we hold that the police 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. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Whitegreen2 sentences1975See People v White, 392 Mich 404 ; 221 NW2d 357 (1974). 1975See People v White, 392 Mich 404 ; 221 NW2d 357 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Michigan. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2025Moreover, this Court has recognized that a counsel’s error or omission that is “inconsistent or based on a misunderstanding of the law” may be sufficient to establish that their performance “fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required by Strickland [v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)].” People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 491, 494; 999 NW2d 490 (2023). 2 was essentially definitive. 2025Moreover, this Court has recognized that a counsel’s error or omission that is “inconsistent or based on a misunderstanding of the law” may be sufficient to establish that their performance “fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required by Strickland [v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)].” People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 491, 494; 999 NW2d 490 (2023). 2 was essentially definitive. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
People of Michigan v. Menayetta Michell Yeager
green
1 sentence2025Moreover, this Court has recognized that a counsel’s error or omission that is “inconsistent or based on a misunderstanding of the law” may be sufficient to establish that their performance “fell below the objective standard of reasonableness required by Strickland [v Washington, 466 US 668 ; 104 S Ct 2052 ; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984)].” People v Yeager, 511 Mich 478 , 491, 494; 999 NW2d 490 (2023). 2 was essentially definitive. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Arizona v. Gant
green
2 sentences2020Such a per se rule would effectively nullify the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment in the context of cell-phone data and rehabilitate an impermissible general warrant that “would in effect give ‘police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.’ ” Riley, 573 US at 399, quoting Arizona v Gant, 556 US 332, 345 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009); see also People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227, 1228, 1233 ; 2015 CO 60 (Colo, 2015) (holding that allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that eviden 2020Such a per se rule would effectively nullify the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment in the context of cell-phone data and rehabilitate an impermissible general warrant that “would in effect give ‘police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.’ ” Riley, 573 US at 399, quoting Arizona v Gant, 556 US 332, 345 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009); see also People v Herrera, 357 P3d 1227, 1228, 1233 ; 2015 CO 60 (Colo, 2015) (holding that allowing a search of an entire device for evidence of a crime based upon the possibility that eviden | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.