exigent circumstances exception in Michigan

2023People v Oliver, 417 Mich 366, 384 ; 338 NW2d 167 (1983); see also In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261 , 267- 268; 505 NW2d 201 (1993) (the exigent circumstances exception allows the police to search a dwelling without a warrant if there is a risk of danger to the police or others inside or outside the dwelling).

2023People v Oliver, 417 Mich 366, 384 ; 338 NW2d 167 (1983); see also In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261 , 267- 268; 505 NW2d 201 (1993) (the exigent circumstances exception allows the police to search a dwelling without a warrant if there is a risk of danger to the police or others inside or outside the dwelling).

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

2024An exigency exists “where there is a risk of danger to the police or others inside or outside a dwelling.” People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 138 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014), citing People v Cartwright, 454 Mich 550, 558 ; 563 NW2d 208 (1997).

2024A recognized exigency exists “where there is a risk of danger to the police or others inside or outside a dwelling.” People v Henry (After Remand), 305 Mich App 127, 138 ; 854 NW2d 114 (2014). “[I]mminent and ongoing danger to the health” -8- of people . . . is considered a serious consequence warranting the application of the exigent- circumstances doctrine.” United Pet Supply, Inc v City of Chattanooga, 768 F3d 464, 490 (CA 6, 2014).

2022People v Tyler, 399 Mich 564, 579 ; 250 NW2d 467 (1977).

2022People v Tyler, 399 Mich 564, 579 ; 250 NW2d 467 (1977).

2017To qualify under the exception, “[t]he police must . . . establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 408 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).

2017To qualify under the exception, “[t]he police must . . . establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.” People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 408 ; 608 NW2d 502 (2000).

1993Relying on People v United States Currency, 148 Mich App 326, 331 ; 383 NW2d 633 (1986), 12 the Court in Williams held that pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed on the premises and that evidence of that crime could be found within, the officer may make an entry of the dwelling without a warrant where immediate action is necessary to (1) protect the police officers or others, (2) prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, or (3) prevent the escape of the accused.

1993Relying on People v United States Currency, 148 Mich App 326, 331 ; 383 NW2d 633 (1986), 12 the Court in Williams held that pursuant to the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement, if a police officer has probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed on the premises and that evidence of that crime could be found within, the officer may make an entry of the dwelling without a warrant where immediate action is necessary to (1) protect the police officers or others, (2) prevent the loss or destruction of evidence, or (3) prevent the escape of the accused.

1986People v Harris, 95 Mich App 507, 510 ; 291 NW2d 97 (1980).

1986People v Harris, 95 Mich App 507, 510 ; 291 NW2d 97 (1980).

2024The exigent-circumstances exception “allows police to search without a warrant ‘in cases of actual emergency if there are specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.’ ” Id., quoting People v Chowdhury, 285 Mich App 509, 526 ; 775 NW2d 845 (2009) (emphasis added).

2024The exigent-circumstances exception “allows police to search without a warrant ‘in cases of actual emergency if there are specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect.’ ” Id., quoting People v Chowdhury, 285 Mich App 509, 526 ; 775 NW2d 845 (2009) (emphasis added).

2024In Caniglia v Strom, 593 US 194, 196 ; 141 S Ct 1596 ; 209 L Ed 2d 604 (2021), the United States Supreme Court held that the community-caretaking exception differs from the exigent circumstances exception for rendering emergency services.

2024In Caniglia v Strom, 593 US 194, 196 ; 141 S Ct 1596 ; 209 L Ed 2d 604 (2021), the United States Supreme Court held that the community-caretaking exception differs from the exigent circumstances exception for rendering emergency services.

2023People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002).

2023People v LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579 ; 640 NW2d 246 (2002).

2015ANALYSIS5 “To prove that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of professional reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s performance.” People v Roscoe, 303 Mich App 633 , 643- 644; 846 NW2d 402 (2014).

2015ANALYSIS5 “To prove that defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel, he must show (1) that counsel’s performance was deficient in that it fell below an objective standard of professional reasonableness and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for counsel’s performance.” People v Roscoe, 303 Mich App 633 , 643- 644; 846 NW2d 402 (2014).

2014The police must further establish the existence of an actual emergency on the basis of specific and objective facts indicating that immediate action is necessary to (1) prevent the imminent destruction of evidence, (2) protect the police officers or others, or (3) prevent the escape of a suspect. [Id. at 271.] “Probable cause,” as required to justify a warrantless entry, “exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officers at the time of the search would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been or is being committed and that evidence will be found in a

2006Clearly, plaintiffs relied to their detriment on the free-flowing claims processing that is evident in this matter, and, therefore, the exigent circumstances requirement, as identified in Devillers, supra at 586 , is demonstrated. v Devillers is inapplicable because this case does not involve a statutory no-fault claim.

2001The Court noted that “911 calls reporting an emergency can be enough to support warrant-less searches under the exigent circumstances exception, particularly where, as here, the caller identified himself.” Id. at 630 .

2001Of course, the officers were not obliged to take the word of the subjects that no mischief was afoot; yet without some positive indication to the contrary — some objective manifestation of the existence of an emergency situation demanding immediate action — the officers were not justified in physically intruding into the sanctity of the home. [Id. at *7-*9 (emphasis added).] By contrast, in United States v Richardson, 208 F3d 626 (CA 7, 2000), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that an entry without a warrant precipi *753 tated by a 911 call fell within the exigent circumstances excepti

2001See, e.g., United States v Cunningham, 133 F3d 1070, 1072-73 [(CA 8, 1998)], cert den 523 US 1131 ; 118 S Ct 1823 ; 140 L Ed 2d 960 (1998); [United States v] Salava, 978 F2d [320 (CA 7, 1992)] at 321, 324-325.

2000When asked in his statement whether he had requested that an attorney be present before or during the questioning, he responded: “No. I made the statement by myself.” 2 See also Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 392-393 ; 98 S Ct 2408 ; 57 L Ed 2d 290 (1978), where the United States Supreme Court noted that there may be justification for application of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when police make a prompt search without a warrant of the area around a murder scene to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises for the purpose of protecti

2000When asked in his statement whether he had requested that an attorney be present before or during the questioning, he responded: “No. I made the statement by myself.” 2 See also Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 392-393 ; 98 S Ct 2408 ; 57 L Ed 2d 290 (1978), where the United States Supreme Court noted that there may be justification for application of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement when police make a prompt search without a warrant of the area around a murder scene to see if there are other victims or if a killer is still on the premises for the purpose of protecti