Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 780.657 (2026)
Executing search warrant; wilfully exceeding authority; penalty.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
SEARCH WARRANTS
Act 189 of 1966
780.657 Executing search warrant; wilfully exceeding authority; penalty.
Sec. 7.
Any person who in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined not more than $1,000.00 or imprisoned not more than 1 year.
History: 1966, Act 189, Eff. Mar. 10, 1967
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2021 · leading case: People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherf, 468 Mich. 488 (Mich. 2003).
People v. Hawkins; People v. Scherf, 468 Mich. 488 (Mich. 2003). “See MCL 780.657 (“[a]ny person who in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined not more than $1,000.”
People v. Hawkins, 668 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. 2003). “[1] MCL 780.657 provides: Any person who in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined not more than $1,000.”
People v. Stevens, 597 N.W.2d 53 (Mich. 1999). “§ 780.657; M.S.A. § 28.1259(7) provides: Any person who in executing a search warrant, wilfully exceeds his authority or exercises it with unnecessary severity, shall be fined not more than $1,000.”
People v. Keller, 739 N.W.2d 505 (Mich. 2007). “653, it would have specifically listed such a remedy and would not have provided the specific remedies in MCL 780.657 and MCL 780.658." [11] This Court scheduled oral argument on the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal.”
People v. Sobczak-Obetts, 625 N.W.2d 764 (Mich. 2001). “[1] Notably, the majority has not relied on the search warrants act's penalty provision, MCL 780.657; MSA 28.1259(7), as it did, erroneously in my view, in People v.”
People v. Asher, 513 N.W.2d 144 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994). “MCL 780.657; MSA 28.1259(7). The majority finds that, "in Polidori , this Court held that if the method of entry violates the knock-and-announce statute, the exclusionary rule must apply.”
People v. Vasquez, 602 N.W.2d 376 (Mich. 1999). “It did not, however, provide for suppression of the evidence when officers fail to knock-and-announce their presence.”
People v. Keller, 716 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “The Hawkins Court further supported its conclusion that exclusion was not an intended remedy by showing that the Legislature provided specific sanctions in MCL 780.657 [5] and MCL 780.658 [6] for a violation of MCL 780.”
People v. Polidori, 476 N.W.2d 482 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “See MCL 780.657; MSA 28.1259(7). The court concluded that the deterrent aim of the exclusionary rule would not be properly served by suppressing the evidence because there was a statutory remedy available if the officers wilfully violated the statute.”
People v. Howard, 595 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “, dissenting), citing MCL 780.657; MSA 28.1259(7).] We share Judge Gage’s concern that the Asher majority effectively disregarded the statutory misdemeanor sanction for violations of the knock-and-announce statute and attempted to elevate some, if not all, such violations to…”
People of Michigan v. Anthony Lemar Newman (Mich. 2021). “5 The Court noted that the statute at issue did not allude to the exclusionary rule and that the Legislature enacted MCL 780.657 (making it a misdemeanor to willfully exceed authority or exercise authority with unnecessary severity when executing a search warrant), concluding…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.