Chapter 11: Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure Issues

11.1Suppression of Evidence on Fourth Amendment Grounds–Generally

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, US Const, Am IV, and its state constitution counterpart, Const 1963, art 1, § 11, prohibit “unreasonable searches and seizures absent a warrant based upon probable cause[.]” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417 (2000). US Const, Am IV provides:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Similarly, Const 1963, art 1, § 11 provides, in part:

“The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”¹

“[T]he Michigan Constitution is to be construed to provide the same protection as that secured by the Fourth Amendment, absent compelling reason to impose a different interpretation.” People v Katzman, 505 Mich 1053, 1053 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The reasonableness of a warrantless search or seizure is determined by balancing the governmental interest that allegedly justifies the intrusion against the particular intrusion upon the individual’s constitutional protected rights. Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 20-22 (1968); People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 637 (1993).

“Generally, evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible as substantive evidence in criminal proceedings.” In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 265 (1993); see Mapp v Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961). The exclusionary rule “is a cornerstone of American jurisprudence that affords individuals the most basic protection against arbitrary police conduct.” In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich at 265. However, there are exceptions to the exclusionary rule and situations in which the exclusionary rule does not apply. People v Hellstrom, 264 Mich App 187, 193-194 n 3 (2004).² 

The protections against unreasonable searches and seizures provided in the United States and Michigan constitutions apply to three general categories of encounters between the police and citizens:

•Situations in which there is no restraint upon the citizen’s liberty and the officer is seeking the citizen’s voluntary cooperation through non-coercive questioning, People v Shabaz, 424 Mich 42, 56-57 (1985);

•Investigatory stops (Terry³ stops), which are limited to brief, non-intrusive detentions, and the police must have specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is committing a crime, Shabaz, 424 Mich at 57; and

•Arrests, for which the Fourth Amendment requires that the police have probable cause to believe that a person has committed or is committing a crime, Shabaz, 424 Mich at 59.

There is a strong preference that searches and seizures be made pursuant to a search warrant. United States v Ventresca, 380 US 102, 106 (1965). This Chapter generally discusses warrantless searches and seizures. For discussion of the issuance of search warrants, see Chapter 3. For discussion of exceptions to the warrant requirement, see Section 11.6.