On
September 30, 2015, at about 2:20 a.m., defendant Hammerlund was driving home
from her job as a bartender when she collided with a guardrail and concrete
barrier on a highway off-ramp. Suffering
only minor injuries, she abandoned her car and took an Uber home, without
reporting the accident to the police. At
about 4:00 a.m., two police officers arrived at her home and spoke with
defendant’s roommates, demanding that defendant come to the door. Defendant came toward the door, but stayed
back because she was afraid the officers would arrest her. Another officer arrived and spoke with
defendant through the open door; he remained on the porch, while she stood 15
to 20 feet back from the door. The
officer asked for her identification, and, rather than hand her driver’s
license to him directly, defendant gave her license to a roommate who walked to
the door and handed it to the officer.
During their brief conversation, defendant admitted to the officer that
she was the owner and driver of the abandoned car, that her only injury from
the accident was a bloody nose, and that she did not report the accident.
The officer believed that
defendant was intoxicated due to her slurred speech and lack of balance. He wrote down information from her license
and then held it out for her to take.
When she approached the doorway and reached out her hand, he grabbed her
by the arm to take her into custody. As
she attempted to pull away, the officer took two or three steps inside the
doorway. He placed her in handcuffs and
told her she was under arrest for failing to report the accident.
The officer placed defendant
in his squad car and advised her of her rights.
She waived those rights and agreed to speak to the officer. She explained that the accident occurred when
she was cut off by an erratic driver as she exited the highway. She admitted drinking two beers and a shot in
the hours before driving, but denied that alcohol was a factor in the
accident. She also denied drinking any
alcohol after the accident. At about
5:00 a.m. at the jail, she submitted to two breath alcohol tests, reflecting an
alcohol content of 0.22 grams and 0.21 grams per 210 liters of breath.
Defendant was charged with
the felony offense of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated-third
offense, MCL 257.625, and the misdemeanor offense of failing to report an
accident involving fixtures on or adjacent to a highway, MCL 257.621. She filed a motion to suppress the evidence,
arguing that (1) the arresting officer violated her Fourth Amendment rights
when he entered her home to arrest her without a warrant, see Payton v New York, 445 US 573, 583-590 (1980) (the police
need a warrant to arrest a person in his or her home, unless exigent
circumstances exist), and (2) her arrest was unlawful because the officer only
had probable cause to arrest her for violating MCL 257.621, a 90-day
misdemeanor for which an officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person only
if the crime was committed in the officer’s presence. MCL 764.15.
The prosecution opposed the motion, relying on United
States v Santana, 427 US 38 (1976), which held that a suspect
standing in the open threshold of his or her home is in a public place for
purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The
trial court denied defendant’s motion on the basis of Santana,
finding that the officer did not violate defendant’s constitutional
rights.
A jury trial was held, at
which the prosecution admitted into evidence defendant’s statements to the
officer and the breath alcohol test results.
Defendant testified, denying that she was intoxicated at the time of the
accident. Instead, she claimed to have
become intoxicated only after arriving home when she drank a beer and some
shots because she was still upset by the accident. The jury found defendant guilty of both
charges, and the trial court sentenced her to serve five years of probation and
four months in jail. Defendant appealed
to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s denial of defendant’s
motion to suppress. The Michigan Supreme
Court has directed oral argument on defendant’s application for leave to appeal
to address whether it is constitutionally permissible for a police officer to
compel, coerce, or otherwise entice a person located in his or her home to
enter a public place to perform a warrantless arrest.