Michigan Supreme Court Blog

Yesterday, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued its opinion in People v Brigitte Louise Rousse, Docket No. 358358 (May 5, 2022) , an opinion that held police, with an otherwise valid search warrant, lacked the authority to search the interior of a pole barn located outside the curtilage of the home. An animal control officer discovered a cow loose on the road near the Defendant's home.  Upon returning the cow to its pen, he observed numerous dead animals on the property in various states of decomposition.  He saw three dogs on the property that were emaciated. The Defendant had no explanation for how the animals died.  From one of the pole barns that could be observed from the road and the house, he heard the yipping of dogs.  The officer obtained a search warrant for the property.  However, in the description of the place to be searched, the officer listed only the description of the house, making no mention of the pole barns on the property.  A search of one of the pole barns rev

Can police stop a car when an anonymous caller to 911 says the driver of a particular vehicle was yelling at her kids and appeared to be intoxicated? The Michigan Supreme Court answered in the negative yesterday in People v Pagano . The 911 caller, according to the officer's recollection of what dispatch said (the tape was not entered as evidence), said they were " conce rned because she had ah children with her and she was yelling; appearing to be obnoxious; and appeared to be intoxicated um that was causing her behavior ah with the children.  And then had left is why the caller thought she was intoxicated."  The caller gave the license plate number, the make, model and color of the car and the direction the defendant was headed. Thirty minutes later, a deputy found the car and followed the defendant, but did not make any independent observation of drunk driving or any civil infraction. The defendant was charged with OWI, Child Endangerment and Open Intox.  After an evi

Today, the United States Supreme Court issued an interesting decision in a 4th Amendment case in Kansas v. Glover , 589 U.S. ____ (2020) (Docket No. 18-556).  The fact scenario centered around a common, yet oft litigated, circumstance.  A sheriff's deputy randomly ran the license plate of a truck he was behind.  The computer showed the truck belonged to Glover and also showed that Glover's license was revoked.  Assuming that Glover was driving, he stopped the truck.  Glover was driving and he was charged. The trial court granted Glover's motion to suppress any evidence discovered after the stop and dismissed the charges.  The Kansas Court of Appeals reversed. The Kansas Supreme Court reversed, finding that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment. The USSC, Justice Thomas writing for the majority, held: When the officer lacks information negating the inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative stop made after running the vehicle's license pla

Can a defendant, charged with felony murder, argue duress as an affirmative defense to the crime? Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court answered in the affirmative, overruling two Court of Appeals decisions from the 1990's.  In People v Tiffany Reichard , ___ Mich ___ (Docket No 157688) , March 30, 2020, Justice Viviano authored the opinion on behalf of a unanimous court, concluding that the defendant, who wished to present evidence that her boyfriend had physically abused her, could argue in her trial that she committed the underlying felony under duress and, therefore, was not guilty of felony murder. After bindover on the felony murder charge, Reichard moved the lower court to allow her to present the defense.  The trial court, Judge Thomas Wilson from Jackson County, agreed.  The prosecution filed an interlocutory application to the Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court. At common law, courts banned the use of duress as a defense to murder.  When faced with the

Yesterday, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the conviction of a Saginaw County man whom a jury had convicted of conspiracy to commit murder. In People v Sammons , ____ Mich ____, Decided March 16, 2020 ( Docket No. 156189) , Justice Cavanagh, joined by Chief Justice McCormack and Justices Viviano, Bernstein, and Clement, concluded that a show up of the defendant to a witness was unduly suggestive because it implied that the defendant was a suspect in the murder. The show up was unnecessary, except for police convenience, because the defendant was in custody at the time. The show up was unreliable utilizing the factors identified in Neil v Biggers , 409 US 188 (1972), and, finally, the prosecution's use of evidence of the identification was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A show up is unlike a corporeal lineup, because in a show up the police show the suspect to the witness singly.   It is interesting to note from the facts that the 16-year-old witness, who saw the sh

On February 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals ruled that the smell of marijuana, even in light of a driver's possession of a valid medical marijuana card, can give rise to probable cause to search a lawfully stopped vehicle.  Provided, however, some additional suspicious fact gives rise to reasonably believe that driver may be possessing marijuana outside of the restrictions imposed by the MMMA.   In People v Moorman, Docket No. 349282 (2/13/2020) , the defendant was stopped for speeding in Alger County.  Upon approaching the car, the state trooper smelled the strong odor of "a good quantity" of fresh marijuana.  He asked Moorman if he had any marijuana in the vehicle, and Moorman said that he did not, though he had harvested marijuana earlier that day.  He then produced his caregiver card and told the trooper that he was a caregiver for five patients.  Nonetheless, the trooper searched the vehicle because simply, in his mind, he had noted the "odor of marijuana.&q