Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

On Monday, December 7, 2009, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and peremptorily reversed the opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals in Michigan v. Jeremy Fisher, Case No. 09-91. In Fisher, the Court considered whether the Michigan Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's suppression of evidence recovered where a police officer conducted a warrantless search where the defendant was bleeding from an injury and was throwing objects in the house. While the Michigan Court of Appeals held that these circumstances did not rise to the level of an exigency allowing the police officers to enter the home, without a warrant, to aid someone with a serious injury. The United States Supreme Court disagreed and held that it was a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment.

contentpilot/introduction

In Fisher, the police officers arrived at defendant's home responding to a disturbance call. When they arrived, they discovered a pick-up truck in the front yard which had apparently crashed into the defendant's fence, three broken windows, and blood on the truck. When they approached the house, the officers observed the defendant in the house throwing objects and screaming. The officers were able to determine that he had a cut on his hand. When the police knocked on the door and asked to be admitted, the defendant responded that they needed a warrant. One of the officers then forced his way through the front door. When he opened the front door, he discovered the defendant had a gun pointed at him.

core/paragraph

The defendant was subsequently charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He filed a motion to suppress the evidence, specifically the officer's statement that Fisher had pointed a gun at him, arguing that the warrantless search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment where he was not suffering from a serious injury. The trial court agreed and granted the defendant's motion. On appeal, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order and held that the situation did not rise to the level of an emergency sufficient to justify a warrantless intrusion. Although the court acknowledged that there were drops of blood and evidence that the defendant had cut his hand, there was no evidence that he suffered a serious, life-threatening injury. The Court of Appeals' opinion is <a href="http://coa.courts.mi.gov/documents/opinions/final/coa/20080325_c276439_31_276439.opn.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. The Michigan Supreme Court initially granted leave to appeal; however, after oral argument the Court reversed its earlier decision and denied leave to appeal.

The United States Supreme Court reversed the holding of the Michigan Court of Appeals and concluded that where Fisher was injured and was in such a rage that he was unable to help himself, or where he had injured someone else or was about to hurt someone else, the circumstances rose to the level of an emergency justifying a warrantless entry into the home. The Court remanded the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The Court's decision can be found <a href="http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-91.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.

Justice Stevens authored a dissenting opinion and was joined in his dissent by Justice Sotomayor. The dissenters argued that Michigan law only allows warrantless entries where an individual is in need of immediate medical attention, and in this case, the officers did not observe any injury that would need immediate attention. Additionally, the dissenters pointed out that nothing in the officer's testimony indicated that they had evidence of other individuals in the house who may have been in danger. With these facts in mind, the dissenters asserted that the warrantless search was unreasonable.

SCOTUS Opinion: Michigan v. Fisher

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.