Good faith: The exemption allows evidence collected in violation of privacy rights as interpreted from the Fourth Amendment to be admitted at trial if police officers acting in good faith (bona fides) relied upon a defective search warrant. Does the count in Michigan as well?
The Fourth Amendment amendment protects people against unreasonable arrest and unreasonable seizure of persons and search of their houses. The Fourth Amendment guarantees, “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.”
The judicially created exclusionary rule operates to preclude from use at trial evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter police misconduct.
The United States Supreme Court established a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, noting that application of the exclusionary rule requires weighing the benefits of the resulting deterrence of police misconduct against the costs incurred by preventing the introduction of otherwise valid evidence. Court also has ruled that circumstances could exist in which these costs could outweigh any slight benefits gained by application of the exclusionary rule. For example, if a law enforcement officer acted in good faith and in an objectively reasonable manner on a search warrant later found to be defective because of a judicial error, excluding the evidence obtained in the search would not operate to deter police misconduct.
The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule for Michigan in People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523, 682 N.W.2d 479 (2004).
An investigatory stop of an automobile, is limited to a brief, nonintrusive detention and requires specific and articulable facts sufficient to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person detained has committed or is committing a crime. An arrest requires probable cause to believe that the person detained has committed or is committing a crime. An officer may arrest a defendant without a warrant if a felony or misdemeanor was committed in their presence.
An officer may conduct a frisk, a form of limited weapons search, when the officer has reason to believe that the person suspected of a crime is presently armed and dangerous.
A violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unlawful arrest or improper search and seizure will give rise to a Motion to Suppress, Suppression Hearing, and if appropriate, suppression of illegally obtained evidence. If evidence in a case is suppressed, the result could be dismissal of all charges.
I encourage you to use www.avvo.com to find a 10.0 rated criminal defense lawyer. Most retained criminal defense attorneys will offer you a free telephone consultation. Feel free to consult with an attorney in any part of Michigan as it is not uncommon for criminal defense lawyers to travel throughout the state.
Mr. Loren Dickstein, Esq.
10.0 Rated Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C.
2000 Town Center, Ste. 2350
Southfield, MI 48075
AV Rated (Preeminent) by Martindale-Hubbell
Super Lawyer – Thomson Reuters
10.0 Rated (Superb) – Avvo Lawyer Ratings
Click on the picture to see the profile of the lawyer answering your question. The information provided on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.
Car / Auto Accident Lawyer
I agree with Mr. Dickstein. There isn't much to add to that response, except perhaps a helpful vote for his answer.
My discussion with you regarding the question you posted on Avvo does not create an attorney-client relationship, nor is my response to your question to be considered legal advice. While I do my best to provide helpful responses given the factual scenario presented, proper analysis of any matter requires a more in-depth conversation than what is practical on Avvo. If you are a member of the military, or if an immediate family member of yours lost his or her life while fighting for our country, I am proud to offer a 10% discount on my fee.