A seizure may occur when a police vehicle partially blocks a defendant’s egress if the
totality of the circumstances indicate that a reasonable person would not have felt free to leave

In the case of People v Duff (July 26, 2024)., the Michigan Supreme Court issued an opinion regarding police seizure.

Background of the Case: Police officers observed a parked car with its engine running in an elementary school parking lot at 10:00 p.m. They parked their patrol car about ten feet behind the parked car at a 45-degree angle, with headlights and a spotlight directed at the car.

The officers approached the vehicle, detected signs of intoxication from the driver, and took him into custody following failed field sobriety tests. The driver later agreed to a blood draw and confessed to consuming alcohol.

Key Legal Issues: The defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of intoxication was denied by the Oakland Circuit Court, as it claimed the evidence was obtained through an unlawful seizure. The Court of Appeals also denied interlocutory leave to appeal.

The Michigan Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court to determine when the defendant was first seized for Fourth Amendment purposes. On remand, the trial court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the defendant was seized when the patrol car parked behind him.

The Court of Appeals overturned the decision, stating that the defendant was not considered to be under seizure when the patrol car pulled up 10 feet away at a 45-degree angle.

Michigan Supreme Court Decision: A police vehicle blocking a defendant’s exit may constitute a seizure if a reasonable person would not feel free to leave based on the circumstances.

The Court determined that the defendant was seized prior to the officers detecting any signs of intoxication, taking into account the police behavior, timing, and environment.

The Court of Appeals’ decision was overturned, leading to a remand to assess if the officer had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity during the defendant’s initial seizure.

Read the opinion here:

PEOPLE v DUFF – Docket No. 163961 – Decided July 26, 2024.

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles

In a landmark decision, the Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that counties cannot retain surplus proceeds from tax-foreclosed property sales, a move poised to return millions to former homeowners. This ruling, stemming from the case Rafaeli, LLC v. Oakland County, found that keeping surplus auction proceeds violated the Michigan Constitution’s Takings Clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property without just compensation.

MCL – Article X § 2 Seizing private property without just compensation

Typical Government Hustle

Historically, Michigan’s tax foreclosure law, established in 1999, allowed counties to auction off properties with unpaid taxes and retain any proceeds beyond the owed taxes and associated fees.

This practice led to significant financial windfalls for counties, often at the expense of the original property owners, who lost their homes and any equity built up in them.

The Supreme Court’s decision overturns this precedent, emphasizing that former homeowners are entitled to any surplus funds from these sales.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled that practice as unconstitutional and said the homeowner was entitled to that surplus.

At the time of the ruling, only claims from 2020 and later qualified for reimbursement of funds, but a new ruling Monday could impact sales as far back as 2014. 

The case that catalyzed this ruling involved Uri Rafaeli, whose property in Oakland County was sold for $24,500 after he failed to pay a $285 property tax debt. 

The county kept the entire sale amount, far exceeding the owed tax. The court ruled this action as an unconstitutional taking, highlighting the inequity of the practice.

This decision has significant financial implications for Michigan counties.

Many counties relied on surplus proceeds from tax foreclosure auctions to supplement their budgets and support various county operations.

Wayne County, for instance, often used these funds to cover budget deficits. Now, counties may face financial strain, particularly if the ruling is applied retroactively, necessitating repayments for past surpluses retained from property sales prior to the 2020 decision.

In response to the ruling, Oakland County and others will need to amend their practices. Oakland County has already settled a related lawsuit, establishing a $38 million fund to compensate affected homeowners. This settlement underscores the potential scale of financial restitution that counties might need to provide.

Like every other poor decision the government makes it will be funded by tax payers.

The ruling aligns Michigan with other states that ensure surplus proceeds from tax sales are returned to former property owners, reinforcing property rights and equitable treatment. Moving forward, Michigan counties will need to adjust their tax foreclosure processes to comply with this ruling, likely influencing legislative changes to solidify the new legal framework.

For former homeowners, this ruling represents a significant victory, affirming their rights to any equity remaining in their properties after tax debts are settled. It also serves as a check on governmental overreach, ensuring that property seizure for unpaid taxes does not result in unjust enrichment at the expense of taxpayers.

This decision has broader implications beyond Michigan, resonating with similar cases across the United States. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with a Minnesota homeowner in a comparable situation, emphasizing a national trend towards protecting homeowners from losing their property equity in tax foreclosure processes.

Conclusion

The Michigan Supreme Court’s ruling mandates a fairer approach to tax foreclosures, ensuring surplus proceeds return to the rightful owners and setting a precedent for property rights protections. This decision will reshape county financial strategies and bolster homeowner protections, marking a pivotal shift in Michigan’s handling of tax-delinquent properties​

More Rights You Should Know

Other Articles