Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Facial Recognition and Wrongful Arrests

Jul 5, 2024 | Know Your Rights, Michigan News, News, Your Rights

Facial Recognition

How Technology Can Lead to Mistaken-Identity Arrests

Facial recognition technology has become increasingly prevalent in law enforcement, but its use raises critical questions about civil liberties and accuracy. One landmark case sheds light on the potential pitfalls of this technology and its impact on individuals’ rights.

The Robert Williams Case in Detroit

In 2020, Robert Williams, a Detroit resident, experienced firsthand the flaws of facial recognition technology. Falsely identified as a theft suspect, Williams was wrongfully arrested by the Detroit Police Department. His case marked the first publicized instance in the United States where facial recognition led to an erroneous arrest

The city of Detroit has agreed to compensate him $300,000 for being falsely accused of shoplifting and has committed to revising the use of facial recognition technology by the police to enhance crime-solving efforts.

As per a lawsuit settlement with Robert Williams, his driver’s license photo was mistakenly identified as a potential match to an individual captured on security footage at a Shinola watch store in 2018.

The agreement mandates that Detroit police will evaluate cases involving facial recognition technology from 2017 to 2023. Authorities will promptly notify a prosecutor if an arrest occurs without verifiable evidence.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Policy Changes and Safeguards

The fallout from Williams’s arrest prompted significant policy changes within the Detroit Police Department:

No Arrests Based Solely on Facial Recognition: Detroit police can no longer make arrests or conduct photo lineups based solely on facial recognition results. Instead, they must combine facial recognition leads with traditional investigative methods to verify suspects’ involvement in a crime.

Enhanced Training: Officers now undergo additional facial recognition training to improve accuracy and responsible use of the technology.

Transparency: The department must disclose when facial recognition technology was used to make an arrest. Additionally, they must acknowledge the technology’s limitations and potential for misidentification.

Civil Liberties: These changes aim to prevent future misidentifications and protect civil liberties. Deputy Chief Franklin Hayes emphasized that facial recognition remains a valuable tool for both solving cases and exonerating innocent individual.

A Concerning Trend

Since then, several other cases of wrongful arrests stemming from facial recognition technology have been uncovered, shedding light on a concerning trend.

Some cities have banned the technology altogether, while others lack comprehensive policies. 

In the ever-changing landscape of technological advancements, finding the delicate balance between public safety and individual rights is paramount. The recent Robert Williams case serves as a poignant reminder that safeguarding civil liberties should always be the top priority in the realm of law enforcement technology.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more

Other Articles

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”The case in question...

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal...

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Jul 3, 2024 | Blog, Know Your Rights, Your Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 368736

Decided: June 27, 2024
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ.

Introduction

In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an important issue related to search and seizure rights.

Background
Javarian Chandler found himself in legal trouble when he was on probation. As a condition of his probation, he had to comply with certain requirements, including submitting to searches of his person, property, and computer without the need for a search warrant. “Defendant’s Acknowledgment” section found on the SCAO, Form MC 243 (Sept 2022), p. 3:

But was this constitutional?

What Happened?

On May 17, 2023, Chandler was among the probationers and parolees on Officer Thomas’ compliance check list. This marked the first encounter between Officer Thomas and Chandler.

Officer Thomas and three Detroit Police officers visited the house listed on Chandler’s paperwork, owned by Chandler’s cousin. When Chandler’s cousin and mother answered the door, they initially denied Chandler’s presence. However, after Officer Thomas explained that a search was required due to Chandler’s parole, Chandler’s cousin allowed entry.

In Chandler’s room, officers discovered a loaded handgun. Despite being prohibited from owning weapons, Chandler was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Chandler unsuccessfully sought to suppress the weapon found during the search, leading to an interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of his motion.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Search and Legal Question

The search in question took place in Chandler’s bedroom, conducted by Detroit police officers and a probation agent as part of Chandler’s conditions of probation. The critical issue was whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.

Did such a search require reasonable suspicion or an express waiver by the probationer?

Chandler’s cousin, who lived in the same house, granted consent for the search. However, defense counsel argued that Chandler’s cousin lacked the authority to authorize the search of Chandler’s bedroom. Additionally, they contended that Chandler’s cousin did not consent freely or voluntarily.

Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s property without reasonable suspicion or an express waiver is unconstitutional. In essence, probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights, even while under specific conditions during their probation.

Implications

This decision underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement’s need to monitor probationers and an individual’s right to privacy. By upholding Fourth Amendment protections, the court ensures justice while respecting individual liberties.

Contact Komorn Law

If you have legal questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our experienced attorneys at Komorn Law. You can call us at (248) 357-2550 or visit our website at KomornLaw.com for personalized legal guidance.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more

Other Articles

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”The case in question...

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal...

What are Miranda Rights?

What are Miranda Rights?

Jul 3, 2024 | Educational, Your Rights

What are Miranda Rights?

Miranda Rights, also known as the Miranda warning, are the rights given to people in the United States upon arrest.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” These rights stem from a 1966 Supreme Court case: Miranda v. Arizona 1.

Here’s the backstory: In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a 24-year-old with a police record, was accused of kidnapping, raping, and robbing an 18-year-old woman in Phoenix, Arizona. During a two-hour interrogation, Miranda confessed to the crimes. However, his lawyers argued that he hadn’t been clearly informed of his rights to have a lawyer and against self-incrimination.

The court agreed, and the Miranda Rights were born. Now, when law enforcement detains suspects, they must recite these rights to ensure awareness of the right to an attorney and the right against self-incrimination. It forever changed U.S. criminal procedure, emphasizing fairness and protecting individuals’ rights.

At what point do the police have to read me my miranda rights?

Police must read you your Miranda rights as soon as they plan to interrogate you while you are in custody. Being in custody means that you are not free to leave at any point that you wish.

If you are free to leave or not in custody, police do not need to read you your rights before asking you questions. Remember, these rights protect your right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning.

Want to know what this all means in one sentence? Click Here

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

One notable case involving Miranda Rights is Missouri v. Seibert. Here’s what happened:

Background: Respondent Seibert was arrested after her son, afflicted with cerebral palsy, died in a fire. She was present when her sons and friends discussed burning their mobile home to conceal the circumstances of her son’s death.

An unrelated mentally ill 18-year-old named Donald was left to die in the fire. The police arrested Seibert but did not read her Miranda rights initially.

The Interrogation: At the police station, Officer Hanrahan questioned Seibert for 30 to 40 minutes without providing Miranda warnings. He obtained a confession related to the plan for Donald to die in the fire. After a 20-minute break, Hanrahan returned, gave her the Miranda warnings, and obtained a signed waiver. He then resumed questioning, confronting Seibert with her pre-warning statements.

Legal Outcome: Seibert moved to suppress both her pre-warning and post-warning statements. The District Court admitted the post-warning statement but suppressed the pre-warning one. Seibert was convicted of second-degree murder. The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

Supreme Court Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision. Justice Souter concluded that Seibert’s post-warning statements were inadmissible because the midstream recitation of warnings after interrogation and an unwarned confession couldn’t comply with Miranda’s constitutional warning requirement.

What the Miranda Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states before you are interrogated or you’re questioned by police, they have to read you your miranda rights only if you are not free to leave.

At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decisions illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more

Other Articles

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”The case in question...

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal...

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

Jul 2, 2024 | Educational, Your Rights

What is the Exclusionary Rule?

The Exclusionary Rule is a legal principle in the United States that prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. Specifically, it applies to evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure, which violates the Fourth Amendment. Here’s a concise breakdown:

What It Does: The Exclusionary Rule ensures that evidence obtained unlawfully cannot be used against a defendant in a criminal trial. If the police or other law enforcement agents violate a person’s constitutional rights during a search or seizure, any evidence they collect as a result is considered tainted and inadmissible in court.

Origins: The rule was established by the Supreme Court in the case of Mapp v. Ohio. This decision clarified that evidence obtained through an unreasonable search or seizure (i.e., without a valid warrant or probable cause) cannot be used against the accused.
Exceptions: While the Exclusionary Rule is a powerful safeguard, there are exceptions:
Good Faith Exception: Evidence may not be excluded if officers reasonably relied on an invalid search warrant or binding appellate precedent.

Independent Source Doctrine: If evidence initially obtained unlawfully is later obtained through a valid search or seizure, it may become admissible.

The Exclusionary Rule aims to protect individuals’ constitutional rights and maintain the integrity of the justice system. It discourages law enforcement from obtaining evidence illegally. 

What are some real-life examples of the Exclusionary Rule?
How does this rule impact criminal investigations?
Are there any controversies surrounding the Exclusionary Rule?

Want to know what this all means in one sentence? Click Here

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

The Exclusionary Rule significantly impacts criminal investigations in the following ways:

Deterrence: Law enforcement officers are deterred from conducting unlawful searches or seizures because they know that any evidence obtained illegally will be excluded from court proceedings. This encourages adherence to constitutional rights and proper procedures.

Evidence Suppression: If evidence is collected in violation of the Fourth Amendment (e.g., without a valid warrant or probable cause), it cannot be used against the accused. This can weaken the prosecution’s case and may lead to acquittals or reduced charges.

Police Practices: The Exclusionary Rule influences police practices by emphasizing the importance of respecting citizens’ rights. Officers receive training on lawful search and seizure methods to avoid violating constitutional protections.

Case Outcomes: When evidence is excluded due to the rule, cases may collapse or result in plea bargains. It affects trial dynamics and can impact the overall outcome of criminal proceedings.

What happens if evidence is accidentally obtained unlawfully?

If evidence is “accidentally” obtained unlawfully, it still falls under the Exclusionary Rule. The rule doesn’t distinguish between intentional or accidental violations of constitutional rights. If law enforcement inadvertently violates a person’s Fourth Amendment rights during a search or seizure, any evidence collected as a result would be considered tainted and inadmissible in court. The goal is to maintain the integrity of the justice system and protect individuals’ rights.

 

Here are some examples of accidentally obtained evidence

Unauthorized Searches: Law enforcement conducts searches without a proper warrant or lacks sufficient justification. For instance, entering a home without consent or a valid reason.

Deceitful Practices: Police gather evidence through deceptive means, such as misleading suspects during interrogations or using false pretenses to obtain information.

Coerced Confessions: Extracting confessions through coercion or intimidation violates a defendant’s rights and renders the evidence tainted.

Invasion of Privacy Rights: Collecting evidence by invading an individual’s privacy, like unauthorized wiretapping or surveillance, falls under this category.

The Exclusionary Rule: Purpose and Application

The exclusionary rule, established in Weeks v. United States (1914) and applied to the states in Mapp v. Ohio (1961), mandates that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in a court of law. The primary purpose of this rule is to deter police misconduct and to protect the integrity of judicial proceedings by excluding illegally obtained evidence.

However, its application has been primarily limited to criminal cases. The Supreme Court has been reluctant to extend the exclusionary rule to civil cases, as evidenced by decisions in cases like United States v. Janis (1976), where the Court held that the rule does not apply to civil tax proceedings.

Government Use of Drones to Obtain Evidence

See 2024 Michigan Supreme Court Case –  Long Lake Township v. Maxon: Where a drone was used to obtain evidence and was challenged was allowed to be used and why.

What the Exclusionary Rule means in one long sentence: This rule states that if law enforcement officials obtain evidence through illegal means—like an unlawful search or seizure—the evidence generally cannot be used in a criminal trial against the person whose rights were violated.

At Komorn Law, we specialize in navigating the complex landscape of constitutional law. This recent Supreme Court decisions illustrates the nuanced legal analyses and strategic thinking that we bring to our practice, ensuring that our clients receive informed and effective representation.

Our commitment to understanding and influencing the trajectory of legal standards helps us advocate for a balanced approach to individual rights and public safety.

Call Komorn Law

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: Motor vehicles; sale on Sunday unlawful

MCL – Section 435.251

In Michigan, it’s still technically illegal to sell a car on a Sunday, under Section 435.251 of the Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL). This peculiar law harkens back to historical blue laws, which restricted certain activities on Sundays for religious reasons. Despite changes in societal norms and the separation of church and state, this statute remains on the books, though rarely enforced.

Recent

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

A Motion in Limine – What does it Mean?

Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineA motion in limine is a pretrial request asking the judge to exclude (or sometimes allow) specific evidence before the jury ever hears it. It’s one of the most important evidentiary tools in both criminal and civil...

read more

Other Articles

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal Offense

Carjacking is a Federal OffenseCarjacking, the act of forcibly stealing an occupied vehicle, has long been a concern for public safety. It was a local and state issue until a series of violent incidents in the early 1990s that carjacking became a federal...

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

SCOTUS Opinion, SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CALIFORNIA

The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”The case in question...

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

Maker of CBD products asks court to decide

The Petitions of the Week column highlights a selection of cert petitions recently filed in the Supreme Court. A list of all petitions we’re watching is available here. Organized crime, from the mafia to small-time money laundering schemes, often evades criminal...

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

I am going to Canada – Can I bring my cannabis?

May 30, 2024 | Your Rights

Borders and Cannabis and Money

Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #41. Profit is its own reward.

If you bring your own cannabis to Canada. How does the Canadian government profit? 

They don’t so they will punish you if you get caught.

It’s simple. It’s about the money. That is the only reason it is now legal.

Cannabis Legalization in Canada

On October 17, 2018, Canada made a significant policy shift by legalizing marijuana for recreational use. The Cannabis Act came into effect, allowing Canadians to possess and use cannabis for non-medical purposes. However, there are still some important considerations:

Possession and Use: Canadians can legally possess and consume weed, subject to restrictions on the amount and how it was purchased. This includes various forms of cannabis, such as dried flower, edibles, extracts, and topicals.

Transportation Across the Border: Despite legalization within Canada, it remains strictly prohibited to transport cannabis across the Canadian border. This applies whether you’re entering Canada from another country or leaving Canada for another destination.

The ban includes all forms of cannabis products, even if you’re authorized to use it for medical purposes.

It’s essential to understand that this law applies even if cannabis is legal in both the source and destination countries.

You’re Not Welcome Here in Canada

Inadmissibility Due to Cannabis Conviction: If you ever find a reason to go to Canada and there aren’t that many. If you have a prior arrest or cannabis conviction, there’s a chance you may be turned away at the Canadian border. A DUI? Just stay home.

If you really must go. Seeking legal advice from an immigration expert is advisable in such cases.

Cannabis Legalization in Michigan

Michigan, too, has embraced cannabis legalization. However, there are nuances to be aware of:

  1. Legalization Status: As of now, it’s no longer against the law to own or grow marijuana in Michigan. However, retail stores didn’t open until 2021. Michigan citizens can legally cultivate up to 12 cannabis plants, compared to the limit of four in Ontario, Canada.
  2. Crossing the Border: Despite both Michigan and Canada legalizing cannabis, it’s still illegal for those in Michigan to buy cannabis in Canada and cross the border with marijuana. This issue affects Americans living near the border who might be tempted to take advantage of Canada’s nationwide legalization.

Conclusion

While cannabis enthusiasts can enjoy legal weed in both Canada and Michigan, crossing the border with it remains a complex matter. Whether you’re traveling north or south, leave your cannabis behind to avoid legal complications. Remember, the laws differ between countries, and what’s permissible in one place might not be in another. Stay informed and enjoy responsibly!

Disclaimer: This article provides general information and should not be considered legal advice. Always consult legal professionals for specific guidance.

Learn more

 

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Court to Allow Challenge to Michigan’s New 24% Cannabis Tax

Summary A Michigan Court of Claims judge has ruled that the lawsuit challenging the state’s newly enacted 24% wholesale marijuana excise tax may proceed. The ruling, issued January 5, 2026, keeps alive a significant constitutional challenge brought by industry groups...

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

From Canada.ca  The official website of the Government of Canada

Drugs, alcohol and travel

It is illegal to take cannabis – including products containing cannabis, such as edible cannabis, cannabis extracts and cannabis topicals, and all products containing CBD – across the Canadian border, whether you are entering or leaving the country:

  • No matter how much cannabis you have with you.
  • Even if you use cannabis for medical purposes in any form, including cannabidiol (CBD), unless authorized by Health Canada.
  • Even if you are travelling to or from a municipality, state or country where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized.

At your destination

If you travel to other countries, including the United States, with any amount of cannabis in your possession, you could:

  • be charged with a criminal offence (This applies to all countries, whether cannabis is legal there or not.)
  • be denied entry at your destination if you have previously used cannabis or any substance prohibited by local laws
  • be denied entry to other countries in the future

It is your responsibility to learn about the laws, including the legal status of cannabis use and possession, in your destination country.

If you are travelling for business related to the cannabis industry, contact the foreign government office in Canada of the country you plan to visit.

For more information, consult our Travel Advice and Advisories.

Returning to Canada

It is illegal to enter Canada with cannabis, unless you have a prescription for a medication containing cannabis authorized by Health Canada.

If you are entering Canada and have cannabis with you in any form, you must declare it to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Not declaring cannabis in your possession at the Canadian border is a serious criminal offence. You could be arrested and prosecuted.

This information is taken directly from the Canadian Gov website section Drugs, alcohol and travel.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records DisputeTeachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data AccessThe Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers' class materials are subject to the...

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan.In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession. If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be...

Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure?Passengers in a vehicle are afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, though the scope of these rights varies based on the specific circumstances...

Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion

Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion

What's the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?Definition of Probable Cause Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in...

More Posts

Squatters in Michigan

Squatters in Michigan

May 28, 2024 | Michigan Laws, Your Rights

Squatters

Squatting, in one definition is the unauthorized occupation of a property, can be a frustrating ordeal for property owners in Michigan. Understanding the relevant laws and procedures is crucial for regaining possession of your property.

Squatting vs. Adverse Possession: Key Differences

Michigan law differentiates between squatting and adverse possession. Squatting refers to the unlawful occupation of a property without the owner’s consent. In contrast, adverse possession allows someone who isn’t the legal owner to gain ownership rights under specific circumstances, as outlined in MCL § 600.5801. To establish adverse possession, an occupant must demonstrate:

  • Continuous occupancy: Occupying the property for at least 15 consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(1)).
  • Color of title: Possessing a document, though potentially flawed, that suggests ownership (MCL § 600.5801(2)). However, simply paying rent or utilities doesn’t constitute color of title.
  • Payment of property taxes: Paying property taxes for at least ten consecutive years (MCL § 600.5801(2)).

Open, notorious, and hostile possession: Occupying the property openly, demonstrably, and claiming it as their own, even if mistakenly (MCL § 600.5801(3, 4)).

The burden of proof lies with the squatter to establish adverse possession. Notably, Michigan courts have interpreted these requirements strictly, making it difficult for squatters to gain ownership rights.

Attorney Michael Komorn

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

News Articles and Information

Squatters evicted from Michigan home, neighbor details ‘chemical’ smell, cash-bearing criminals in hiding

MML-Michigan Communities and Squatting: What You Need to Know (PDF)

Here’s how homeowners can fight against squatter insanity

Squatter Squad Videos

And now for something completely different…

American Airlines blames girl, 9, who ‘should have known’ flight attendant planted hidden cameras under toilet seat: court docs

 

Self-Help Eviction: A Unique Feature in Michigan

Michigan offers a unique remedy for property owners facing squatters: self-help eviction. Unlike most states, Michigan law allows owners to take specific steps to make the property unappealing for squatters, encouraging them to leave voluntarily.

Important Caveats: It’s crucial to note that self-help eviction has limitations:

No removal of belongings: Owners cannot remove the squatter’s belongings or physically force them out.

Tenant vs. squatter: This method only applies to squatters, not tenants with a valid lease agreement. Evicting tenants requires a formal eviction process through the court system.

Potential legal repercussions: Improper use of self-help measures could result in legal action from the squatter. Consulting an attorney before taking any steps is highly recommended.

Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?

Getting Rid of Squatters

If you discover that someone unauthorized is occupying your property, contact the police. However, be aware that the police may consider it a civil issue and advise you to pursue eviction through the courts. It is important to note that squatting is considered a misdemeanor in Michigan, even if law enforcement may not be fully aware of this fact.

Instead of waiting on or dealing with the police, property owners in Michigan can take action to remove illegal occupants within the limits of the law:

 

  • Kindly request the squatter to vacate the premises within a specified timeframe.
  • Notify the squatter that legal measures will be pursued if they fail to comply promptly.
  • While the squatter is away from the property, consider changing the locks, securing entry points, boarding up windows, and implementing additional barriers like fences to prevent re-entry.

Court to Allow Challenge to Michigan’s New 24% Cannabis Tax

Summary A Michigan Court of Claims judge has ruled that the lawsuit challenging the state’s newly enacted 24% wholesale marijuana excise tax may proceed. The ruling, issued January 5, 2026, keeps alive a significant constitutional challenge brought by industry groups...

Criminal Trespass: Legal Ramifications of Squatting

Squatting in Michigan is considered criminal trespass under MCL 750.553. This statute classifies trespassing as a misdemeanor for first offenses, punishable by fines up to $5,000 or imprisonment for up to 180 days, or both. Subsequent offenses become felonies with steeper penalties.

There are additional trespassing classifications based on the property type:

  • Residential property: Trespassing on a single-family or two-family dwelling is typically a misdemeanor.
  • Commercial property: Trespassing on commercial buildings, industrial sites, construction zones, or utility property can be charged as a felony.

Property owners who suspect squatting should contact law enforcement. Officers can remove squatters if they lack a legal right to be on the property.

The Law

750.553 Occupancy of building without consent; violation; penalty; exception.

Sec. 553.

    (1) Except as provided in subsection (2), an individual who occupies a building that is a single-family dwelling or 1 or both units in a building that is a 2-family dwelling and has not, at any time during that period of occupancy, occupied the property with the owner’s consent for an agreed-upon consideration is guilty of a crime as follows:
    (a) For a first offense, a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 180 days, or both.
    (b) For a second or subsequent offense, a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 per dwelling unit occupied or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a guest or a family member of the owner of the dwelling or of a tenant.

Other Articles

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records DisputeTeachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data AccessThe Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers' class materials are subject to the...

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan

Felony Firearm Possession in Michigan.In Michigan, the laws surrounding firearms are strict, especially when it comes to felony firearm possession. If you’re charged with a felony and found to be in possession of a firearm during the crime, the penalties can be...

Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do the passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in your vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure?Passengers in a vehicle are afforded Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, though the scope of these rights varies based on the specific circumstances...

Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion

Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion

What's the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?Definition of Probable Cause Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in...

More Posts