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:
Legal Counsel and Your Rights
When facing legal challenges, particularly in criminal cases, it is advisable to seek legal counsel immediately.
An experienced attorney can provide guidance on how to navigate interactions with law enforcement while safeguarding your constitutional rights.
Since 1993 our expert legal defense in navigating criminal law matters and protecting your constitutional rights are what we eat for breakfast everyday.
Contact Komorn Law PLLC if you’re ready to fight and win.
Research us and then call us.
More Rights You Should Know
What does Nolle Prosequi mean?
What does Nolle Prosequi mean? Fatal Flaw In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost...
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Maryland Gun Permit Case
The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s requirement for a permit to carry a concealed handgun. While the Court offered no explanation, the decision leaves in place a lower court ruling that upheld the state’s...
Other Articles
What is a Preliminary Exam?
Michigan Preliminary Examinations The Strategic Gatekeeper in Felony Defense The Preliminary Examination as the First Line of Defense In Michigan felony cases, the preliminary examination (PE) is the first—and often most decisive—opportunity to challenge the...
What does Nolle Prosequi mean?
What does Nolle Prosequi mean? Fatal Flaw In criminal cases, nolle prosequi may be employed when there is a significant weakness in the prosecution's case, when the prosecutor acknowledges an inability to prove the charges, or even when the prosecutor has lost...
People v. Lukity, 460 Mich 484 (1999)
Case Summary The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the defendant’s conviction for first-degree criminal sexual conduct against his fourteen‑year‑old daughter. The Court held that although one evidentiary error occurred, it was...
Motion in Limine vs Motion to Suppress
Defininition and Explaination - Motion in LimineOverview Although both a motion in limine and a motion to suppress deal with evidence, they serve very different purposes in Michigan criminal cases. Understanding the distinction is critical because each motion affects...
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...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Threat of Terrorism
Case Summary In People v Kvasnicka, the defendant sent a message to a young girl stating she “would not be laughing” when he came to her school to “shoot it up or blow it up like Columbine.” Charged under Michigan’s threat‑of‑terrorism statute, he argued the law was...
What is a Franks Hearing?
What is a Frank's Hearing?A Franks hearing is a critical legal tool used when a defendant claims that police lied, exaggerated, or recklessly disregarded the truth in a search warrant affidavit. When law enforcement places its hand on the Constitution, the law...
Michigan House Bill Proposes 32% Tax on Internet Devices for Kids
Taxed Again..? They're working on it.A newly introduced Michigan House bill would impose a 32% excise tax on smartphones, tablets, gaming systems, and other internet‑connected devices marketed to or primarily used by minors. Lawmakers backing the proposal argue the...
