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
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...
Video kept from family shows police force not drugs killed son
police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence”A mother has filed a federal lawsuit claiming that, while her son was experiencing a seizure in his Tennessee apartment, police and paramedics inflicted “inhumane acts of violence” on the 23-year-old instead...
Other Articles
Shadow cash is corrupting Michigan courtrooms
The Shadow Cash Threat: Protecting the Integrity of Michigan Courtrooms In recent months, a spotlight has been cast on a hidden influence within the Michigan legal system: "shadow cash." This term refers to third-party litigation funding (TPLF), where outside...
Michigan judge charged in stealing from incapacitated adults
No Good Headline to Lead with HereSummary Federal prosecutors have charged a 36th District Court judge and three associates with orchestrating a long‑running financial scheme that diverted funds from incapacitated adults under court‑appointed guardianship. The...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession
Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...
What is Inference Stacking?
What Is Inference Stacking? A Legal ExplanationInference stacking—also called pyramiding of inferences—is a rule of evidence that prohibits courts or juries from building one inference on top of another when the first inference is not supported by direct evidence....
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Murder
Case Summary In People v Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether a single act of abuse can support convictions for both first‑degree child abuse and felony murder. The defendant argued that using the same conduct to support both charges violated...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Neglect of Duty
Case Summary In People v Harper, a Wayne County Sheriff’s deputy was charged with neglect of duty after witnessing an inmate escape during his smoke break and taking no action to stop or pursue the prisoner. The prosecution relied on the Sheriff’s Department policy...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Metallic Knuckles
Case Summary In People v Dummer, the defendant challenged Michigan’s metallic‑knuckles statute, arguing that simply possessing the weapon was protected by the Second Amendment. The Michigan Court of Appeals acknowledged that possession of metallic knuckles is...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Election Interference
Case Summary In People v Burkman, defendants created a robocall targeting African American voters during the 2020 election. The call falsely warned that mail‑in voting would expose voters to law‑enforcement tracking, debt collection, and forced vaccinations....
