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
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...
4th Circuit says – Assault weapons can be banned
This case is about whether the Act’s general prohibition on the sale and possession of certain “assault weapons,” are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. An en banc federal appeals court upheld Maryland’s ban on assault-style weapons in a 10-5 decision...
Other Articles
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Appeal
Michigan appellate courts issued several significant decisions refining how convictions are reviewed, when relief from judgment is appropriate, and how procedural errors must be preserved. These cases collectively clarify retroactivity, evidentiary‑weight standards,...
Coalition Forms to Support Voter Approved MRTMA
New Coalition Forms To Support Voter Approved Cannabis ActMichigan’s adult‑use cannabis framework was not created by accident. It was built through a deliberate, voter‑driven process culminating in the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA). The Act...
Michigan Court of Appeals Orders City of Taylor to Release Police Misconduct Records
Case Summary The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that the City of Taylor must comply with a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request submitted by the ACLU of Michigan seeking police misconduct records dating back to 2021. The request covers documents involving...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Home Invasion
Case Summary In People v Berry, the defendant co‑owned a home with his former partner. After moving out and negotiating a buyout, he re‑entered the home with another individual before the agreement was finalized. Both were charged with first‑degree home invasion. The...
Cannabis Regulators Association-Briefing on Marijuana Schedule Change
Overview of the President’s December 18th Executive Order and the Implications When Marijuana is Rescheduled to Schedule III under the U.S. Controlled Substances ActTOP-LINE SUMMARY The President signed an Executive Order on December 18, 2025, ordering his...
Trump’s Marijuana Reclassification 2025
Donald Trump’s Actions On December 18, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This marks the most significant federal...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Felon in Possession
Case Summary In People v Hughes, the defendant challenged Michigan’s felon‑in‑possession statute on Second Amendment grounds. He argued the law was unconstitutional both on its face and as applied to nonviolent offenders. The Court of Appeals rejected both...
Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Controlled Substances
Case Summary In People v Soto (COA) the defendant faced a felony charge after an 85‑pound shipment of marijuana was delivered to her home. She argued that the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA) shielded her from felony prosecution because the...
