The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment outlines several key rights that are fundamental to the American justice system.

Key Provisions of the 6th Amendment:

  • Right to a Speedy and Public Trial: One of the fundamental guarantees of the 6th Amendment is the right to a speedy trial. This provision ensures that individuals accused of crimes are not held in pretrial detention for extended periods, preventing undue delay that could prejudice their defense. Additionally, trials must be public, allowing for transparency and accountability in the judicial process.

  • Right to a Fair Jury: The amendment affords individuals the right to a trial by an impartial jury of their peers. This jury serves as a safeguard against arbitrary governmental actions and ensures that decisions in criminal cases are made by a diverse group representing the community where the alleged crime occurred.

  • Right to Confront Witnesses: Central to the concept of due process, the 6th Amendment guarantees defendants the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses testifying against them. This right helps to safeguard against unreliable or false testimony and allows defendants to challenge the evidence presented by the prosecution.

  • Right to Compulsory Process: Defendants have the right to compel witnesses to appear and testify on their behalf. This provision empowers individuals to present evidence that supports their defense, ensuring a comprehensive and balanced presentation of facts during trial.

  • Right to Counsel: Perhaps one of the most well-known provisions of the 6th Amendment is the right to legal counsel. Defendants have the right to be represented by an attorney, whether retained privately or provided by the state if they cannot afford one. This ensures that defendants are adequately prepared and supported in navigating the complexities of the legal system.

  • Right to Know Charges and Evidence: The amendment guarantees that defendants are informed of the nature and cause of accusations against them (the charges). Moreover, they have the right to be informed of the evidence and witnesses presented by the prosecution, allowing them to prepare an effective defense strategy.

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 principles enshrined in the 6th Amendment continue to play a pivotal role in ensuring fairness, equity, and accountability in the American legal system. As society evolves and legal challenges evolve with it, the 6th Amendment remains a bedrock for protecting individual rights against the power of the state.

In conclusion, the 6th Amendment stands as a cornerstone of justice in the United States, guaranteeing essential rights to individuals accused of crimes. By upholding principles such as the right to a speedy trial, an impartial jury, confrontation of witnesses, compulsory process, legal counsel, and access to information, this amendment reinforces the core values of due process and fairness under law.

For more detailed information, you can explore the full text and historical context of the 6th Amendment on the official website of the U.S. Congress.

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.

Recent

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

read more

Other Articles

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...

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen live to arguments in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the phone for the first time ever due to the coronavirus pandemic; they'll hear 10 cases remotely from now until May 13. But that's not the only history being...

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

The US Supreme Court and Federal Gun Law Cases

Challenges to Federal Gun Laws

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

Updated July 8, 2024

Ratified in 1791, the Second Amendment provides, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

For over 200 years, the Supreme Court remained largely silent on the Second Amendment.

In a series of relatively recent decisions, however, the Court has provided guidance on the substance and scope of the constitutional provision.

District of Columbia v. Heller

In 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for certain purposes, including at least self-defense in the home.

Facts of the case: Provisions of the District of Columbia Code made it illegal to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibited the registration of handguns, though the chief of police could issue one-year licenses for handguns. The Code also contained provisions that required owners of lawfully registered firearms to keep them unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or other similar device unless the firearms were located in a place of business or being used for legal recreational activities.

Question: Do the provisions of the District of Columbia Code that restrict the licensing of handguns and require licensed firearms kept in the home to be kept nonfunctional violate the Second Amendment?

Read more details, court responses and conclusions here District of Columbia v. Heller

McDonald v. City of Chicago

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court established that the right to bear arms is a “fundamental” right, applying to laws at all levels of government.

In 2016, in Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Court in a brief opinion clarified that “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment encompass modern arms, including stun guns, that did not exist at the time of the founding.

Facts of the case: Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. In that case, the Supreme Court held that a District of Columbia handgun ban violated the Second Amendment.

There, the Court reasoned that the law in question was enacted under the authority of the federal government and, thus, the Second Amendment was applicable.

Plaintiffs argued that the Second Amendment should also apply to the states, with the district court dismissing the suits. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.

Question: Is the Second Amendment applicable to the states through incorporation by the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses, thereby extending its reach to state jurisdictions?

Read more details, court responses and conclusions here McDonald v. City of Chicago

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

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

In 2022, the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen resolved two of the questions left open following Heller and McDonald:

Does the right to bear arms extend beyond the home, and how are courts to assess purported infringements of the right?

In Bruen, the Court established that the Second Amendment safeguards apply outside the home and specified the criteria for evaluating challenges to firearm laws:

When the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the regulated conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects it; to justify a regulation of that conduct, the government must demonstrate that a challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Facts of the case: The clowns of New York require a person to show a special need for self-protection to receive an unrestricted license to carry a concealed firearm outside the home.

Robert Nash and Brandon Koch challenged the law after New York rejected their concealed-carry applications based on failure to show “proper cause.” A district court dismissed their claims, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed.

Question: Does New York’s law requiring that applicants for unrestricted concealed-carry licenses demonstrate a special need for self-defense violate the Second Amendment?

Read more details, court responses and conclusions here New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

Following Bruen, parties have initiated several legal challenges contesting different firearm laws and regulations, such as federal categorical restrictions on firearm possession.

United States v. Rahimi

In 2024, the Supreme Court held in United States v. Rahimi that one such prohibition, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which applies to persons subject to certain domestic-violence restraining orders, is generally consistent with the Second Amendment.

The Court determined that sufficient historical support existed for the principle that “[w]hen an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed” temporarily.

Facts of the case: Between December 2020 and January 2021, Zackey Rahimi was involved in a series of violent incidents in Arlington, Texas, including multiple shootings and a hit-and-run.

Rahimi was under a civil protective order for alleged assault against his ex-girlfriend, which explicitly prohibited him from possessing firearms.

Police searched his home and found a rifle and a pistol, leading to Rahimi’s indictment for violating federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which makes it unlawful for someone under a domestic violence restraining order to possess firearms. Rahimi moved to dismiss the indictment on constitutional grounds but was denied, as his argument was foreclosed by United States v. McGinnis, 956 F.3d 747 (5th Cir. 2020).

Rahimi pleaded guilty but continued his constitutional challenge on appeal. As the appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 579 U.S. __ (2022). Rahimi argued that Bruen overruled McGinnis and thus that § 922(g)(8) was unconstitutional, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit agreed.

Question: Does 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violate the Second Amendment?

Read more details, court responses and conclusions here United States v. Rahimi

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.

 

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

 

§ 11 Searches and seizures.

Sec. 11.

The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 11, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;– Am. S.J.R. G, approved Nov. 3, 2020, Eff. Dec. 19, 2020
Constitutionality: The last sentence of this section was held invalid as in conflict with US Const, Am IV. Lucas v People, 420 F2d 259 (CA 6, 1970); Caver v Kropp, 306 F Supp 1329 (DC Mich 1969); People v Pennington, 383 Mich 611; 178 NW2d 460 (1970); People v Andrews, 21 Mich App 731; 176 NW2d 460 (1970).
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 10.

Recent

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

read more

Other Articles

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...

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen live to arguments in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the phone for the first time ever due to the coronavirus pandemic; they'll hear 10 cases remotely from now until May 13. But that's not the only history being...

Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Do Passengers in a Vehicle have 4th Amendment Rights?

Michigan Supreme Court Limits Police Ability to Search Passenger Property in Cars

Background

Mead was a passenger in a car and had just met the driver, who offered him a ride. When the police stopped the vehicle and ordered both the driver and Mead out, the driver consented to a search of the car.

The police officer searched the car, including Mead’s backpack left on the passenger seat, revealing methamphetamine, marijuana, pills, and a digital scale.

Mead’s possession of methamphetamine led to his arrest, followed by a motion to suppress the search which was ultimately denied. The court denied the motion, citing People v LaBelle, 478 Mich 891 (2007). Defendant was convicted and sentenced to serve 2 to 10 years in prison as a habitual offender, resulting in a 2 to 10-year prison sentence imposed by the judge.

The Case

Mead argued that the police did not have the right to search his backpack, highlighting the limited ability of a car passenger to challenge a vehicle search.

However, there may be specific circumstances where a passenger could potentially contest such a search.

To challenge a search, one must show a valid Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the area searched, recognized by society. Courts analyze all circumstances to determine the legitimacy of this expectation.

The Court found that Mead had a legitimate expectation of privacy regarding his backpack, as it was his own property that was being searched. This differs from a common scenario where a passenger may hide illicit items in a car they are traveling in.

In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice MCCORMACK, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held:

A passenger’s personal property is not subsumed by the vehicle that carries it for Fourth Amendment purposes. Accordingly, People v LaBelle, 478 Mich 891 (2007), was overruled; in its place, the following standard applies: a person may challenge an alleged Fourth Amendment violation if that person can show under the totality of the circumstances that he or she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and that his or her expectation of privacy was one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.

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 Driver Gave Consent to the Search the Car?!?!

The driver voluntarily allowed the officer to search the vehicle. Consent grants the officer the authority to conduct a search without the need for a warrant.

The key difference lies in the driver lacking the authority to authorize the officer to search Mead’s backpack, as the backpack belonged to Mead.

Read the case and opinions here

 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
LARRY GERALD MEAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 156376.
Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal October 24, 2018.
Decided April 22, 2019.

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.

 

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

 

§ 11 Searches and seizures.

Sec. 11.

The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 11, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;– Am. S.J.R. G, approved Nov. 3, 2020, Eff. Dec. 19, 2020
Constitutionality: The last sentence of this section was held invalid as in conflict with US Const, Am IV. Lucas v People, 420 F2d 259 (CA 6, 1970); Caver v Kropp, 306 F Supp 1329 (DC Mich 1969); People v Pennington, 383 Mich 611; 178 NW2d 460 (1970); People v Andrews, 21 Mich App 731; 176 NW2d 460 (1970).
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 10.

Recent

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

No Second Amendment Rights For YouIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550A federal judge in Michigan has ruled that a man with a prior...

read more

Other Articles

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...

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen live to arguments in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the phone for the first time ever due to the coronavirus pandemic; they'll hear 10 cases remotely from now until May 13. But that's not the only history being...

Michigan Appeals Court Decision on Cannabis Use and Probation

Michigan Appeals Court Decision on Cannabis Use and Probation

At Komorn Law, we are dedicated to protecting the rights of our clients and staying at the forefront of legal developments.

Our firm’s success in the landmark case of People v. Thue set a significant precedent for medical marijuana patients on probation. Recently, another pivotal case, People v. Lopez-Hernandez, was decided by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which further clarifies the boundaries of marijuana use under probation conditions. 

Case Summary: People v. Lopez-Hernandez

In People v Lopez-Hernandez, the defendant, Marco A. Lopez-Hernandez, appealed his probation violation based on the argument that his use of recreational marijuana, compliant with the Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA), should not be penalized.

Lopez-Hernandez had been placed on probation after pleading guilty to operating a vehicle while visibly impaired by marijuana. As a condition of his probation, he was prohibited from using marijuana. When he tested positive for marijuana use, he was found in violation of his probation.

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’s Decision

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision to uphold the probation violation. The court distinguished this case from the Thue decision by noting the context of Lopez-Hernandez’s initial offense, which involved operating a vehicle under the influence of marijuana—a direct violation of both state law and the terms of his probation.

The court emphasized that while the MRTMA decriminalizes the use of marijuana by adults, it does not protect individuals who violate other laws, such as operating a vehicle while impaired.

Therefore, the condition of probation prohibiting marijuana use was deemed lawful and rationally related to the defendant’s rehabilitation.

Implications for Marijuana Users on Probation

This ruling underscores the critical distinction between medical and recreational marijuana use under Michigan law, particularly in the context of probation conditions.

Probation Conditions and Marijuana Use:

Under the MRTMA, adults over 21 years old are allowed to use marijuana recreationally. However, this does not extend to situations where the use of marijuana violates other laws or probation conditions.

Conditions prohibiting marijuana use can still be imposed on probationers if they are rationally related to the offense and the individual’s rehabilitation.

Impact of Prior Offenses:
Individuals convicted of marijuana-related offenses, especially those involving impaired driving, can expect stricter probation conditions related to marijuana use.

This decision clarifies that using marijuana recreationally in violation of the law (e.g., driving under the influence) will not be protected under the MRTMA.

Distinction from Thue Case:
The Thue case protected medical marijuana patients from probation conditions that prohibited compliant use of medical marijuana.

The Lopez-Hernandez decision makes it clear that similar protections do not necessarily apply to recreational use, especially when the underlying offense involves marijuana-related impairment.

The People v. Lopez-Hernandez decision highlights the ongoing evolution of marijuana law in Michigan and the importance of understanding how it intersects with probation conditions.

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.

Recent

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment – Do You Know What It Is?

The 6th Amendment: is it still a thing?The 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution is a crucial pillar of the Bill of Rights, designed to ensure fair and just legal proceedings for individuals accused of crimes. Ratified on December 15, 1791, this amendment...

read more

Other Articles

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...

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen live to arguments in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the phone for the first time ever due to the coronavirus pandemic; they'll hear 10 cases remotely from now until May 13. But that's not the only history being...

Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Do Students Have 4th Amendment Rights in Schools

Students are entitled to a right to be safe from unreasonable searches and seizures even within school premises, as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States.

However, these rights are somewhat limited for students, allowing school officials to conduct searches based on reasonable suspicion rather than just probable cause.

Reasonable Suspicion – The standard that must be met in order to search a student at school; this criterion was established by in 1985 by the case New Jersey v. T.L.O.

Case Background

In a New Jersey high school, a teacher caught two girls smoking in the bathroom and escorted them to the principal’s office. While one girl confessed to smoking, the other, identified as T.L.O., denied it.

The principal discovered that the girl was also selling marijuana at school when they inspected her purse. T.L.O. confessed to the offense after being brought to the police station.

Based on her confession and the evidence in her purse, the state of New Jersey brought charges against her. In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures had been violated.

The school was supported by the court, but T.L.O. appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which ultimately deemed the search unreasonable and the evidence inadmissible.

The state of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme Court.

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

US Supreme Court Decision

School administrators are not required to obtain a search warrant or establish probable cause

In 1985, the Supreme Court ruled, by a 6-3 margin, that New Jersey and the school had met a “reasonableness” standard for conducting such searches at school.

School administrators are not required to obtain a search warrant or establish probable cause before conducting searches, as students have a decreased expectation of privacy while on school premises.

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.

 

STATE CONSTITUTION (EXCERPT)
CONSTITUTION OF MICHIGAN OF 1963

 

§ 11 Searches and seizures.

Sec. 11.

The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

History: Const. 1963, Art. I, § 11, Eff. Jan. 1, 1964 ;– Am. S.J.R. G, approved Nov. 3, 2020, Eff. Dec. 19, 2020
Constitutionality: The last sentence of this section was held invalid as in conflict with US Const, Am IV. Lucas v People, 420 F2d 259 (CA 6, 1970); Caver v Kropp, 306 F Supp 1329 (DC Mich 1969); People v Pennington, 383 Mich 611; 178 NW2d 460 (1970); People v Andrews, 21 Mich App 731; 176 NW2d 460 (1970).
Former Constitution: See Const. 1908, Art. II, § 10.

Recent

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

Domestic Violence Conviction Prohibits Gun Ownership

No Second Amendment Rights For YouIf you are charged with a crime you're part of the State of Michigan family now. Call us - Because you don't want to be a part of that family. Komorn Law (248) 357-2550A federal judge in Michigan has ruled that a man with a prior...

read more

Other Articles

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...

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen Live to the US Supreme Court

Listen live to arguments in the Supreme Court. On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over the phone for the first time ever due to the coronavirus pandemic; they'll hear 10 cases remotely from now until May 13. But that's not the only history being...