Articles Posted in Courts

Typically when a confession is being contested in a criminal case the Defendant’s lawyer will file a motion with the Court assigned to the case and request an evidentiary hearing pursuant to People v Walker, 374 Mich 331 (1965).  The hearing considers the totality of the circumstances surrounding the statement made.

The Fourth Amendment to the United States and Michigan Constitutions, Michigan Statutory law, and case law govern the use and legality of search warrants in Michigan for State court proceedings.  The 4th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides for “[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized”.  The remedy for an improper search is the exclusion of evidence.  Mapp v. Ohio, 367 US 643 (1961).  There are a number of exceptions to the search warrant requirement that sometimes justify warrantless searches to occur (for example:  consent, plain view; exigent circumstances, automobile, search to lawful arrest, searches at the boarder or airport, the Patriot Act, etc.).  The applicability of these exceptions depends upon the facts of the particular case.  With regard to any criminal law issue that may pertain to you – seek the assistance of an experienced criminal lawyer such as the lawyers at Hilf & Hilf, PLC.

Obtaining a Search Warrant

Search warrants are issued by either District Court Judges or magistrates that are authorized by a District Court Judge to issue search warrants to law enforcement.  A District Court Judge or magistrate may issue a search warrant for anywhere in the State of Michigan, and is not limited by the District Court’s jurisdiction where the Judge is seated.  People v. Fiorillo, 195 Mich App 701 (1992).  The standard of proof for the issuance of search warrants is probable cause.  A District Court Judge or magistrate needs to find that there is a “fair probability” that the evidence seized will be at the location to be searched.  People v. Russo, 439 Mich 584 (1992).  Probability is not a prima facie showing, nor a preponderance of the evidence.  Illinois v. Gates, 103 S Ct 2317 (1983).  It is permissible for law enforcement to obtain a search warrant that anticipates that evidence will be found at a particular location as long as the search warrant indicates that there is probable cause that the item described is likely to be found in the place described.  For example, a seizure of drugs from a traffic stop that suggest drug distribution may lead to a search warrant of the home of the vehicle occupant.  United States v. Grubbs, 126 S Ct 1494 (2006); People v. Kaslowski, 239 Mich App 320 (2000).  The search warrant can contain multiple locations to search if the allegations in the affidavit for search warrant satisfy the requisite finding of probable cause.  People v. Cyr, 113 Mich App 213 (1982).

The prosecution in Michigan generally does not have to present every witness at trial, but must produce enough evidence on every element of the charged offense to withstand a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case.  Michigan Court Rule 6.419 provides that “after the prosecutor has rested the prosecution’s case in chief or after the close of all evidence, the court on Defendant’s motion must direct a verdict of acquittal on any charged offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.  The court may on its own consider whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.  If the court denies a motion for a judgment of acquittal at the close of the government’s evidence, the Defendant may offer evidence without having reserved the right to do so”.  The Defense has to convince the trial Judge that the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution cannot support a conviction.