The exclusionary rule does not apply in child protective proceedings. In re Kirschner, 2018 Mich. App. LEXIS 1093 (Apr. 3, 2018):
The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter future police misconduct. People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523, 529; 682 NW2d 479 (2004). The application of the exclusionary rule has been restricted to situations where its remedial objectives are believed to be most effective. Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1, 11; 115 S Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995). Consequently, where the exclusionary rule does not appreciably deter police misconduct, its use is unwarranted. Id. As noted, in this case, mother has not provided any authority either establishing that the exclusionary rule applies in child protective proceedings or demonstrating that the application of the exclusionary rule in child protective proceedings would appreciably deter police misconduct. See In re Martin, 316 Mich App 73, 85 n 8; 896 NW2d 452 (2016) (noting that other jurisdictions have refused to apply the exclusionary rule in child protective proceedings because it may hinder the state’s interest in protecting children). We hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply in child protective proceedings; consequently, any potential violation of mother’s Fourth Amendment rights in this case must be deemed harmless and without remedy.