E.D.Mich.: Michigan liquor control administrative searches here don’t comply with Burger/Patel

The administrative search provisions of the Michigan liquor control statute don’t measure up to the Burger/Patel standards for administrative searches. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment denied. Generis Ent., LLC v. Donley, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185142 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 18, 2026)*:

Plaintiff Generis Entertainment, LLC, a company that owns a bar and restaurant in Saginaw, Michigan, filed a complaint challenging the constitutionality of the administrative search provisions of Michigan’s liquor control law. Defendants Michigan Liquor Control Commissioners move for summary judgment on that claim. The principal issue raised by their motion is whether the administrative search scheme prescribed by the relevant statute and administrative rule set out a program with enough certainty and regularity in its application so that it provides a constitutionally adequate substitute for a search warrant. The cases also require the state to show that its warrantless inspection program is “necessary” to the success of its regulatory scheme. The defendants accompanied their motion with an affidavit by Kayla Swope, the director of the Michigan Liquor Control Commission’s (MLCC) Enforcement Division. Swope has described in detail how the administrative search provisions of Michigan’s liquor law are applied, and the role that unannounced inspections and searches play in the effective administration of the law within the industry. However, neither the language of the statute and administrative rule, nor the explanation of the need for the warrantless search program, satisfy the requirements of the governing caselaw applying the administrative search exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant and probable cause requirements. The defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V of the amended complaint will be denied.

This entry was posted in Administrative search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.