MI: Exclusionary rule doesn’t apply in civil cases; constitutionality of use of drone for zoning enforcement not decided

In the Michigan zoning drone use case, the court finds that the exclusionary rule would not be applied in civil cases, so the constitutionality of use of the drone didn’t need to be decided. Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon, 2024 Mich. LEXIS 841 (May 3, 2024). Update: Reason: Michigan Supreme Court Allows Evidence Collected by Drone, Without a Warrant by Joe Lancaster (“The court declined to address whether the search violated the Fourth Amendment and merely held that the evidence could not be excluded in a civil case.”). Update 2: techdirt: Michigan Supreme Court Says Fourth Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Government Drone Use In Civil Cases by Tim Cushing. Update 3: Cato Institute: The Michigan Supreme Court Opens the Door to Warrantless Searches in Regulatory Investigations

“[T]he Officers reasonably believed that Mr. Craven posed an immediate risk of harm when he persisted in advancing toward them and, despite their commands, dropped his hands toward his waist where a gun holster was located.” Craven v. Novelli, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 10834 (4th Cir. May 3, 2024).*

A cell phone stuck inside to the windshield was reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Reyes-Rosario, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80948 (W.D. Pa. May 3, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Drones, Excessive force, Exclusionary rule, Reasonable suspicion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.