People of Michigan v. Daniel Horacek
152567
| Mich. | Dec 8, 2017Background
- Defendant Daniel Horacek sought leave to appeal a Court of Appeals judgment arising from a warrantless entry and arrest at a private dwelling.
- The Michigan Supreme Court considered the application after oral argument and denied leave to appeal on December 8, 2017.
- Chief Justice Markman filed a concurring opinion explaining the proper approach to evaluating exigent circumstances that justify warrantless entries.
- The concurrence emphasized that the controlling inquiry is whether officers faced an emergency that justified acting without a warrant.
- The opinion discussed and endorsed using the People v. Oliver factors as non‑mechanical, illustrative tools evaluated under the totality of the circumstances.
- The concurrence clarified that some Oliver factors (e.g., destruction of evidence, risk to safety, ability to secure a warrant) may be dispositive on their own, while others are context‑dependent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leave to appeal should be granted | People argued no supervisory review needed; prior rulings sufficient | Horacek sought review of warrantless entry/exigent‑circumstances analysis | Leave denied — no substantial statewide question warranting review |
| Proper standard for exigent‑circumstances entries | Police actions should be judged by application of Oliver factors | Horacek argued Oliver factors were misapplied or overbroad | Court (concurring): Oliver factors are illustrative; core question is whether officers faced an emergency justifying warrantless action |
| Role of individual Oliver factors (probable cause; presence on premises; forcible entry; night entry) | People emphasized these support reasonableness | Horacek argued some factors do not justify entry absent exigency | Held: These are relevant but not uniformly dispositive; some (probable cause, presence) are threshold, others affect reasonableness but do not alone establish exigency |
| Weight of factors like destruction of evidence, safety, ability to get a warrant | People argued such factors justified entry in appropriate cases | Horacek argued warrant should have been obtained when feasible | Held: Destruction of evidence or present danger to safety can independently justify warrantless entry; ability to secure a warrant, if practical, undercuts justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Missouri v. McNeely, 569 U.S. 141 (whether an emergency justified acting without a warrant is the determinative inquiry)
- People v. Oliver, 417 Mich. 366 (listing illustrative factors for assessing exigent circumstances)
- People v. Blasius, 435 Mich. 573 (Oliver factors provide guidance, not rigid test)
- In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich. 261 (exigent‑circumstances exception still requires reasonableness and probable cause)
- United States v. Vasquez‑Algarin, 821 F.3d 467 (home entry requires probable cause that arrestee is present)
- People v. Burrill, 391 Mich. 124 (method of entry—peaceable vs. forcible—relevant to reasonableness)
- Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927 (method of entry among factors assessing reasonableness)
- United States v. Kelley, 652 F.3d 915 (night‑time entry may be unreasonable in some circumstances)
- Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (destruction of evidence may justify warrantless entry)
- Birchfield v. North Dakota, 136 S. Ct. 2160 (exigent circumstances permit warrantless searches when insufficient time to seek warrant)
- Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (exigent circumstances tied to inability to secure a warrant in time)
- United States v. Moreno, 701 F.3d 64 (Oliver‑style factors are illustrative; core question is whether facts indicated urgent need at moment of entry)