939 N.W.2d 129
Mich.2019Background
- Early-morning single-vehicle crash left defendant’s car disabled and damaged a guardrail; defendant used a rideshare to go home and did not report the accident.
- Officer Staman located the abandoned vehicle, identified it as registered to Hammerlund, and went to her home; Kentwood officers had already asked her roommate to summon her.
- Staman stood on the porch while Hammerlund remained inside roughly 15–20 feet from the door; she admitted driving the car and had her roommate pass her ID through the house.
- After returning the ID, Hammerlund reached out to take it; Staman grabbed her arm, was pulled two–three steps into the house, completed the arrest inside, then transported her to jail where breath tests showed BAC > legal limit.
- She was charged with OWI (third offense) and failing to report an accident; she moved to suppress and dismiss, arguing the warrantless in-home arrest violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The trial court and Court of Appeals applied United States v. Santana and upheld the arrest; the Michigan Supreme Court reversed, holding Santana inapplicable and Payton required a warrant absent exigent circumstances, and remanded for suppression analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hammerlund) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant exposed herself to a public-arrest such that Santana governs | Staman lawfully initiated arrest when Hammerlund reached across the threshold for ID, so arrest was set in motion in a public place | Hammerlund remained inside, preserved privacy; brief reaching did not waive home protection | Court: Santana distinguishable; she maintained reasonable expectation of privacy and was not subject to a public arrest |
| Whether officer could lawfully enter home without warrant under hot-pursuit/exigent circumstances | Entry was justified as hot pursuit once defendant pulled away after officer grabbed her arm | No hot pursuit/exigency existed for a misdemeanor; no evidence of imminent destruction of evidence | Court: No hot pursuit or exigency justified the in-home entry; Payton applies |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment permits officer to seize inside home without warrant when arrest was completed inside | Probable cause existed to arrest for failure to report and/or OWI; initiating arrest outside threshold validated pursuit and entry | Completing the arrest inside home without a warrant violated Payton and was presumptively unreasonable | Court: Warrantless in-home arrest presumptively unreasonable; prosecution failed to overcome presumption |
| If constitutional violation occurred, whether suppression of post-arrest evidence is required | (Court of Appeals/People urged Harris might allow some evidence) | Suppression appropriate under exclusionary rule for Payton violation | Michigan Supreme Court remanded for trial court to decide exclusionary-rule application (did not decide Harris applicability) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38 (1976) (arrest begun at doorway in public view may permit warrantless entry under hot pursuit)
- Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (1980) (warrantless entry into home to make an arrest is presumptively unreasonable absent exigent circumstances)
- New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (1990) (statements made outside home after an in-home Payton violation may still be admissible if police had probable cause)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (Fourth Amendment protects reasonable expectations of privacy)
- Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (1984) (hesitation to find exigent circumstances for warrantless home entries in misdemeanor cases)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (2004) (officer’s subjective reasons irrelevant if facts objectively establish probable cause)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule is a last resort; suppression requires demonstration that it will deter culpable police conduct)