People of Michigan v. Jennifer Marie Hammerlund
355120
Mich. Ct. App.Jun 17, 2021Background
- Police responded to a vehicle crash; Officer Staman located Hammerlund at her home after the vehicle was abandoned and showing crash damage.
- At the front door the officer grabbed Hammerlund’s arm as she reached for ID, entered her home without a warrant, and arrested her.
- Hammerlund was convicted of OWI (third offense) and failure to report an accident; the trial court denied suppression and this Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review, solicited supplemental briefing on whether police can compel someone from their home to a public place for a warrantless arrest, and reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- In a footnote (footnote 5) the Supreme Court stated the facts known to the officer were insufficient to establish probable cause for OWI, and it held that there was no exigency to justify a nighttime, in-home arrest for the 90‑day misdemeanor failure-to-report offense.
- On remand the trial court—relying on the Supreme Court’s characterization—granted suppression; Judge Boonstra (dissenting here) criticizes the Supreme Court for deciding probable‑cause/Owi issues in the first instance without a developed lower‑court record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of officer’s entry/arrest at home (warrantless) | Entry/arrest lawful because officer had probable cause for misdemeanor failure to report; no suppression. | Entry and in‑home warrantless arrest unconstitutional; motion to suppress should be granted. | Supreme Court: arrest based on minor misdemeanor lacked exigency; in‑home arrest unreasonable; remanded for suppression analysis. |
| Probable cause for OWI at time of arrest | Officer had facts (abandoned crash, slurred speech, unsteady) supporting probable cause for OWI; OWI could justify warrantless arrest. | Officer lacked facts tying present intoxication to time of driving; record inadequate to show probable cause for OWI. | Supreme Court majority (in footnote) concluded the record did not show probable cause for OWI; dissent disagreed. Boonstra: SCOT erred to decide this without full record. |
| Application of exigent‑circumstances/hot‑pursuit doctrine | Exigent circumstances could justify entry to prevent dissipation of BAC and to effectuate arrest. | No emergency or evidence destruction shown; all elements of the misdemeanor were already known so exigency absent. | Supreme Court held no exigency justified the in‑home arrest for the misdemeanor; noted even if OWI probable cause existed, no legitimate hot pursuit here. |
| Appellate procedure: may Supreme Court decide new factual/probable‑cause issues? | (Prosecution) urged standard appellate review; highlighted probable‑cause facts in briefing. | (Boonstra dissent) Supreme Court should not decide issues not raised/decided below or without record development. | Boonstra (dissenting): Supreme Court improperly resolved probable‑cause issue in first instance; lower courts should develop record and decide initially. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Hammerlund, 504 Mich 442 (Mich. 2019) (Mich. Supreme Court reversed and remanded; majority questioned probable cause for OWI in footnote and held no exigency for in‑home arrest for the misdemeanor)
- Devenpeck v. Alford, 543 U.S. 146 (U.S. 2004) (probable cause for any crime can justify an arrest irrespective of officer’s stated reason)
- Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91 (U.S. 1990) (enumerating exigent‑circumstances considerations justifying warrantless entry/arrest)
- People v. Hamacher, 432 Mich 157 (Mich. 1989) (appellate courts generally should not decide issues not presented to or decided by the trial court)
- People v. Stanaway, 446 Mich 643 (Mich. 1994) (describing scope of issues on leave to appeal and appellate review procedures)