People of Michigan v. Jennifer Marie Hammerlund, 355120

Background:

Early-morning single-vehicle crash; vehicle identified as defendant's at scene; officer requested welfare check at defendant's home.
Defendant stayed inside; after roommate was pressured, defendant approached the door and extended her hand to receive her ID through the doorway.
Officer Staman grabbed defendant's arm as she reached for the ID; during the struggle he and defendant stumbled two to three steps into the home and he completed a warrantless arrest inside the residence.
No arrest warrant, no probable cause for a felony OWI at the time of entry, and the misdemeanor (failure to report damage to fixtures) was not arrestable under the statute cited by the officer.
After arrest, defendant gave statements in the patrol car and submitted two breath tests at the county jail (.22 and .21 BAC); these were admitted at trial and contributed to convictions.
Michigan Supreme Court held the in-home arrest violated the Fourth Amendment and remanded for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule should bar the post-arrest statements and breath tests; the trial court suppressed the evidence and ordered a new trial; this appeal affirms suppression and the new trial.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether statements and breath tests taken after an in-home, warrantless arrest must be suppressed under the exclusionary rule	Harris requires admission of out-of-home statements if police had probable cause; suppression is unwarranted here	The arrest was an unlawful Payton violation lacking probable cause and statutory authority; post-arrest evidence is fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed	Suppression affirmed: no probable cause/statutory authority, evidence bears close relationship to illegality, exclusion warranted
Whether Officer Staman had probable cause to arrest for OWI or any felony	There was sufficient information (admissions, odor) to justify arrest and later testing	Supreme Court already found facts known at arrest did not establish probable cause for OWI or any felony	No probable cause for felony OWI was present at the time of the in-home arrest
Whether statutory authority existed to arrest for the misdemeanor alleged (failure to report)	Officer cites statute authorizing warrantless arrest for certain misdemeanors	Statute authorizes arrest only for misdemeanors punishable by >92 days; the charged offense is a 90-day misdemeanor, so statutory arrest authority lacking	Arrest for the misdemeanor was not statutorily authorized; detention unlawful on that basis as well
Whether a new trial was warranted after suppression of the critical evidence	Admission: suppressed evidence was critical to conviction; reversal may be required but new trial discretionary	Prosecution contended trial court failed to specify grounds and to find miscarriage of justice	Trial court did not abuse discretion; suppression of critical evidence rendered the verdict a miscarriage of justice and warranted new trial

Key Cases Cited

Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573 (warrantless, nonconsensual entry into home to make routine felony arrest prohibited)
Santana v. United States, 427 U.S. 38 (suspect exposed to public view at doorway may be arrested outside home)
New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 (statements made outside the home after an in-home Payton violation admissible if police had probable cause to arrest)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings required for custodial interrogation)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (exclusionary rule is prudential; deterrence benefits depend on police culpability)
Welsh v. Wisconsin, 466 U.S. 740 (presumption against warrantless home entry for misdemeanors)
People v. Randolph, 502 Mich. 1 (exclusionary rule reaches primary and derivative evidence)
People v. Hammerlund, 504 Mich. 442 (Mich Supreme Court: in-home arrest violated Fourth Amendment; remanded to consider exclusionary rule)