Evidence from a search or stop? A motion to suppress is how a Michigan criminal case challenges it
I am Mitchell Bisson, a Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer. I have litigated for over 15 years. This page explains how a motion to suppress works in a Michigan criminal case: who can bring one, who has to prove what, how search warrants are tested, the exceptions police rely on when they have no warrant, what the remedy is and what happens after the judge rules. It is written for the person charged, not the person suing the police. I do not promise outcomes, and a suppression motion is only as strong as the facts and the paperwork behind it.
The short answer. Evidence obtained by a search or seizure that violates the Constitution is generally inadmissible in a state criminal trial. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961). A warrantless search or seizure is presumed unconstitutional unless it is shown to fall within one of several established exceptions. People v. Lucynski, 509 Mich. 618 (2022) (“A warrantless search or seizure is presumed unconstitutional unless shown to be within one of several established exceptions.”). The remedy reaches evidence that was come at by exploiting the illegality, not only the item seized first. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). You raise the issue by a pretrial motion. Nothing here predicts how a judge will rule.
A suppression ruling can decide a case. If the gun, the drugs, the phone data or the video is excluded, the prosecutor may have little left, and the strength of an offer can change overnight. If the motion is denied, the evidence comes in and the case is judged on what remains. Either way, the motion is where the legality of the police conduct is tested, and it is usually one of the first things I look at.
Michigan’s constitution protects the person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data and electronic communications of every person from unreasonable searches and seizures, and says no warrant may issue to search any place, seize any person or thing, or access electronic data or electronic communications without describing them and without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation. Const 1963, art 1, § 11. The electronic data language was added by amendment in 2020. The Fourth Amendment sets a floor that Michigan courts must honor, and the Michigan provision can be argued as an additional ground. A challenge to a statement made to police is a different motion with its own rules, and I do not cover it here.
The questions a suppression motion asks
| Issue | The question | Authority |
|---|---|---|
| Standing | Did the person challenging the search have his or her own protected interest in the place or thing searched? Fourth Amendment rights are personal and cannot be asserted vicariously | Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-134 (1979) |
| Search warrant | Was there a sworn affidavit establishing probable cause before a judge or magistrate, and does the warrant describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized? | MCL 780.651(1); MCL 780.654(1) |
| Informant information | Does the affidavit show that a named informant spoke from personal knowledge, or that an unnamed informant spoke from personal knowledge and is credible or the information reliable? | MCL 780.653 |
| False statements in the affidavit | Was the issuing judge misled by statements the affiant knew were false or made with reckless disregard for the truth? | Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 (1978) |
| Consent | Was the consent voluntary under the totality of the circumstances? Knowing of a right to refuse is a factor, not a requirement | Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-249 (1973) |
| Stop and frisk | Can the officer point to specific and articulable facts that, with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the intrusion? | Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968) |
| Length of a traffic stop | Did the officer extend the stop beyond the time needed for the traffic mission, without reasonable suspicion, to do something else? | Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015) |
| Emergency entry | Did the officers have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant was seriously injured or imminently threatened with injury? | Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 400, 403 (2006); Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026) |
| Cell phone | Was there a warrant, and was it particular about what on the phone could be searched? | Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014); People v. Carson, No. 166923 (Mich. July 31, 2025) |
This table is a map and not a checklist. Each row turns on facts: what the officers saw and heard, what they wrote, when they did it and what the video shows.
Who can bring the motion, and who carries the burden
You can challenge a search only if it violated your own rights. The Supreme Court has said Fourth Amendment rights are personal and may not be vicariously asserted. Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133-134 (1979). So the first question in a case with several people is whose home, car, bag or phone it was, and what connection each person had to it. A passenger, a guest and an owner may stand in different positions, and I work that out before I file.
For a warrantless search, Michigan’s starting point is that the search or seizure is presumed unconstitutional unless it is shown to fall within a recognized exception. People v. Lucynski, 509 Mich. 618 (2022). An older Court of Appeals decision placed the burden of showing that a warrantless search was reasonable on the prosecution. People v. Mason, 22 Mich. App. 595, 616 (1970). In practice, that means the officers’ account is tested: what did they know before they acted, what did they do, and which exception do they claim? I want the exact basis in writing before the hearing.
Attacking a search warrant
Michigan’s statute spells out what a warrant requires. A judge or district court magistrate may issue a warrant when an affidavit is made on oath that establishes the grounds and the judge is satisfied there is probable cause. MCL 780.651(1). The finding must be based on all the facts related within the affidavit. MCL 780.653. The warrant must be directed to a sheriff or peace officer, must designate and describe the place to be searched and the property or thing to be seized, and must either state the grounds or have a copy of the affidavit attached. MCL 780.654(1), (2).
That gives a defense lawyer several places to look. Is the affidavit sworn? Does it contain enough facts, as opposed to conclusions, to establish probable cause? If it relies on an informant, does it contain the allegations the statute requires about personal knowledge and credibility or reliability? MCL 780.653. Is the information fresh, and does it connect the place searched to the evidence sought? Does the warrant describe the premises and the items with enough care? Was the search limited to what the warrant allowed?
The affidavit itself may be tested. Under Franks, a defendant who makes the required showing that the affiant included a deliberate or reckless falsehood can ask the court to look behind the affidavit. Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155-156 (1978). The preparation is detailed work: I compare the affidavit with the reports, recordings and the informant’s history, and I look for facts that were left out.
Phones deserve special attention. The Supreme Court held that officers generally must get a warrant to search the data on a cell phone seized from an arrested person. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). In 2025 the Michigan Supreme Court held that a warrant for a defendant’s phone that authorized a search for “any and all” data was insufficiently particular, and the lead opinion said that in the context of a cell-phone search courts must “jealously guard the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, including the particularity requirement.” People v. Carson, No. 166923 (Mich. July 31, 2025). If your phone was searched, the wording of the warrant is the first document I read.
Getting the papers comes first. On request the prosecutor must provide any affidavit, warrant and return pertaining to a search or seizure in the case, as well as police reports. MCR 6.201(C)(2), (4). A search warrant affidavit in a court file is nonpublic information until the 56th day after the warrant issues, unless an officer or prosecutor obtains a suppression order. MCL 780.651(8), (9). Officers must give the person from whom property was taken a copy of the warrant and a tabulation of what was seized, but they are not required to give a copy of the affidavit. MCL 780.655(1).
When there was no warrant
Many cases involve no warrant at all. Then the prosecution points to an exception, and each one has limits that can be tested.
Consent. The Supreme Court held that whether a consent to a search was voluntary is a question of fact decided from all the circumstances, and that knowledge of the right to refuse is one factor in that inquiry. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 248-249 (1973). I ask who asked, how many officers were there, what was said, whether the person was in custody and whether the person had authority over the place searched.
Stops and frisks. A stop needs specific, articulable facts that reasonably warrant the intrusion, and a hunch will not do. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21 (1968). A traffic stop is lawful only for as long as it takes to complete its mission; authority for the seizure ends when the tasks tied to the traffic infraction are, or reasonably should have been, completed. Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015).
Emergency entry. Officers may enter a home without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 400, 403 (2006). In January 2026 the Supreme Court declined to require probable cause for that exception and applied the objective reasonableness standard from Brigham City. Case v. Montana, No. 24-624 (U.S. Jan. 14, 2026). Because the test is objective, the question becomes what the officers saw and heard before they went in, and I compare that with the call record and any video.
Vehicles, arrests and inventory. Each has its own set of rules about what may be searched and when, and I analyze them on the facts of the case rather than from a general rule. The prosecution has to fit its search into one of the established categories, and I test each element of the category it picks.
Knock-and-announce and what the remedy does not cover
Michigan’s search warrant statute allows an officer to break any outer or inner door or window to execute the warrant if, after notice of authority and purpose, the officer is refused admittance, or when necessary to free the officer or anyone assisting. MCL 780.656. A violation of that rule does not usually lead to suppression. The Michigan Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule did not require suppression where the evidence would have been discovered despite the violation, and found no legislative intent to apply the exclusionary rule to violations of the statute. People v. Stevens, 460 Mich. 626 (1999). The Supreme Court of the United States, in a case from Michigan, held that suppression was not the remedy for a knock-and-announce violation. Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006). I raise the manner of entry when the facts are serious, but I do not build a suppression motion on it alone.
What suppression does, and its limits
The exclusionary rule applies to the direct product of an illegal search and also to what comes from it. The Supreme Court framed the question as whether the evidence objected to has been come at by exploitation of the illegality or by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purged of the primary taint. Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 488 (1963). That is why a motion often names more than the first item seized: later statements, a second search, a phone extraction or a lab result may all trace back to the same entry.
Courts also recognize a good-faith exception. Suppression is generally not ordered when officers reasonably relied on a warrant that is later found defective, but the Supreme Court has said suppression remains appropriate if the issuing judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the affiant knew was false or would have known was false except for reckless disregard of the truth. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922-923 (1984). The Michigan Supreme Court recognized a good-faith exception in this state. People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523 (2004). When a warrant is attacked, I therefore look past probable cause and ask whether an officer could reasonably have relied on it.
The ruling is not the end of the case. If the court suppresses, the prosecution may be able to seek appellate review, subject to double jeopardy limits. MCL 770.12(1), (2). If the court denies the motion, I can raise the ruling on appeal after trial. A guilty or no contest plea may mean giving up the right to appeal issues that would otherwise be appealable, and an appeal from a plea is by application for leave only. MCR 6.302(B)(5). The rules do allow a conditional plea, with the court’s and the prosecutor’s consent, that preserves a specified pretrial ruling for appeal and lets the defendant withdraw the plea if that ruling is overturned. MCR 6.301(C)(2).
How I handle a suppression issue
- Get the paper. I request the reports, the warrant, the affidavit, the return, dispatch records and any video, because the motion is built from the documents.
- Fix the timeline. I lay out exactly when each stop, entry, search and statement happened, and what the officers knew at each step.
- Identify the claimed basis. Warrant, consent, emergency, arrest, stop or something else. I make the prosecutor commit to one.
- Check standing. I work out whose rights were affected and what connection you had to the place or item.
- Draft and file the motion. A focused brief with the facts, the rule and a request for an evidentiary hearing where testimony is needed.
- Prepare the hearing. I prepare cross-examination from the officers’ own reports and recordings, and I decide whether you should testify. I explain the risk of testifying before you decide.
- Plan for either ruling. If evidence is excluded I reassess the case. If it is not, I preserve the issue and talk with you about trial, a conditional plea or other options.
Ways a suppression issue can end
- The court suppresses the evidence, and the prosecutor reassesses, dismisses or appeals.
- The court denies the motion, and the issue is preserved for appeal after trial.
- The prosecutor changes the offer once a strong motion is on file.
- The case ends in a conditional plea that preserves the ruling for appeal.
- The motion is not filed because the facts do not support it, and I tell you that plainly.
What I need from you
Bring every paper you were given: the warrant if there was one, property receipts, tickets, charging documents and bond papers. Write down the date, time and place, who was there, what each officer said and did, what you said and whether anyone asked for permission. Tell me who owns or controls the place, car or phone. Keep any video, including doorbell, dash and phone video, and tell me who else has a copy. Do not consent to a further search, and do not discuss the search with the police or on social media.
Where your Kent County motion will be heard
I represent clients charged in Grand Rapids, Kentwood, Grandville, Wyoming and across Kent County. A felony begins in district court with an arraignment and, if the case continues, a preliminary examination. MCL 600.8311(c), (e). Michigan law sets the Kent County district courts by municipality. The 61st District Court serves the city of Grand Rapids, the 59th serves the cities of Grandville and Walker, the 62A serves the city of Wyoming and the 62B serves the city of Kentwood. MCL 600.8128a; MCL 600.8130(1)-(3). The 63rd District Court serves the rest of Kent County, which includes the cities of Rockford, Lowell, Cedar Springs and East Grand Rapids and the surrounding townships. MCL 600.8130(4). If the magistrate binds the case over, the felony is arraigned in the circuit court, which for Kent County is the 17th Judicial Circuit. MCL 766.13; MCL 600.8311(f); MCL 600.518. A suppression motion in a misdemeanor case is heard in the district court. MCL 600.8311(a). Search warrants are issued by a judge or district court magistrate on a sworn affidavit. MCL 780.651(1).
Why people hire me for a Michigan suppression matter
You work directly with me, the lawyer handling your case. I read the warrant, the affidavit and the reports myself, I tell you which issues are strong and which are not, and I explain what the motion can and cannot accomplish. I do not promise outcomes. I prepare each case for trial, because a suppression ruling changes the case but rarely ends the work.
My fee depends on the charges, how complicated the case is and how far it is likely to go. We talk about the fee at the consultation, before you decide whether to hire me.
Questions I hear from people whose case depends on a search or stop
What is a motion to suppress, and when can evidence be thrown out in Michigan?
A motion to suppress asks the court to exclude evidence the police obtained unlawfully. Under Mapp v Ohio, evidence obtained by a search or seizure that violates the Constitution is generally inadmissible in a state court, subject to recognized exceptions, and under Miranda v Arizona the prosecution generally may not use statements from custodial interrogation unless it shows the required safeguards were followed.
Do police need a warrant to search my cell phone in Michigan?
Generally yes. In Riley v California, the United States Supreme Court held that police must get a warrant before searching the digital contents of a cell phone seized incident to an arrest. That holding binds Michigan courts. Other exceptions, such as consent or a genuine emergency, may still apply depending on the facts.
Can police search my home or car if I say yes to a search?
Yes, if your consent is voluntary. Under Schneckloth v Bustamonte, whether consent was voluntary is a question of fact decided from all the circumstances, and knowing you had a right to refuse is only one factor. A valid consent removes the need for a warrant, which is why officers ask.
What does a search warrant have to say to be valid in Michigan?
Under MCL 780.651, a judge or district court magistrate must receive a sworn affidavit establishing grounds and be satisfied there is probable cause before issuing a warrant. Under MCL 780.654, the warrant must be directed to a sheriff or peace officer, must describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized, and must state its grounds or attach the affidavit.
Can police break down my door to execute a search warrant in Michigan?
Generally only after giving notice and being refused entry, with limited exceptions. MCL 780.656 lets the officer to whom a warrant is directed, or anyone assisting, break an outer or inner door or window to execute it if, after notice of authority and purpose, the officer is refused admittance, or when necessary to free the officer or someone assisting. The statute is Michigan’s knock-and-announce rule.
What pretrial motions can be filed in a Michigan felony case?
Common ones include a motion to dismiss or remand for violations of the preliminary examination rules (MCR 6.110(H)), a motion to suppress evidence, a motion to compel discovery or for sanctions (MCR 6.201(K)), a motion for a bill of particulars (MCR 6.112(E)), a motion to modify bond (MCR 6.106(H)), and a speedy trial motion under MCR 6.004.
Can I get a copy of the police report or the search warrant affidavit in my case?
Once you request it in a pending case, yes, with limits. MCR 6.201(C) requires the prosecutor to provide any police report and interrogation records, except parts concerning a continuing investigation, plus any affidavit, warrant, and return pertaining to a search or seizure in the case. A search warrant affidavit in a court file is nonpublic until the 56th day after the warrant issues, unless a suppression order extends that.
Can police stop and frisk me in Michigan without arresting me?
Only on specific facts. Under Terry v Ohio, an officer justifying a stop and frisk must point to specific and articulable facts that, with rational inferences, reasonably warrant the intrusion. A hunch is not enough. The frisk must also be reasonably related in scope to the reason for the stop.
Related Michigan pages
- Grand Rapids criminal defense lawyer
- Preliminary exam, discovery and Miranda
- What happens after an arrest
- Possession with intent to deliver
- Unlawful searches and First Amendment retaliation
- wrongful arrest claims
I represent people in Kent County and West Michigan whose cases depend on a search, a stop or a warrant. Contact me 24/7 by phone or email. Your Rights, My Fight! Call for a free initial consultation.
Big-Firm Power. Street-Level Grit.
Law Offices of Mitchell S. Bisson, 2828 Kraft Ave SE, Suite 295, Grand Rapids, MI 49512, serving Kent County and West Michigan.
This page provides general information about Michigan law and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.