People of Michigan v. Jesse Lawerence Holt ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    June 7, 2013                                                                                         Robert P. Young, Jr.,
    Chief Justice
    145201                                                                                               Michael F. Cavanagh
    Stephen J. Markman
    Mary Beth Kelly
    Brian K. Zahra
    Bridget M. McCormack
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                        David F. Viviano,
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                                       Justices
    v                                                                 SC: 145201
    COA: 302017
    Wayne CC: 10-007922-FH
    JESSE LAWERENCE HOLT, a/k/a JESSE
    LAWRENCE HOLT,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    By order of September 4, 2012, the application for leave to appeal the April 10,
    2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decisions in
    Florida v Jardines (USSC Docket No. 11-564) and Florida v Harris (USSC Docket No.
    11-817). On order of the Court, Florida v Jardines having been decided on March 26,
    2013, 569 US ___; 
    133 S Ct 1409
    ; 
    185 L Ed 2d 495
     (2013), and Florida v Harris having
    been decided on February 19, 2013, 568 US ___; 
    133 S Ct 1050
    ; 
    185 L Ed 2d 61
     (2013),
    the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting
    leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and we
    REINSTATE the November 23, 2010 order of the Wayne Circuit Court. In Florida v
    Jardines, under circumstances very similar to those in this case, the United States
    Supreme Court ruled that the employment of a drug-sniffing dog within the curtilage of
    the defendant’s home without a search warrant was a violation of the Fourth Amendment
    right against unreasonable searches and seizures. In light of the prosecutor’s concession
    that absent the canine sniff the warrant was not supported by probable cause, and given
    the reasoning provided by the United States Supreme Court, the trial court in this case
    properly granted the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence seized in the search of
    his home.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    June 7, 2013
    t0604
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 145201

Filed Date: 6/7/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014