Michigan
How California v. Hodari D. applies in Michigan: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Criminal Procedure.
Michigan follows the principle established in California v. Hodari D., which differentiates between a seizure and mere police pursuit. Under Michigan law, a person is not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes until a reasonable person would feel they were not free to leave.
A suspect is only considered seized when they submit to an officer's authority or are physically restrained, aligning with Hodari's distinction of a 'show of authority' versus actual seizure.
The Michigan Supreme Court held that voluntary flight from an officer does not constitute a seizure until there is a physical or verbal command to stop.
In this case, the court ruled that a suspect's movement in response to police pursuit does not amount to submitting to officer authority, thus affirming Hodari D. principles.
The court found that a suspect's flight from police in a high-crime area did not establish reasonable suspicion for a stop until a show of authority occurred.
Michigan's approach largely mirrors the federal standard established in Hodari D., which emphasizes the importance of both physical restraint and submission to authority in determining a seizure. However, Michigan courts may provide nuanced interpretations based on state-specific criminal procedure laws.
Students should understand the implications of Hodari D. for issues concerning police pursuits and seizures, as these topics frequently appear on Michigan bar exams.