Michigan v. Fisher (2009)
- Docket
- 09-91
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Michigan Court of Appeals err when it held that a person's Fourth Amendment rights are violated when law enforcement officials engage in a warrantless search although there was evidence of a serious and life-threatening injury? Conclusion: Yes. In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court held that Mr. Fisher's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated. The Court recognized that "searches and seizures inside a home are presumptively unreasonable," but that presumption may be overcome. Here, the "exigencies of the situation," Mr. Fisher's injury, made the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search was reasonable. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, filed a separate dissenting opinion. He criticized the Court for "micromanaging the day-to-day business of state tribunals making fact-intensive decisions of this kind."