| Michigan v. Tyler | |
|---|---|
 Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued January 10, 1978 Decided May 31, 1978 | |
| Full case name | Michigan v. Tyler |
| Citations | 436 U.S. 499 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Holding | |
| Although firefighters and police can seize evidence of arson in plain view shortly after a fire, evidence of arson can not be seized by firefighters days after a fire without consent, a search warrant, or proof of abandonment. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stewart, joined by Burger, Powell, White, Marshall (except IV-A), Blackmun (I, III, and IV-A) |
| Concurrence | Stevens (I, III, and IV; in judgement) |
| Dissent | Rehnquist |
| Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
| Laws applied | |
| Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution | |
Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that firefighters can not enter a burned premises (in this case, a furniture store) to retrieve evidence of arson barring a search warrant, evidence of exigent circumstances, evidence of abandonment, or consent.
Dissent
Justice William Rehnquist argued that due to Tyler's actions, and business being unlikely to resume until major repairs are completed, the subsequent searches were reasonable under the circumstances.
References
- The Quantum of Suspicion Needed for an Exigent Circumstances Search University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform. Volume 52. Kit Kinports. 2019
- Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) Justia
External links
Text of Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499 (1978) is available from: CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it. |