Michigan Case Highlights Distinction in Arrest Warrants vs Search Warrants
Recently, a Michigan resident named Colin Heys challenged his arrest and conviction of resisting and obstruction an officer after law enforcement entered a residence and he fought officers as he was arrested. At the heart of the issue was that, although Heys had an outstanding arrest warrant, the arrest warrant listed an address that did not match the house he was arrested at. When a resident of the house where Heys was arrested at called police and asked them to pick up Heys, officers confirmed the existence of an arrest warrant, found him at the address and tried to arrest him. Heys refused to comply with officers, ended up kicking an officer, and was ultimately convicted of two counts of resisting and obstructing a police officer as a result. The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld his conviction, despite the differing addresses on the arrest warrant and location of the arrest, reasoning that an arrest warrant describes people, not places to be searched. As the court put it, a search warrant is tied to a place, in contrast to an arrest warrant which is tied to a person. A wrong address on an arrest warrant does not address the essential part of the underling issue, according to Michigan law. However, the Court noted that an important detail in Heys’ arrest was that a resident consented to the search of the house for Heys, and that absent said consent, an arrest warrant cannot justify entering a third party’s home to search for an individual absent exigent circumstances, so law enforcement cannot use an arrest warrant to justify entering a home in all instances, which is largely the case in other states like Illinois as well.
Search Warrants with Wrong Addresses in Illinois
In contrast, address errors in search warrants can carry significant weight and effect the legality of any search because the place to be searched is the heart of the warrant and Illinois law recognizes that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as rights under the Illinois State Constitution, requires that any search warrant to describe the place or person to be searched with particularity and the things to be seized before it can be executed. Even so, Illinois courts have long held that a wrong address is not automatically fatal. The Illinois Supreme Court’s test, outlined in People v. Watson, asks reviewing courts to determine whether the description enables the officer, with reasonable effort, to identify the place intended. In that case, the search warrant listed 2300 South State Street in Chicago as the address when in fact the actual target was actually 2310 South State Street. The court upheld the warrant because other identifying details made it clear that the error in address was not fatal to the search warrant because, “other identifying factors which removed any doubt or ambiguity from the description.” Other subsequent cases have upheld search warrants when other descriptions make clear that, despite the error of an exact address, the property or place to be searched was otherwise described in detail, meaning an address error does not automatically invalidate a warrant. However, such an imprecise or inaccurate address can be and have been grounds to suppress evidence, but those challenges are largely driven by facts and circumstances surrounding the underlying search and the particularity of the search warrant command at issue. Simply put, warrant defects rarely involve a simple review of inaccuracies of information on the face of a search warrant, but those can ultimately be the most important factor in suppressing evidence or dismissing a case outright when the underlying facts come into light. If police searched your home or arrested you on a warrant you believe was flawed, contact an experienced criminal defense attorney who can review your case and help you determine any challenges you mount to suppress evidence or quash a search warrant or your arrest, which means that the prosecution will be unable to use the resulting evidence obtained in your prosecution.
