MI Constitution Art. 1 Sec. 11; Illegal search and Seizure

§ 11 Searches and seizures.

Sec. 11.

The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug, firearm, bomb, explosive or any other dangerous weapon, seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state.

Click to expand...

What do you think, does this protect your private vehicle from a search or seizure without a warrant or probable cause?

Illegal search and seizure is also protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Consitution.

The question here is, under both sections in the MI and US constitutions, would that subsequently make MCL. 750.227 unconstitutional in respect to possession of a firearm in your vehicle? State and Federal .gov recognize your vehicle as your private property as it cant be searched without probable cause or a warrant. However under State law they disregard it as private property as MCL 750.227 regulates the possession of a firearm within your vehicle. If your vehicle was repsected as your private property as your home or other property you possess than a person would be able to possess a firearm in their vehicle just the same as they could in their home or private land and just the same as they cant search your home or private land without a warrant or probable cause.

Seems to me that although ti MI constitution does not look at a vehicle as protected as private property, that it does not prevent the lawmakers from including in into private property as we would like them to either.

Yance said:

What do you think, does this protect your private vehicle from a search or seizure without a warrant or probable cause?

IMO No

Illegal search and seizure is also protected under the 4th Amendment to the US Consitution.

Absolutely, and I think your vehicle is included in the protections under the 4th Amendment.

The question here is, under both sections in the MI and US constitutions, would that subsequently make MCL. 750.227 unconstitutional in respect to possession of a firearm in your vehicle? State and Federal .gov recognize your vehicle as your private property but under State law it is not regarded as private property.

Click to expand...

Could you perhaps rephrase this section?

stainless1911 said:

Could you perhaps rephrase this section?

Click to expand...

Edited, hope it makes more sense.

The part that gets me is it says "possessions"

Webster defines possessions as:



possessions plural of pos·ses·sion (Noun)

Noun:

1.The state of having, owning, or controlling something.

So by that definition your vehicle would fall under "possessions" as listed in Art. 1 Sec. 11 of the MI Constitution, presumably making it your private property as it is protected from illegal searches and seizures.

So if my vehicle is protected from illegal searches and seizures because it is mine, I own it, would any law that limits what I do within my private property therefore be unconstitutional?

Yance said:

Edited, hope it makes more sense.

The part that gets me is it says "possessions"

Webster defines possessions as:



possessions plural of pos·ses·sion (Noun)

Noun:

1.The state of having, owning, or controlling something.

So by that definition your vehicle would fall under "possessions" as listed in Art. 1 Sec. 11 of the MI Constitution, presumably making it your private property as it is protected from illegal searches and seizures.

So if my vehicle is protected from illegal searches and seizures because it is mine, I own it, would any law that limits what I do within my private property therefore be unconstitutional?

Click to expand...

Aah, yes, a vehicle is a posession, then I think that you are right, that it would then fall under the protections of both the US and MI constitutions.

They would need probable cause to look for those items, but how would the law, 227, be unconstitutional in and of itself?

Your vehicle is your possession, correct,,,,LEO cannot search your vehicle without your consent...period!!

If you are pulled over ..(point here if you are driving)... for an infraction, and not arrested ( which i believe is BS, because not going on your way is considered an arrest)...believe me they will try....If you should get out of the vehicle, lock all doors...put keys in ur pocket and refuse under the 4th.

Never ask..."Why am I being detained?"....

Instead ask " Why am I being arrested?"

stainless1911 said:

Aah, yes, a vehicle is a posession, then I think that you are right, that it would then fall under the protections of both the US and MI constitutions.

They would need probable cause to look for those items, but how would the law, 227, be unconstitutional in and of itself?

Click to expand...

.227 in and of itself would be unconstitutional in regards to vehicle possession because while in the confines of other property I possess I can carry or possess a firearm in any manner I wish because its considered my private property. .227 acknowledges other property that I possess but not my vehicle, which under the 4A and Art. 1 Sec. 11 of MI Const. my vehicle is my private property because it is my possession, I own it, as such I should be able to possess a firearm in any manner I wish within the confines of my privately owned vehicle the same as I can any other private property I possess. Thus by making the possession of a firearm within the confines of some private property legal but not other private property .227 remains an unconstitutional law.

zekester said:

Your vehicle is your possession, correct,,,,LEO cannot search your vehicle without your consent...period!!

If you are pulled over ..(point here if you are driving)... for an infraction, and not arrested ( which i believe is BS, because not going on your way is considered an arrest)...believe me they will try....If you should get out of the vehicle, lock all doors...put keys in ur pocket and refuse under the 4th.

Never ask..."Why am I being detained?"....

Instead ask " Why am I being arrested?"

Click to expand...

Good post, what about if a LEO gains probable cause like they do to obtain a warrant?

If a LEO gains probable cause, then they can search, that is provided to them in the constitution.

If he abuses it, then the evidence can be thrown out.

This does not change the unconstitutionality of 227 as Yance has pointed out in this thread.

stainless1911 said:

If a LEO gains probable cause, then they can search, that is provided to them in the constitution.

If he abuses it, then the evidence can be thrown out.

This does not change the unconstitutionality of 227 as Yance has pointed out in this thread.

Click to expand...

I completely agree.

Very interesting thread, I am glad that I read this one. Definitely brings new things to light.

Devery

The justification for searches usually hinges on the word "unreasonable". The courts have determined it is reasonable for a leo to search under a number of circumstances... so good luck with the "I need to give consent" belief. As an aside, the Michigan Supreme Court has determined that DUI checkpoints violate the Michigan Constitution, though are legal in many other states. The case Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) was a Michigan case that went before the US Supreme Court. The Michigan Supreme Court based its decision on article 1, section 11 of the Michigan Constitution and believed that the search violated both the federal and Michigan constitutions. The case was later decided by the SCOTUS and was not found to violate the US Constitution. However, the Michigan Supreme Court ruling still holds for Michigan because the Michigan Constitution is presumably more protective than the US Constitution.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0463_1032_ZS.html