MCOLES - Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Criminal Law and Procedure Questions and Answers — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A Michigan peace officer conducts a traffic stop for a minor moving violation. During the stop, the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the driver may be armed and dangerous. Under Terry v. Ohio and its interpretation in Michigan, what is the permissible scope of a frisk of the vehicle's passenger compartment?
- A full search of the entire vehicle, including the trunk.
- A search of any containers within the vehicle, locked or unlocked.
- A limited search of the passenger compartment where a weapon may be placed or hidden. (Correct answer)
- The officer cannot search the vehicle at all without a warrant or consent.
Correct answer: A limited search of the passenger compartment where a weapon may be placed or hidden.
The U.S. Supreme Court case Michigan v. Long extended the 'Terry frisk' principle to vehicles. It allows officers to conduct a protective search of the passenger compartment, limited to those areas where a weapon may be placed or hidden, if they have a reasonable belief the suspect is dangerous and may gain immediate control of weapons.
Question 2: Under Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) 764.15, a peace officer may make a warrantless arrest for which of the following offenses NOT committed in the officer's presence?
- A civil infraction, such as a parking violation.
- Any misdemeanor offense.
- A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days, when the officer has reasonable cause. (Correct answer)
- An ordinance violation that is not also a state law violation.
Correct answer: A misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days, when the officer has reasonable cause.
MCL 764.15(1)(d) specifically authorizes a peace officer to make a warrantless arrest if the officer has reasonable cause to believe a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for more than 92 days has been committed and reasonable cause to believe the person committed it. Warrantless arrests for misdemeanors not committed in the officer's presence are generally limited to more serious offenses.
Question 3: An officer in Lansing obtains evidence through a search warrant that is later found to be invalid due to a technical error made by the issuing magistrate. The officer, however, executed the warrant believing it was valid. Under Michigan law, which exception to the exclusionary rule would likely allow the evidence to be admitted in court?
- The inevitable discovery doctrine.
- The plain view doctrine.
- The exigent circumstances exception.
- The good-faith exception. (Correct answer)
Correct answer: The good-faith exception.
Michigan adopted the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule in People v. Goldston. This exception allows evidence obtained through a defective search warrant to be admissible if the officer relied on the warrant in objective good faith. The purpose is to avoid penalizing police for a magistrate's error.
Question 4: An individual is arrested without a warrant in Michigan on a felony charge. According to Michigan Court Rules and case law, what is the maximum time the individual can generally be held before a judicial determination of probable cause must be made?
- 24 hours
- 48 hours (Correct answer)
- 72 hours
- Until the formal arraignment, regardless of time.
Correct answer: 48 hours
Michigan law requires that an arrestee be arraigned 'without unnecessary delay.' Case law, aligning with federal standards from Riverside Co. v. McLaughlin, establishes that a judicial determination of probable cause must generally be made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest to be considered constitutionally prompt. A delay beyond 48 hours is presumptively unreasonable.
Question 5: A police officer responds to a domestic disturbance. Upon arrival, he observes a person with minor injuries who states their spouse, who is still present, just assaulted them. The officer did not witness the assault. Which of the following is the most accurate statement regarding the officer's authority to arrest under Michigan law?
- The officer must obtain a warrant before making an arrest since the assault was not witnessed.
- The officer can make a warrantless arrest if there is reasonable cause to believe a domestic assault occurred. (Correct answer)
- The officer can only arrest if the victim is willing to sign a complaint on the spot.
- The officer can only issue a citation and leave.
Correct answer: The officer can make a warrantless arrest if there is reasonable cause to believe a domestic assault occurred.
Michigan law (MCL 764.15a) provides specific authority for warrantless arrests in domestic assault cases. An officer may arrest a person without a warrant, regardless of whether the violation was committed in their presence, if the officer has reasonable cause to believe the person committed an assault on a spouse, former spouse, or household member.
Question 6: Which of the following is required to establish 'probable cause' for an arrest in Michigan, distinguishing it from 'reasonable suspicion'?
- A gut feeling or hunch based on officer experience.
- A reasonable presumption that a crime might occur in the future.
- A set of articulable facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed by the suspect. (Correct answer)
- Absolute certainty that the suspect committed the crime.
Correct answer: A set of articulable facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe a crime has been committed by the suspect.
Probable cause is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion. It requires concrete facts or hard evidence sufficient to create a fair probability that the suspect has committed or is committing a crime. Reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard, allowing for a brief detention or stop based on a reasonable presumption of criminal activity.
MCOLES - Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Criminal Law and Procedure Questions and Answers
A Michigan peace officer conducts a traffic stop for a minor moving violation.
During the stop, the officer develops reasonable suspicion that the driver may be armed and dangerous.
Under Terry v.
Ohio and its interpretation in Michigan, what is the permissible scope of a frisk of the vehicle's passenger compartment?