The Fisher Case - Supreme Court Addresses Fourth Amendment Issue

In Michigan v. Fisher (2009), the Supreme Court reversed the ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­Court of Appeals of Michigan. According to the opinion, the Court of Appeals misapplied Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure law.

Fisher was at his home when police arrived in response to a report of a disturbance. Two people directed officers to Fisher's home and informed them that someone was "going crazy." The officers noticed blood on a shirt in a truck, on the hood of the truck, and on the house door. The truck had incurred damage to the front end. The place was in disarray generally - fenceposts were damaged, three windows were broken, and glass was on the ground.

When Officer Goolsby knocked on the door there was no answer. A sofa had been pushed against the door. The officers could see Fisher inside throwing things and swearing. They noticed a cut on his hand. When they asked if he needed medical attention, he ignored them and told them in profane terms to go get a search warrant.

When Goolsby pushed the door open and ventured into the house, he could see that Fisher had a rifle pointed at him, and he withdrew immediately.

Fisher was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

The case had a sordid procedural history. It finally arrived in the Court of Appeals of Michigan and that court decided in favor of defendant Fisher. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's finding that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Both courts would have suppressed evidence of the officer's testimony that Fisher pointed a gun at him. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the Michigan appellate court.

The Supreme Court held that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment law of Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment reads as follows: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Supreme Court cited Brigham City v. Stuart, a decision which noted that the ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is "reasonableness." Generally, searches and seizures inside a home are presumed unreasonable, but according to the Brigham City case, exigent circumstances may overcome the presumption of unreasonableness. In Brigham City, officers observing through a window saw a juvenile punch another person in the face. The victim recoiled, spitting blood. Because of emergency circumstances - the victim needed help and there was a prospect of more violence - the Court held that the officers' entrance into the house was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

The Court applied the emergency circumstances exception to the rule that searches are presumed unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Here, the officers saw Fisher bleeding and could have reasonably concluded that he needed medical attention. Therefore, the Court concluded that the search was reasonable and remanded the case to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

The dissent from Justice Stephens would have affirmed the Michigan Court of Appeals. Justice Stephens wrote that the Court had no business stepping into the fact finding role of the trial court. To do so is to usurp the function of trial courts. Justice Sotomayor joined in the dissent.