Where the defendants in a civil nuisance abatement proceeding moved to exclude evidence that the plaintiff township obtained by using an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs and video of the defendants’ property, a decision to deny that motion should be upheld because the exclusionary rule does not apply to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief.
“We directed oral argument on the application pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1) to consider whether plaintiff, Long Lake Township (the Township), violated the Fourth Amendment rights of defendants, Todd Maxon and Heather Maxon (the Maxons), by using an unmanned drone to take aerial photographs and video of defendants’ property and, if the Township did engage in an unconstitutional search, whether its photographic and video evidence must be excluded from a civil nuisance abatement proceeding.
“Because we hold that the exclusionary rule does not apply to this civil proceeding to enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances, we decline to address whether the use of an aerial drone under the circumstances presented here is an unreasonable search in violation of the United States or Michigan Constitutions. The exclusionary rule operates to exclude or suppress evidence in certain legal proceedings if the evidence is obtained in violation of a person’s constitutional rights. The contemporary understanding of the exclusionary rule is that it is a judge-made rule intended to deter law enforcement misconduct in the context of the Fourth Amendment. It is not a constitutional right, and it is not intended to vindicate a defendant’s constitutional rights. Michigan aligns with courts across the nation in that, as a general matter, we apply the exclusionary rule in the context of criminal proceedings. This Court has rarely applied the rule in civil proceedings. In fact, outside of the criminal context, this Court has only ever applied the rule to searches related to quasi-criminal legal matters or to the warrantless extraction of blood from a person. For the reasons more fully developed in this opinion, we decline to extend application of the exclusionary rule to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. We affirm the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
“We hold that the costs of applying the exclusionary rule in this case would outweigh the benefits. Applying the exclusionary rule would prevent the Township from effectuating its nuisance and zoning ordinances a serious cost. It would do so for little benefit given that exclusion of the photographs and video here would not deter future misconduct by law enforcement officers or their adjuncts, proxies, or agents. We agree with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that ‘[t]he exclusionary rule was not intended to operate in this arena,’ and application of the rule in this case would serve no valuable function. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the circuit court for further proceedings.”
Long Lake Twp. v. Maxon; MiLW 06-107987, 22 pages; Michigan Supreme Court; Zahra, J., joined by Clement, J., Viviano, J., Bernstein, J., Cavanagh, J., Welch, J., Bolden, J.; on appeal from the Court of Appeals; William G. Burdette for appellant; Todd W. Millar for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0