Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 207.0

46 

MICHIGAN  v.  FISHER 

Per Curiam 

broken house windows, the glass still on the ground outside. 
The  ofﬁcers  also  noticed  blood  on  the  hood  of  the  pickup 
and  on  clothes  inside  of  it,  as  well  as  on  one  of  the  doors 
to  the  house. 
(It  is  disputed  whether  they  noticed  this  im­
mediately upon reaching the house, but undisputed that they 
noticed it before the allegedly unconstitutional entry.) 
Through a window, the ofﬁcers could see respondent, Jeremy 
Fisher,  inside  the  house,  screaming  and  throwing  things. 
The  back  door  was  locked,  and  a  couch  had  been  placed  to 
block the front door. 

The ofﬁcers knocked, but Fisher refused to answer.  They 
saw  that  Fisher  had  a  cut  on  his  hand,  and  they  asked  him 
whether he needed medical attention.  Fisher ignored these 
questions  and  demanded,  with  accompanying  profanity,  that 
the ofﬁcers go to get a search warrant.  Ofﬁcer Goolsby then 
pushed  the  front  door  partway  open  and  ventured  into  the 
house.  Through the window of the open door he saw Fisher 
pointing a long gun at him.  Ofﬁcer Goolsby withdrew. 

Fisher was charged under Michigan law with assault with 
a  dangerous  weapon  and  possession  of  a  ﬁrearm  during  the 
commission of a felony.  The trial court concluded that Ofﬁ­
cer  Goolsby  violated  the  Fourth  Amendment  when  he  en­
tered  Fisher’s  house,  and  granted  Fisher’s  motion  to  sup­
press  the  evidence  obtained  as  a  result—that  is,  Ofﬁcer 
Goolsby’s statement that Fisher pointed a riﬂe at him.  The 
Michigan Court of Appeals initially remanded for an eviden­
tiary hearing, see Docket No. 256027, 2005 WL 3481454 (Dec. 
20, 2005) (per curiam), after which the trial court reinstated 
its  order.  The  Court  of  Appeals  then  afﬁrmed  over  a  dis­
sent  by  Judge  Talbot.  See  2008  WL  786515,  at  *2;  id.,  at 
*2–*5.  The  Michigan  Supreme  Court  granted  leave  to  ap­
peal,  but,  after  hearing  oral  argument,  it  vacated  its  prior 
order  and  denied  leave  instead;  three  justices,  however, 
would  have  taken  the  case  and  reversed  on  the  ground  that 
the  Court  of  Appeals  misapplied  the  Fourth  Amendment.