Opinion ID: 2091620
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: should the michigan constitution be interpreted more liberally than the federal?

Text: The third reason for rejecting defendant's rationale for suppression is that he fails to advance any meritorious reason why art 1, § 11 should be interpreted any differently than Am IV. Defendant argues that this Court has traditionally imposed higher standards under art 1, § 11 than the United States Supreme Court has imposed under the Fourth Amendment. The two provisions follow: 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. Const 1963, art 1, § 11. 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. US Const, Am IV. The defendant seems to argue that the more liberal standing under the Michigan Constitution has been attributed to the difference in wording between art 1, § 11 and the Fourth Amendment. See People v Secrest, 413 Mich 521, 525; 321 NW2d 368 (1982). He points out that where the Fourth Amendment uses the word effects, the Michigan provision substitutes the word possessions. He concludes that this distinction provides a basis for affording greater rights under art 1, § 11 than those enjoyed under the Fourth Amendment and that, hence, we should adopt the automatic standing rule. We acknowledge that in the past we have on occasion offered defendants greater protection under art 1, § 11 than the Supreme Court of the United States has offered under the Fourth Amendment, and in a proper case we will do so again. We are unable to accept, however, defendant's suggestion that this has consistently been the case. In People v Secrest, supra, p 525, we stated that the differences in wording between art 1, § 11 and the Fourth Amendment could provide a basis for imposing higher standards under art 1, § 11 than under the Fourth Amendment: There are differences in wording between the two. As a result, we have imposed a higher standard under the state provision than the federal where the item seized is not one within the proviso of the third sentence of art 1, § 11. People v Moore, 391 Mich 426, 435; 216 NW2d 770 (1974). People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554, 567-568; 227 NW2d 511 (1975). [15] Nonetheless, we have never stated that the difference in wording between art 1, § 11, exclusive of the proviso of the third sentence, and the Fourth Amendment mandates a higher standard in every case. In fact, this Court, in People v Nash, 418 Mich 196; 341 NW2d 439 (1983), specifically stated that we have not    created any per se higher standard and that we will only accord defendants greater rights where there is compelling reason. In the present case, we are not persuaded that such a compelling reason exists. In fact, we are not even convinced that the difference in wording is indeed a difference in meaning as it affects this case. The terms possessions and effects are virtually identical in meaning and are often used interchangeably. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (2d ed), p 262, supports this conclusion in that it defines effects as [g]oods; possessions  (emphasis added). Thus, we reject defendant's argument that the difference in wording between art 1, § 11 and the Fourth Amendment requires adopting the automatic standing rule which would offer defendants greater protection under the state constitution than under the federal constitution.