Opinion ID: 848796
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mcr 3.606(a)

Text: The majority concludes that the exclusionary rule is an inappropriate remedy because the text of MCR 3.606(A) does not specifically demand its application. Ante at 614. When called on to construe a court rule, this Court applies the legal principles that govern the construction and application of statutes.... Accordingly, we begin with the plain language of the court rule. Grievance Administrator v. Underwood, 462 Mich. 188, 193-194, 612 N.W.2d 116 (2000). Applied here, the doctrine clarifies our rule's rigorous demands. MCR 3.606(A) provides: Initiation of Proceeding. For a contempt committed outside the immediate view and presence of the court, on a proper showing on ex parte motion supported by affidavits, the court shall either: (1) order the accused person to show cause, at a reasonable time specified in the order, why that person should not be punished for the alleged misconduct; or (2) issue a bench warrant for the arrest of the person. As required by this rule, before contempt proceedings may be initiated for any conduct outside of the court's immediate view, a party must provide a proper showing on ex parte motion supported by affidavits.... A motion alone is insufficient. An affidavit, i.e., a signed statement, must be provided. Once this requirement is met, the court must either order the accused person to prove why punishment should not be inflicted or issue a bench warrant. In the light of the potential peril, as well as the substantive safeguards contained in MCR 3.606(A), I find it particularly troublesome that the majority members suggest such rules are mere technical provisions. This assertion ignores their function as guarantors of procedural rights. MCR 3.606(A) threatens punishment solely on the basis of exclusive communications between an adversarial party and the court. The procedure authorizes the exercise of police power by judicial officers, whichcontrary to the majority's implicationmay not be used to detain an individual without probable cause. As an arm of the state, our actions must respect the polity's civil rights, and our court rules are drafted to ensure that the exercise of judicial authority is not arbitrary or unlawful. To deem such rules technical distorts the substance of the rules and the role of the judiciary. Although the majority holds otherwise, the exclusionary rule would be particularly appropriate in this instance. As a tool to prevent the abuse of state power, this Court promulgated the court rule to mark the boundaries of acceptable judicial conduct. [4] If the exclusionary rule applied, magistrates and judges would surely take care to confirm that warrants were issued on a proper showing of probable cause. Such proof is all the court rule requires.