Court Opinion

ID: 9738349
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:50:49.194866+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:05.523237
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, C. J.
(concurring). I concur in the judgment of my brother upholding the validity of § lb(2) of the Commercial Fishing Law and rule 3 of DNR Order No. 17.
I also agree that the warrantless seizure of defendants’ vessel was unlawful.
Whether there was a search and seizure of the vessel, or merely a seizure, makes no difference in this case. The Fourth Amendment applies equally to searches and to seizures. United States v McCormick, 502 F2d 281 (CA 9, 1974).
*322The asserted existence of probable cause to believe this vessel was being used illegally does not serve to obviate the requirement of a warrant. "[N]o amount of probable cause can justify a warrantless search or seizure absent 'exigent circumstances’.” Coolidge v New Hampshire, 403 US 443, 468; 91 S Ct 2022; 29 L Ed 2d 564 (1971). See also, People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975). As my brother points out, there were no exigent circumstances here.
The fact that MCLA 300.12; MSA 13.1222 purports to authorize seizures of this type without a warrant does not require a different result. A statute cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional search. "Unless the statute itself falls within one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement, it must yield to the right to be secure against searches and seizures.” United States v McCormick, supra, at 285.
Finally, the fact that this is a "civil” in rem proceeding does not take it out of the realm of the Fourth Amendment’s protection. Indeed, Boyd v United States, 116 US 616; 6 S Ct 524; 29 L Ed 746 (1886), was a civil forfeiture proceeding. The Court in Boyd stated:
"We are also clearly of the opinion that proceedings instituted for the purpose of declaring the forfeiture of a man’s property by reason of offences committed by him, though they may be civil in form, are in their nature criminal. * * * The information, though technically a civil proceeding, is in substance and effect a criminal one. * * * As, therefore, suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred by the commission of offences against the law, are of this quasi-criminal nature, we think that they are within the reason of criminal proceedings for all the purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution * * * .” 116 US 616, 633-634.
In One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v Pennsylvania, *323380 US 693, 698; 85 S Ct 1246; 14 L Ed 2d 170 (1965), also a forfeiture proceeding, the Court relying on Boyd, held: "In both the Boyd situation and here the essential question is whether evidence— in Boyd the books and records, here the results of the search of the car — the obtaining of which violates the Fourth Amendment may be relied upon to sustain a forfeiture. Boyd holds that it may not.”
The vessel must be returned to defendants.
Levin, J., concurred with Kavanagh, C. J.