Court Opinion

ID: 9966074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-04 06:05:11.841506+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:08.477608
License: Public Domain

Michigan Supreme Court
                                                                                           Lansing, Michigan

Syllabus
                                                             Chief Justice:             Justices:
                                                              Elizabeth T. Clement      Brian K. Zahra
                                                                                        David F. Viviano
                                                                                        Richard H. Bernstein
                                                                                        Megan K. Cavanagh
                                                                                        Elizabeth M. Welch
                                                                                        Kyra H. Bolden

This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been              Reporter of Decisions:
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.                Kathryn L. Loomis

                                    LONG LAKE TOWNSHIP v MAXON

             Docket No. 164948. Argued on application for leave to appeal October 18, 2023. Decided
      May 3, 2024.

              Long Lake Township brought an action in the Grand Traverse Circuit Court against Todd
      and Heather Maxon, alleging that the Maxons were keeping junk cars on their property in violation
      of a zoning ordinance, a nuisance law, and a 2008 settlement agreement. Neighboring property
      owners had notified the township of the alleged violations. Because most of the Maxons’ property
      could not be seen from the street, the township hired a drone operator to take aerial photographs
      and video of the Maxons’ property. The photographs and video—which were taken without the
      Maxons’ permission and without a warrant—allegedly showed that the dimensions of their
      junkyard had increased, contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement. The Maxons moved to
      suppress the aerial photographs and all other evidence obtained by the township from use of the
      drone, asserting that the search was illegal under the Fourth Amendment of the United States
      Constitution. The court, Thomas G. Power, J., denied the Maxons’ motion, reasoning that the
      drone surveillance did not constitute a search. The Court of Appeals granted the Maxons’
      application for leave to appeal. In a split decision, the Court of Appeals, JANSEN, P.J., and
      RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (FORT HOOD, J., dissenting), reversed, holding that the targeted drone
      surveillance of the Maxons’ property violated the Fourth Amendment because it intruded into an
      area where the Maxons had a reasonable expectation of privacy and because the township obtained
      the photographs without a warrant and no traditional exception to the warrant requirement applied.
      336 Mich App 521 (2021) (Long Lake I). The Maxons sought leave to appeal in the Supreme
      Court, which ordered oral argument on whether to grant the Maxons’ application for leave to
      appeal or take other action. 509 Mich 871 (2022). The Supreme Court thereafter stayed the
      briefing deadlines and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs regarding whether the
      exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case. 509 Mich 921 (2022). After the supplemental
      briefs were received, the Supreme Court vacated its earlier order directing the Clerk to schedule
      oral argument on whether to grant the application, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the
      Supreme Court vacated the Long Lake I decision and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals
      for consideration of whether the exclusionary rule applied to the facts of this case. 509 Mich 981
      (2022). In a split decision on remand, the Court of Appeals, GLEICHER, C.J., and RONAYNE
      KRAUSE, J. (JANSEN, P.J., dissenting), assumed that the township’s use of a drone to acquire
      photographs of defendants’ property violated the Fourth Amendment. 343 Mich 321 (2022).
      Applying the balancing test set forth in United States v Janis, 428 US 433 (1976), to the facts of
this case—i.e., weighing the primary purpose of the rule, which is to deter future unlawful police
conduct, against the societal costs imposed by the exclusion—the Court of Appeals concluded that
the cost of suppressing the evidence (i.e., the inability of the township to enforce its zoning
regulations) would outweigh any deterrence benefits. After reaching that conclusion, the Court of
Appeals held that the exclusionary rule did not apply and that the photographs and video could not
be suppressed regardless of whether the township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property;
for that reason, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders. The Maxons sought leave
to appeal, and the Supreme Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the
application or take other action. 511 Mich 963 (2023).

        In a unanimous opinion by Justice ZAHRA, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to
appeal, held:

        The exclusionary rule may not be applied to civil enforcement proceedings that effectuate
local zoning and nuisance ordinances and seek only prospective, injunctive relief. In seeking to
enforce its zoning and nuisance ordinances, the township only sought prospective, injunctive relief.
Under these facts, the costs of excluding the drone evidence outweighed the benefits of suppressing
it, and the exclusionary rule therefore did not apply. The decision of the Court of Appeals was
affirmed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

        1. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 11 of
Michigan’s 1963 Constitution protect the people of Michigan against unreasonable searches.
Generally, 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
exclusionary rule is meant to deter law enforcement misconduct that gives rise to such
constitutional violations. Accordingly, Michigan has applied the exclusionary rule in the context
of criminal proceedings. Caselaw, however, has never suggested that the exclusionary rule bars
the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. Given the
history of the rule, it is only applicable when the objective of deterring wrongful law enforcement
conduct is most effectively met. Thus, in deciding whether to exclude evidence under this rule,
reviewing courts must consider whether the rule’s deterrence benefits outweigh the substantial
costs inherent in precluding consideration of reliable, probative evidence. With very limited
exceptions, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to extend the exclusionary
rule to proceedings other than criminal trials. For example, the United States Supreme Court has
refused to apply the exclusionary rule to parole-revocation hearings, grand-jury proceedings, civil
tax proceedings, and civil deportation proceedings. There are unique social costs in suppressing
evidence of continuing violations of law, and because it would require the courts to close their
eyes to ongoing violations of the law, the exclusionary rule does not apply in proceedings that are
intended not to punish past transgressions but to prevent their continuance or renewal. However,
in limited circumstances, both the Michigan Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court
have extended the exclusionary rule to civil proceedings—specifically, to civil asset-forfeiture
cases; those cases are atypical and, in essence, quasi-criminal proceedings because they require
the government to trace the forfeited assets to crime or prove that the defendant used the asset in
a criminal manner. In the context of civil negligence or wrongful-death proceedings, the Michigan
Supreme Court has also extended the rule to exclude evidence obtained from the warrantless
extraction of blood following an automobile crash; the exclusionary rule bars the introduction of
that evidence because it involves a degree of intrusiveness not present when police armed with a
warrant search one’s home. Unlike civil asset-forfeiture cases, proceedings to enforce nuisance
and zoning ordinances are not quasi-criminal in nature, and the exclusionary rule may not be
applied in those enforcement actions when only prospective relief is sought.

         2. The outcome of this case was determined by weighing the costs and benefits of
admitting into evidence the assumed unconstitutionally obtained drone video and photographic
evidence. With regard to the costs, given the difficulty in seeing the Maxons’ property from the
street, the township would have had difficulty ensuring that the Maxons’ property conformed with
the township’s local zoning and nuisance ordinances without the drone evidence. And any delay
in the township’s ability to prove the nuisance would damage the interests of the Long Lake
Township community as reflected in its local ordinances. Further, exclusion of the evidence would
require the Court to ignore important evidence of the Maxons’ ongoing violation of the township’s
zoning laws. With regard to the benefits, while excluding the photographs and video captured by
the drone may deter the township and other municipal and state officials from using drones in an
intrusive and potentially unconstitutional manner, the deterrence would be minimal because (1)
the exclusionary rule is meant to deter future law enforcement misconduct, and given the facts of
this case, it was unreasonable to believe that exclusion of the evidence would deter future
misconduct by law enforcement or any other actor in any way; and (2) the deterrent factor is
strongest where the misconduct would result in a criminal penalty, and this case was neither
criminal or quasi-criminal in nature, but rather involved a civil infraction in which the township
sought only prospective, injunctive relief. In addition, in contrast with civil asset-forfeiture cases
in which the Court has held that the benefits of applying the exclusionary rule outweighed the
costs, this case involved the enforcement of local zoning and nuisance ordinances that did not
require the township to show that the Maxons or their property was linked to crime, the case was
not brought by the state of Michigan in its sovereign capacity, and the case was not brought to
sanction the Maxons for a wrongful act; indeed, the township sought only injunctive relief to bring
the Maxons in compliance with property-use restrictions as reflected in township zoning and
nuisance ordinances. And the township’s search involved the Maxon’s yard and curtilage, an area
that was less private than inside their home and, by extension, far less private than a person’s body.
In light of these differences, the Court’s prior decisions applying the exclusionary rule to two
narrow categories of civil cases did not support extending that rule to a proceeding to enforce local
zoning and nuisance ordinances. Accordingly, the costs of applying the exclusionary rule in this
case outweighed the benefits, and the photographs and video taken by the drone could not be
suppressed. Because the exclusionary rule did not apply in this civil proceeding to enforce zoning
and nuisance ordinances, the Court declined to address whether the use of an aerial drone under
the circumstances of this case was an unreasonable search or seizure for purposes of the United
States or Michigan Constitutions.

       Court of Appeals judgment affirmed, and case remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
                                                                           Michigan Supreme Court
                                                                                 Lansing, Michigan

OPINION
                                                  Chief Justice:                Justices:
                                                   Elizabeth T. Clement         Brian K. Zahra
                                                                                David F. Viviano
                                                                                Richard H. Bernstein
                                                                                Megan K. Cavanagh
                                                                                Elizabeth M. Welch
                                                                                Kyra H. Bolden

                                                                   FILED May 3, 2024

                             STATEOFMICHIGAN

                                     SUPREME COURT

  LONG LAKE TOWNSHIP,

               Plaintiff-Appellee,

  v                                                                No. 164948

  TODD MAXON and HEATHER MAXON,

               Defendants-Appellants.

 BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

 ZAHRA, J.
       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. 1 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. 2 It is not a constitutional right, and it is not intended to vindicate

a defendant’s constitutional rights. 3 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

1
  The use and availability of aerial drones in the public and private sector has dramatically
expanded. Drone technology is rapidly evolving, as are people’s expectations of privacy
in the face of this technology, and there remains uncertainty as to how trespass law applies
to low-altitude drone flights. Because we do not need to decide the issue to resolve this
case, we leave this question for another day.
2
  See Davis v United States, 564 US 229, 246; 131 S Ct 2419; 180 L Ed 2d 285 (2011)
(“[W]e have said time and again that the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter
misconduct by law enforcement.”); see also United States v Calandra, 414 US 338, 347;
94 S Ct 613; 38 L Ed 2d 561 (1974); Elkins v United States, 364 US 206, 217; 80 S Ct
1437; 4 L Ed 2d 1669 (1960).
3
  As the Supreme Court of the United States has said, the rule is “a judicially created
remedy designed to safeguard Fourth Amendment rights generally through its deterrent
effect” and is not designed to vindicate “a personal constitutional right of the party
aggrieved.” Calandra, 414 US at 348.

                                               2
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.

                   I. BASIC FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

       This case has a long procedural history. In 2007, the Township sued Todd Maxon

for allegedly violating its zoning ordinances by, among other things, storing salvaged

vehicles on his property.       The parties reached a resolution of that litigation and

memorialized it in writing. The resolution was favorable to Mr. Maxon because the

Township agreed to dismiss its complaint against Mr. Maxon with prejudice and “not to

bring [any] further zoning enforcement action . . . based upon the same facts and

circumstances [that] were revealed during the course of discovery and based upon the Long

Lake Township Ordinance as it exist[ed] on the date of [the] settlement agreement.” Mr.

Maxon released the Township and its representatives from any causes of action he may

have had against them. Although Mr. Maxon did not indicate that he would cease doing

any activity that gave rise to the lawsuit, it may reasonably be inferred from the Township’s

agreement not to bring further zoning actions against Mr. Maxon for the same facts and

circumstances discovered in the original action that no future zoning violation would be

pursued against him if he maintained the status quo.

       In 2016, neighboring residents complained to Township officials that the Maxons

were storing excessive junk on their property. The Township hired a contractor to take

aerial photographs and video of the Maxons’ property by using a flying drone. Aerial

photographs and video of the property were taken on three occasions between April 2017

and May 2018. The contractor remotely controlled the drone from an open area near Long

                                              3
Lake Township Hall. In 2018, the Township initiated the instant lawsuit, alleging that by

storing excessive amounts of salvaged material on their property the Maxons’ use of their

property was in violation of Long Lake Township Zoning Ordinance, § 10.2 and Long

Lake Township Nuisance Ordinance, §§ 2B and 2G. The Township alleged that the

Maxons significantly increased the volume of salvaged materials stored on their property

after the 2008 settlement agreement, and it sought to enjoin the salvaging activity, arguing

that the property constituted an impermissible salvage yard. The Township relied on the

photographs and video taken from the aerial drone to support its case. The Maxons brought

a pretrial motion to exclude the photographs and video from use in the civil action, arguing

that they were the product of an unreasonable search in violation of the United States and

Michigan Constitutions.

       The trial court denied the Maxons’ motion. On appeal, the Court of Appeals in a

published and divided decision concluded that the use of a drone to take aerial photographs

and video of the Maxons’ property was an unreasonable, warrantless search of the Maxons’

property; reversed the trial court’s order; and remanded for entry of an order suppressing

all photographs and video of the Maxons’ property taken by a drone. 4 The Township

sought leave to appeal in this Court. We vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and

remanded to that Court to address whether the exclusionary rule applies in a civil action to

enforce zoning and nuisance ordinances. 5 On remand, a different panel of the Court of

4
  Long Lake Twp v Maxon, 336 Mich App 521, 525; 970 NW2d 893 (2021), vacated and
remanded 509 Mich 981 (2022).
5
 We initially directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the application. Long Lake
Twp v Maxon, 509 Mich 871 (2022). Two weeks later, we stayed that order and again

                                             4
Appeals affirmed the trial court’s orders in another published and divided decision, holding

that the exclusionary rule did not apply to the facts and circumstances presented in this

case. 6 The majority ruled that the photographs and video should not be suppressed

regardless of whether the Township unreasonably searched the Maxons’ property. 7 The

Maxons sought leave to appeal, and we directed the Clerk to schedule oral argument on the

application. 8

                               II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

         Whether the exclusionary rule applies is a question of law. 9 This Court reviews

questions of law de novo. 10

considered the Township’s application; in lieu of granting the application, we vacated the
judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to that Court to address whether
the exclusionary rule applies to this dispute. Long Lake Twp v Maxon, 509 Mich 981
(2022). The order specifically cited “Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott, 524
US 357, 364[; 118 S Ct 2014; 141 L Ed 2d 344] (1998) (declining to extend the operation
of the exclusionary rule beyond the criminal trial context); [and] Kivela v Dep’t of
Treasury, 449 Mich 220[; 536 NW2d 498] (1995) (declining to extend the exclusionary
rule to a civil tax proceeding).” Long Lake Twp, 509 Mich at 981-982.
6
  Long Lake Twp v Maxon (On Remand), 343 Mich App 319, 323, 335-337; 997 NW2d
250 (2022) (Long Lake Twp (On Remand)). The case was remanded to the same panel, but
Judge GLEICHER replaced Judge KAREN FORT HOOD after Judge FORT HOOD’s untimely
death in August 2021.
7
    Id. at 335-337.
8
    Long Lake Twp v Maxon, 511 Mich 963 (2023).
9
    In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich 444, 450; 734 NW2d 489 (2007).
10
     Cowles v Bank West, 476 Mich 1, 13; 719 NW2d 94 (2006).

                                             5
                                     III. ANALYSIS

          The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, § 11 of

Michigan’s 1963 Constitution protect the people of Michigan against “unreasonable

searches.” 11      But neither Constitution prescribes the remedy if the government

unreasonably searches a person or property. Early in our nation’s history, law enforcement

officials conducted searches and seized evidence in violation of the Fourth Amendment

and subsequently used the unconstitutionally seized evidence in criminal prosecutions.

The propriety of using such evidence in criminal proceedings was addressed more than 100

years ago in Weeks v United States 12 when the Supreme Court of the United States laid the

foundation for the exclusionary rule. In that case, Fremont Weeks transported lottery

tickets through the mail in violation of the United States Criminal Code. United States

Marshals searched his home without a warrant and seized evidence that incriminated him. 13

A jury convicted Weeks. On appeal, he argued that the United States Marshals had violated

his Fourth Amendment rights, so the trial judge should not have admitted the evidence

obtained from the unconstitutional search. 14 The Supreme Court agreed with Weeks and

11
  US Const, Am IV (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”); Const
1963, art 1, § 11 (“The person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic
communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and
seizures.”).
12
     Weeks v United States, 232 US 383; 34 S Ct 341; 58 L Ed 2d 652 (1914).
13
     Id. at 386-387.
14
     Id. at 389.

                                              6
suppressed the evidence derived from the search to deter police from acting contrary to the

demands of the Fourth Amendment in the future. The Supreme Court held:

          The tendency of those who execute the criminal laws of the country to obtain
          conviction by means of unlawful seizures and enforced confessions, the latter
          often obtained after subjecting accused persons to unwarranted practices
          destructive of rights secured by the Federal Constitution, should find no
          sanction in the judgments of the courts which are charged at all times with
          the support of the Constitution and to which people of all conditions have a
          right to appeal for the maintenance of such fundamental rights.[15]

          The exclusionary rule is a jurisprudential creation rather than a constitutional rule

of law. 16 Consequently, the Supreme Court of the United States has refined the rule over

time to better accomplish its intended purposes. The Supreme Court has, therefore,

declined to order exclusion of wrongfully seized evidence when the exclusion would not

deter unconstitutional law enforcement activity. 17 Limitations on the exclusionary rule are

justified because the use of unconstitutionally seized evidence in a criminal proceeding

15
     Id. at 392.
16
   In Kivela, 449 Mich at 233, this Court held that there was no “compelling reason” to
construe the exclusionary rule as providing any greater protection than that established by
the United States Supreme Court.
17
  See Silverthorne Lumber Co, Inc v United States, 251 US 385, 392; 40 S Ct 182; 64 L
Ed 319 (1920) (independent-source exception); Nix v Williams, 467 US 431, 440-448; 104
S Ct 2501; 81 L Ed 2d 377 (1984) (inevitable-discovery exception); Nardone v United
States, 308 US 338, 341-343; 60 S Ct 266; 84 L Ed 307 (1939) (attenuated-circumstance
exception); United States v Leon, 468 US 897, 908-925; 104 S Ct 3405; 82 L Ed 2d 677
(1984) (good-faith exception); Harris v New York, 401 US 222, 224-226; 91 S Ct 643; 28
L Ed 2d 1 (1971) (impeachment-of-a-defendant’s-testimony exception). In Mapp v Ohio,
367 US 643, 655-660; 81 S Ct 1684; 6 L Ed 2d 1081 (1961), the Supreme Court held that
the exclusionary rule applies to state governments through the incorporation doctrine.

                                                7
does not itself violate the Constitution. 18 Rather, a violation of the Constitution arises from

the illegal search or seizure itself, and no exclusion of evidence can cure the invasion of

rights a person has already suffered. 19

         Moreover, nothing in the history of the rule suggests that it bars the introduction of

illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all persons. In fact, the history of

the rule is that it is only applicable where the objective of deterring wrongful law

enforcement conduct is most efficaciously met. 20 Ultimately, reviewing courts must

consider whether the rule’s deterrence benefits outweigh the “ ‘substantial social costs’ ”

inherent in precluding consideration of reliable, probative evidence. 21

         Recognizing that the objective of the exclusionary rule is to deter misconduct that

gives rise to constitutional violations, the Supreme Court of the United States has

repeatedly declined to extend the rule to proceedings other than criminal trials with very

limited exceptions. 22 For example, in Pennsylvania Bd of Probation & Parole v Scott,23

the Supreme Court concluded that the exclusionary rule has no application in parole-

revocation hearings, noting that the cost of excluding evidence in parole proceedings is

18
   See, e.g., Leon, 468 US at 906 (“[T]he Fourth Amendment ‘has never been interpreted
to proscribe the introduction of illegally seized evidence in all proceedings or against all
persons.’ ”), quoting Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 486; 96 S Ct 3037; 49 L Ed 2d 1067
(1976).
19
     Leon, 468 US at 906.
20
     Scott, 524 US at 363, citing Calandra, 414 US at 348.
21
     Scott, 524 US at 363, quoting Leon, 468 US at 907.
22
     Scott, 524 US at 363.
23
     Id. at 364-365.

                                               8
particularly high because parole is a less restrictive form of imprisonment and a parolee is

afforded only a limited degree of freedom in exchange for compliance with the strict

conditions of parole. The Court also concluded that the deterrent effect of excluding such

evidence would be minimal because (at that time at least) any law enforcement officer

searching for evidence would likely be unaware that the subject of the search is a parolee. 24

The Court noted that

           the officer will likely be searching for evidence of criminal conduct with an
           eye toward the introduction of the evidence at a criminal trial. The likelihood
           that illegally obtained evidence will be excluded from trial provides
           deterrence against Fourth Amendment violations, and the remote possibility
           that the subject is a parolee and that the evidence may be admitted at a parole
           revocation proceeding surely has little, if any, effect on the officer’s
           incentives.[25]

           Similarly, in United States v Calandra, 26 the Supreme Court of the United States

held that the exclusionary rule does not apply to grand-jury proceedings. The Supreme

Court determined that the cost of imposing the exclusionary rule in grand-jury proceedings

was too burdensome, observing:

           Permitting witnesses to invoke the exclusionary rule before a grand jury
           would precipitate adjudication of issues hitherto reserved for the trial on the
           merits and would delay and disrupt grand jury proceedings. Suppression
           hearings would halt the orderly progress of an investigation and might
           necessitate extended litigation of issues only tangentially related to the grand
           jury’s primary objective.[27]

24
     Id. at 367.
25
     Id.
26
     Calandra, 414 US 338.
27
     Id. at 349.

                                                  9
The Supreme Court stated that it was “uncertain” and “speculative” whether application of

the exclusionary rule would deter unlawful law enforcement activity. 28 The Supreme Court

thus judged that “it is unrealistic to assume that application of the rule to grand jury

proceedings would significantly further th[e] goal [of deterring law enforcement

misconduct].” 29

           In United States v Janis, 30 the Supreme Court of the United States once again

declined to apply the exclusionary rule to unconstitutionally obtained evidence in a civil

tax proceeding, noting that the costs of excluding relevant and reliable evidence

outweighed the marginal deterrence benefit. The Supreme Court observed that application

of the rule in criminal trials “already punished” law enforcement officials for violating the

Fourth Amendment, making further application of the exclusionary rule in a civil tax

proceeding unnecessary. 31

           Likewise, in Immigration & Naturalization Serv v Lopez-Mendoza, 32 the Supreme

Court refused to extend the exclusionary rule to civil deportation proceedings, noting the

28
     Id. at 351.
29
     Id.
30
     United States v Janis, 428 US 433, 447-448, 454; 96 S Ct 3021; 49 L Ed 2d 1046 (1976).
31
     Id. at 448 (quotation marks omitted).
32
   Immigrations & Naturalization Serv v Lopez-Mendoza, 468 US 1032, 1038-1050; 104 S
Ct 3479; 82 L Ed 2d 778 (1984) (“A deportation hearing is held before an immigration
judge. The judge’s sole power is to order deportation; the judge cannot adjudicate guilt or
punish the respondent for any crime related to unlawful entry into or presence in this
country. Consistent with the civil nature of the proceeding, various protections that apply
in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing. . . . In these
circumstances, we are persuaded that the Janis balance between costs and benefits comes
out against applying the exclusionary rule in civil deportation hearings held by the INS.”).

                                             10
incompatibility of the rule with the civil, administrative nature of those proceedings. The

Court further observed that one cost of applying the rule to deportation proceedings is that

they “are intended not to punish past transgressions but to prevent their continuance or

renewal [and application of the rule] would require the courts to close their eyes to ongoing

violations of the law. This Court has never accepted costs of this character in applying the

exclusionary rule.” 33

          In limited circumstances, this Court and the Supreme Court of the United States

have extended the exclusionary rule to civil proceedings. For example, both courts have

applied the exclusionary rule to civil asset-forfeiture cases. 34 Civil asset-forfeiture cases

are atypical civil proceedings because they require the government to trace the forfeited

asset to a crime or prove that the defendant used the asset in a criminal manner. 35 Such

proceedings are known as quasi-criminal proceedings. 36 This Court has also applied the

exclusionary rule to exclude evidence obtained from a warrantless blood draw following

33
     Id. at 1046.
34
  See, e.g., One 1958 Plymouth Sedan v Pennsylvania, 380 US 693, 702; 85 S Ct 1246; 14
L Ed 2d 170 (1965); In re Forfeiture of $176,598, 443 Mich 261, 265; 505 NW2d 201
(1993) (citing One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, 380 US 693, and noting that “[t]he exclusionary
rule is applicable in forfeiture proceedings”).
35
  See One 1958 Plymouth Sedan, 380 US at 701 (“It would be anomalous indeed, under
these circumstances, to hold that in the criminal proceeding the illegally seized evidence is
excludable, while in the forfeiture proceeding, requiring the determination that the
criminal law has been violated, the same evidence would be admissible.”) (emphasis
added).
36
     Id. at 700.

                                             11
an automobile crash in subsequent civil negligence or wrongful-death proceedings. 37 This

Court explained that the rule applies to such evidence because the “removal of blood from

a living person [presents] a degree of intrusiveness not present when police armed with a

warrant search one’s home.” 38 Kivela was a civil tax assessment proceeding where the

Court was asked to apply the exclusionary rule to narcotic evidence that was seized by law

enforcement pursuant to an unlawful warrant; the Department of Treasury wished to use

the evidence, asserting that Kivela owed unpaid taxes on drug sales. 39 We considered a

multipart balancing test that had been adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for

the Sixth Circuit when faced with a similar scenario. 40 We ultimately held that “[i]n the

absence of more than ‘curious facts’ and agreeing with the dissent that there is no direct

evidence of bad faith, collusion between the agencies, or unethical behavior on the part of

the law enforcement agents,” the Court of Appeals “incorrectly found that evidence seized

37
  See Lebel v Swincicki, 354 Mich 427, 434-441; 93 NW2d 281 (1958); McNitt v Citco
Drilling Co, 397 Mich 384, 388-394; 245 NW2d 18 (1976).
38
     Kivela, 449 Mich at 236, discussing Lebel, 354 Mich 427, and McNitt, 397 Mich 384.
39
     Kivela, 449 Mich at 222-223.
40
   Id. at 227-229, 236-238. The test requires consideration of (1) “[t]he nature of the
proceedings,” (2) “[w]hether the proposed use of unconstitutionally seized material is
intersovereign or intrasovereign,” (3) “[w]hether the search and the second proceeding are
initiated by the same agency,” (4) “[a]bsent an explicit and demonstrable understanding
between the two agencies, whether there is a statutory regime in which both agencies share
resources, particularly resources derived from one of the proceedings,” and (5) “[t]he
relationship between the law enforcement responsibilities and expertise of the seizing
officials and the type of proceeding at which the seized material is being offered.” Id. at
228-229; see also Wolf v Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 13 F3d 189, 194-195 (CA 6, 1993).

                                            12
in an improper police search may not be used as the basis of an independent civil jeopardy

tax assessment proceeding.” 41

         Viewing these cases as a whole, it is clear that application of the exclusionary rule

“involves weighing the costs and benefits in each particular case.” 42 But neither we nor

the Supreme Court of the United States has ever “suggested that the exclusionary rule must

apply in every circumstance in which it might provide marginal deterrence.” 43

         We begin with the costs. The Maxons’ property is thickly wooded and “could not

be well-viewed from the street” given that “ ‘very little, if any, of [the Maxons’] property

is visible from the ground because the view is blocked by buildings and trees.’ ” 44 The

Maxons admitted that “the areas behind the home and beside the garages the Township

wanted to view with its drone are not visible from a public vantage-point.” Accordingly,

without the drone’s photographs and video, the Township would have difficulty ensuring

that the Maxons bring their property into conformity with its local zoning and nuisance

ordinances. And even if the Township could use other means of surveillance to prove that

the Maxons violated the 2008 settlement agreement, suppressing the evidence obtained by

the drone and requiring the Township to initiate a new means of surveillance would cause

41
     Kivela, 449 Mich at 239.
42
   People v Goldston, 470 Mich 523, 529; 682 NW2d 479 (2004) (emphasis added), citing
Leon, 468 US at 906-907; see also Janis, 428 US at 454 (directing courts to weigh the
“likelihood of deterring the conduct of the state police” against “the societal costs imposed
by the exclusion”).
43
     Scott, 524 US at 368.
44
  Quoting Long Lake Twp, 336 Mich App at 526 (alteration in the Maxons’ supplemental
brief).

                                              13
a delay in the Township’s ability to bring the Maxons into conformity with local zoning

and nuisance ordinances. Increasing the difficulty of or causing delays in the Township’s

ability to prove nuisance would damage the interests of the Long Lake Township

community as reflected in its local ordinances. 45

           Further, as the Supreme Court explained in Lopez-Mendoza, there are “unique”

social costs in suppressing evidence of “continuing violations of the law.” 46 In the words

of the United States Supreme Court:

           Applying the exclusionary rule in proceedings that are intended not to punish
           past transgressions but to prevent their continuance or renewal would require
           the courts to close their eyes to ongoing violations of the law. This Court has
           never before accepted costs of this character in applying the exclusionary
           rule.

                  Presumably no one would argue that the exclusionary rule should be
           invoked to prevent an agency from ordering corrective action at a leaking
           hazardous waste dump if the evidence underlying the order had been
           improperly obtained, or to compel police to return contraband explosives or
           drugs to their owner if the contraband had been unlawfully seized. On the
           rare occasions that it has considered costs of this type the Court has firmly
           indicated that the exclusionary rule does not extend this far. 47

In this case, the zoning-enforcement action is meant to prevent the Maxons from continuing

to thwart the Township’s zoning laws. Suppressing this evidence would require this Court

to ignore important evidence of this ongoing violation and to close our eyes to ongoing

illegal activity. We decline to do so here.

45
  Adkins v Thomas Solvent Co, 440 Mich 293, 304 n 8; 487 NW2d 715 (1992) (“A public
nuisance involves the unreasonable interference with a right common to all members of the
general public.”).
46
     Lopez-Mendoza, 468 US at 1046.
47
     Id.

                                                 14
         We turn to the benefits. Excluding the photographs and video captured from the

drone may indeed deter the Township and other municipal and state officials from using

drones in an intrusive and potentially unconstitutional manner. But the deterrence would

be minimal. For one, the exclusionary rule is intended to deter future law enforcement

misconduct. While we do not totally foreclose the possibility that some other government

action may be of such an aggressive nature that a court may conclude that it is appropriate

to apply the exclusionary rule to a related proceeding, the facts presented in this case fall

far short of such behavior. Under these facts, it is unreasonable to believe that excluding

the photographs and video would deter future misconduct by law enforcement or any other

actor in any way. 48 Further, “[t]he deterrent function is strongest where the unlawful

conduct would result in a criminal penalty.” 49 And this case is neither criminal nor quasi-

criminal; it is a civil infraction. 50 The Township is seeking only injunctive relief, which is

48
   For example, applying the exclusionary rule to agents or proxies of law enforcement
officers who violate the Fourth Amendment while “engaged in the often competitive
enterprise of ferreting out crime” might serve the rule’s primary purpose: the deterrence of
law enforcement officers and their “adjuncts.” Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1, 14-15; 115 S
Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995).
49
     In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich at 452.
50
   The term “[q]uasi crimes” “embraces all offenses not crimes or misdemeanors, but that
are in the nature of crimes,—a class of offenses against the public which have not been
declared crimes, but wrongs against the general or local public which it is proper should
be repressed or punished by forfeitures and penalties.” Black’s Law Dictionary (rev 4th
ed), p 446. The Supreme Court of the United States uses a four-factor test to determine
whether a proceeding is quasi-criminal. Those factors are whether: “(1) the action was
commenced by the [s]tate in its sovereign capacity[;] (2) the proceeding was initiated to
sanction the federal plaintiff for some wrongful act[;] . . . (3) there are other similarities to
criminal actions, such as a preliminary investigation that culminated with the filing of
formal charges[; and (4)] . . . the [s]tate could have alternatively sought to enforce a parallel
criminal statute.” ACRA Turf Club, LLC v Zanzuccki, 748 F3d 127, 138 (CA 3, 2014),

                                               15
not a criminal penalty. The Maxons maintain that the case is quasi-criminal because the

Township could have sought “ ‘a fine of up to $500 per day[.]’ ” 51 But that argument fails

because the Township did not pursue a fine. Indeed, the Township’s decision to pursue

only prospective injunctive relief confirms that this suit is civil. 52 And the Township’s

request for an “award [of] such other costs, fees and relief that the Court deems just” does

not transform the case into a quasi-criminal proceeding. Such discretionary awards are

routine parts of civil, not criminal, cases. 53

         This civil proceeding also differs in important ways from other civil proceedings in

which we have held that the benefits of applying the exclusionary rule outweigh the costs.

In asset-forfeiture cases, we have held that “the intent of civil forfeiture . . . is to remove

from circulation all cash, property, and contraband used to further drug trafficking,” and

citing Sprint Communications, Inc v Jacobs, 571 US 69, 79-81; 134 S Ct 584; 187 L Ed 2d
505 (2013), Huffman v Pursue, Ltd, 420 US 592, 604; 95 S Ct 1200; 43 L Ed 2d 482 (1975),
and Trainor v Hernandez, 431 US 434, 444; 97 S Ct 1911; 52 L Ed 2d 486 (1977).
51
     Citation omitted.
52
  Cf. Weinberger v Romero-Barcelo, 456 US 305, 311; 102 S Ct 1798; 72 L Ed 2d 91
(1982) (“It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy.”).
53
   See MCR 2.625 (taxation of costs); People v Cunningham, 496 Mich 145, 149; 852
NW2d 118 (2014) (“[C]ourts may impose costs in criminal cases only where such costs
are authorized by statute.”). The analysis may be different if a Township seeks to impose
monetary fines to punish each previous day of noncompliance with a local ordinance or
where the matter seeks to recover monetary penalties that were previously imposed. See,
e.g., Inc Village of Laurel Hollow v Laverne, Inc, 24 App Div 2d 615, 615-616; 262 NYS2d
622 (1965) (holding that the exclusionary rule applied to a civil but quasi-criminal action
seeking to recover monetary penalties for a contempt finding in zoning- and code-violation
matter); but see Krieger v Rochester, 42 Misc 3d 753, 767-768; 978 NYS2d 588 (2013)
(declining to apply the exclusionary rule in a zoning-enforcement matter that sought to
impose de minimis civil fines of $50 because such minor penalties were insufficient to
make the action quasi criminal in nature).

                                                  16
under that forfeiture statute, the government must show that the forfeited property “ ‘is

traceable to an exchange for a controlled substance[.]’ ” 54 It is implicit in our prior opinions

that civil asset-forfeiture cases are unique because the government must prove that the asset

to be forfeited is the product of a crime or was used to further a criminal act. 55 A case to

enforce nuisance and zoning ordinances, however, does not require the government to

show that the defendant or property is linked to any crime whatsoever. Another difference

is that, unlike in a civil asset-forfeiture case, this local zoning and nuisance case was not

brought by the state of Michigan in its sovereign capacity. 56 Further, the Township could

not have sought to enforce a parallel criminal statute for the Maxons’ behavior because

there is none. 57 And in contrast to asset-forfeiture cases, this proceeding was not brought

to sanction the Maxons’ for some wrongful act; indeed, the Township is only seeking

injunctive relief to bring the Maxons in compliance with the property-use restrictions

adopted by, and applicable to, all in their community. 58 In short, nuisance- and zoning-

ordinance cases that seek only prospective injunctive relief, unlike asset-forfeiture cases,

54
     In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich at 454, 455 (citation omitted).
55
   See, e.g., In re Forfeiture of $5,264, 432 Mich 242, 261-262; 439 NW2d 246 (1989)
(ruling that the government must show a substantial connection between the asset to be
seized and some underlying criminal activity); In re Forfeiture of $180,975, 478 Mich at
462 (noting that “a basic purpose of a drug forfeiture proceeding is to establish that the
item subject to forfeiture (here the $180,975 in cash) is connected to drug activity”).
56
     See Sprint Communications, Inc, 571 US at 79; ACRA Turf Club, LLC, 748 F3d at 138.
57
     Id.
58
     Id.

                                               17
are not quasi-criminal proceedings in which the exclusionary rule may justifiably be

applied.

         Likewise, our opinions suppressing the introduction of evidence taken from a

person’s blood in a civil case have noted that the exclusionary rule bars such evidence

because it involves “a degree of intrusiveness not present when police armed with a warrant

search one’s home.” 59 By contrast, this aerial surveillance of land from the air involves

substantially less intrusion than when law enforcement search a person’s home or their

body. The Township searched the yard and curtilage of the Maxons’ property, but these

areas are less private than inside the home and, by extension, far less private than the body.

Our narrow, limited application of the exclusionary rule to suppress unlawfully seized

evidence from a person’s blood in civil proceedings is therefore inconsistent with the

Maxons’ request that we apply the rule expansively in the present case. In sum, our prior

decisions applying the exclusionary rule to two narrow categories of civil cases do not

support the application of the exclusionary rule to proceedings to enforce local zoning and

nuisance ordinances.

                                    IV. CONCLUSION

         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

59
     Kivela, 449 Mich at 236, citing Lebel, 354 Mich 427, and McNitt, 397 Mich 384.

                                              18
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. 60 We therefore

affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to the circuit court for further

proceedings.

                                                         Brian K. Zahra
                                                         Elizabeth T. Clement
                                                         David F. Viviano
                                                         Richard H. Bernstein
                                                         Megan K. Cavanagh
                                                         Elizabeth M. Welch
                                                         Kyra H. Bolden

60
     Long Lake Twp (On Remand), 343 Mich App at 337 (opinion of the Court).

                                             19