Michigan v. Clifford
464 U.S. 287, 78 L. Ed. 2d 477, 1984 U.S. LEXIS 14 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Once fire officials have extinguished a blaze and departed from a private residence, a subsequent, nonconsensual re-entry to investigate the cause of the fire requires an administrative warrant, and a search to gather evidence of arson requires a criminal warrant based on probable cause.
Facts:
- In the early morning of October 18, 1980, a fire broke out at the home of Raymond and Emma Jean Clifford.
- The Cliffords were away on a camping trip at the time of the fire.
- Firefighters arrived, extinguished the fire, and all fire and police officials left the premises by 7:04 a.m.
- After the fire, the Cliffords' neighbor contacted them, and they arranged for an insurance agent to send a work crew to board up the house and secure it against intruders.
- Around 1:00 p.m. the same day, arson investigators arrived at the scene and saw the work crew securing the house and pumping water from the basement.
- At approximately 1:30 p.m., after the water was removed, the investigators entered the Clifford home without a warrant or consent to begin their investigation.
- In the basement, investigators found fuel cans, a crock pot, and an electrical timer, concluding this was the origin of the fire.
- After determining the fire's cause, the investigators proceeded to conduct an extensive search of the upper levels of the house.
Procedural Posture:
- Raymond and Emma Jean Clifford were charged with arson in a Michigan trial court.
- The Cliffords moved to suppress evidence from the warrantless search of their home, but the motion was denied at the preliminary examination.
- They again moved to suppress before the trial court, which conducted a hearing and denied the motion on the grounds of exigent circumstances.
- The trial court certified its ruling for an interlocutory appeal.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court) reversed the trial court, holding that the search was unconstitutional.
- The State of Michigan, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a warrantless, nonconsensual search of a fire-damaged private residence by arson investigators, conducted several hours after the fire has been extinguished and officials have left the scene, violate the Fourth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Powell
Yes. A warrantless, nonconsensual search of a fire-damaged residence conducted hours after the fire is extinguished and officials have departed violates the Fourth Amendment because the exigency created by the fire has ended and reasonable expectations of privacy remain. The Cliffords retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in their home, evidenced by their efforts to have it boarded up. This search was not a mere continuation of the initial firefighting efforts, as in Michigan v. Tyler, due to the significant time lapse and the owners' intervening actions to secure the property. Once the exigency ends, any re-entry requires a warrant; an administrative warrant suffices to determine the fire's cause, but a criminal warrant based on probable cause is required to search for evidence of a crime. Here, the initial entry into the basement was unconstitutional for lack of a warrant, and the subsequent search of the upstairs portion of the house was also unconstitutional because its purpose was to gather criminal evidence and its scope exceeded what would be permissible even under a valid administrative search.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the warrantless search of the basement did not violate the Fourth Amendment, although the upstairs search did. The six-hour delay between the departure of the firefighters and the arrival of the investigators was reasonable, making the basement search an 'actual continuation' of the initial valid entry to fight the fire, consistent with the precedent set in Michigan v. Tyler. The public interest in promptly determining a fire's cause is strong, and a homeowner's privacy expectations are diminished in the immediate aftermath of a fire. Therefore, the exigent circumstances doctrine authorized the search of the basement to determine the fire's origin. However, once that cause was found, the justification for the warrantless search ended, and the subsequent search of the rest of the house for criminal evidence required a warrant.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
Yes. The search was unreasonable and therefore violated the Fourth Amendment. This entry was a new search, not a continuation of the earlier one, because different officials arrived long after the fire was out and the scene was vacated. The search's unreasonableness stems from the investigators' failure to provide the homeowners with reasonable advance notice of their intent to enter the premises. For a non-exigent, warrantless administrative search, investigators must make a reasonable effort to notify the owner to allow them the opportunity to be present. As no such effort was made here, the unannounced, forcible entry was unconstitutional regardless of whether a warrant was technically required.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies and narrows the 'continuation' exception established in Michigan v. Tyler for warrantless post-fire searches. It establishes that a homeowner's reasonable expectation of privacy persists in a fire-damaged home and that intervening acts to secure the property, coupled with a time delay, will terminate the initial exigency. The Court created a crucial distinction between an administrative search to determine a fire's cause (requiring an administrative warrant) and a criminal search for evidence of arson (requiring a criminal warrant). This bifurcated approach limits the scope of official intrusion and reinforces the role of judicial oversight once an emergency has subsided and the state's interest shifts from public safety to law enforcement.
