Michigan v. Tyler et al.
436 U.S. 499 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An entry to fight a fire requires no warrant, and officials may remain on the premises for a reasonable time to investigate the cause of the blaze after it is extinguished. However, any subsequent entries, once the exigency has ended and a reasonable time has passed, must be made pursuant to a warrant.
Facts:
- A fire broke out at Tyler's Auction, a furniture store leased by Loren Tyler and operated with Robert Tompkins, shortly before midnight on January 21, 1970.
- Around 2 a.m., with the fire department still watering down embers, Fire Chief See arrived and was shown two plastic containers of flammable liquid.
- Chief See and Police Detective Webb entered the smoky building, took pictures, and See looked for further evidence of the fire's cause.
- By 4 a.m., the fire was extinguished, all officials departed, and Webb took the two containers for safekeeping.
- At approximately 8 a.m., Chief See and Assistant Chief Somerville returned to the empty building for a cursory examination.
- Around 9 a.m., Somerville and Webb re-entered and discovered evidence of a potential fuse trail, removing pieces of carpet and stairs.
- Weeks later, on February 16, Sergeant Hoffman of the Michigan State Police Arson Section made several warrantless entries to take photographs and collect additional physical evidence.
Procedural Posture:
- Loren Tyler and Robert Tompkins were convicted in a Michigan trial court of conspiracy to burn real property.
- Evidence from multiple warrantless entries by officials was admitted at their trial over objection.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Michigan Supreme Court.
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the convictions, ruling that the warrantless searches that occurred after the fire was extinguished were unconstitutional and the evidence should have been suppressed.
- The State of Michigan (Petitioner) sought and was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do warrantless, nonconsensual entries by fire officials onto fire-damaged private property to investigate the cause of a fire violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes, in part. While an entry to extinguish a fire and to remain for a reasonable time thereafter to investigate its cause does not require a warrant, subsequent entries detached from the initial exigency are subject to the warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment. The court reasoned that a burning building creates an exigent circumstance justifying a warrantless entry. This exigency extends for a reasonable time after the fire is extinguished to allow officials to investigate its cause and prevent recurrence. The re-entry a few hours after the fire was extinguished was deemed a continuation of the initial investigation, which had been hindered by smoke and darkness. However, the subsequent entries weeks later were clearly detached from the initial emergency and were conducted solely to gather evidence for a criminal investigation, thus requiring a warrant.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The warrantless searches hours, days, and weeks after the fire were unconstitutional, but the majority is wrong to permit the 8 and 9 a.m. re-entries without a warrant. The exigency ended when the firefighters left the premises at 4 a.m. The fact that officials were willing to leave demonstrates the emergency was over, making any subsequent re-entry a new search requiring a warrant. Creating a 'continuation' exception will only confuse officials and lead to the exclusion of evidence; a clear rule requiring a warrant after officials have departed is necessary.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Stevens
Yes. The entry on February 16 was unconstitutional because it was not authorized by a warrant and was not preceded by advance notice. The opinion expresses disagreement with the Court's reliance on administrative search warrants, arguing they do not satisfy the probable cause requirement of the Warrant Clause. When there is no probable cause and no special enforcement need, the Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement demands that the government provide fair notice of an inspection rather than making an unannounced entry.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
No. The warrantless searches were not unreasonable and therefore did not violate the Fourth Amendment. The Warrant Clause should not apply to routine, regulatory inspections of commercial premises. The proper inquiry is reasonableness, and all the searches here were reasonable given the circumstances. The premises were substantially damaged, not in use, and the owner, Tyler, never objected to the searches and in fact appeared to acquiesce in them.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical framework for applying Fourth Amendment protections to fire investigations, balancing public safety needs against individual privacy rights. It creates a three-tiered approach: a warrantless entry is permitted for the exigency of the fire itself; officials may remain for a 'reasonable time' after to investigate the cause; but subsequent, detached entries require a warrant. This decision clarifies that privacy interests are not wholly extinguished by a fire and obligates officials to seek judicial oversight for non-exigent investigative entries, differentiating between administrative warrants for cause determination and criminal warrants for evidence gathering.
Unlock the full brief for Michigan v. Tyler et al.