Key points
- Police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone inside needs emergency assistance.[1]
- An emergency-aid entry gives no basis to search the home beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency and keep officers safe.[2]
- One occupant's consent does not authorize a search for evidence over the express refusal of another occupant who is physically present, but the U.S. Supreme Court said that rule has no bearing on police entry to protect a resident from domestic violence when they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.[3][4]
- Once the objecting occupant has been lawfully arrested and removed, the remaining occupant can consent to a search.[5]
- Evidence seized in violation of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches is ordinarily excluded from trial, but exclusion is not automatic.[6][7]
Yes, in two common situations. Police may enter a home without a warrant if they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that someone inside needs emergency assistance, and they may enter when an occupant consents.[1][8] The U.S. Supreme Court has also said that one occupant's objection does not take away police authority to enter to protect a resident from domestic violence, so long as they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.[4]
Entry and search are different things, though. The authority to come in and deal with an emergency is not authority to look through the house for evidence.[2] This page walks through both rules and what happens to evidence when a court finds that police went too far.
The starting point: warrants and their exceptions
The Fourth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ordinarily a search or seizure without a warrant is unreasonable, but several exceptions exist, so a warrant is not always required.[6] This page covers the two exceptions most relevant to a domestic call: emergency aid and consent.
Emergency aid: entering to help someone inside
Under Brigham City v Stuart, police officers may enter a home without a warrant if they have an "objectively reasonable basis for believing" that someone inside needs emergency assistance.[1] The test is objective: if the officer's action is justified under an objective view of the circumstances, it is reasonable regardless of the officer's state of mind.[1]
In 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court returned to the rule in Case v Montana. It confirmed that the emergency-aid standard does not require probable cause and is judged on the totality of the circumstances.[2] It also stated the limit: "an emergency-aid entry provides no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers' safety."[2]
On a domestic call, facts that can bear on this include the content of the 911 call, what officers hear and see on arrival, visible injuries, and whether a person inside can be seen or heard. Courts look at the totality of the circumstances, so the answer in any one case depends on its details.[2]
Consent: when one person says yes and the other says no
Police may also enter with consent, and in a shared home more than one person can give it. Three U.S. Supreme Court and Michigan decisions set the rules for disagreement between occupants.
| Situation | Rule | Case |
|---|---|---|
| One occupant consents to a search; another is physically present and expressly refuses | A warrantless search based on the one occupant's consent is unreasonable and invalid as to the occupant who refused.[3] | Georgia v Randolph (2006) |
| Police have good reason to believe a resident is threatened with domestic violence; a co-occupant objects to entry | The refusal rule has no bearing on the authority of police to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence.[4][9] | Georgia v Randolph (2006) |
| The objecting occupant has been lawfully detained or arrested and removed; the other occupant then consents | The absent occupant "stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason," so the consent is valid.[5] | Fernandez v California (2014) |
| Both occupants let officers in on a domestic dispute call; one later tells them to leave | Revoking consent did not make the officers' presence unlawful, because they were there in response to a domestic dispute and not to search for evidence.[8] | City of Westland v Kodlowski (2012) |
The Michigan case deserves a closer look because it arose from a domestic dispute call. Police had entered with the consent of both the defendant and the complainant, and the defendant later asked them to leave.[8] In Kodlowski, the Court of Appeals explained that a co-occupant may invalidate another co-occupant's consent where police are entering to search for evidence, but that a co-occupant's withdrawal of consent to the presence of the police "does not preclude officers from continuing to investigate cases of potential domestic violence."[10] The decision was later vacated in part and reversed in part on other grounds.[10]
Entering is not the same as searching
Each of these rules has a boundary:
- Emergency aid supports what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency and keep officers safe, and no more.[2]
- Protecting a resident from domestic violence is a reason to enter over an objection; the Randolph refusal rule still governs a search for evidence.[4][3]
- Consent from the remaining occupant becomes effective for a search once the objecting occupant is absent because of a lawful detention or arrest.[5]
What officers are told and what they observe while lawfully inside goes into the domestic violence report, which must describe injuries, any weapon or object used, and property damage.[11] If the entry was recorded on a body-worn camera, see Body camera footage in domestic violence cases.
Can police arrest someone inside the home?
If officers are lawfully inside and find reasonable cause, Michigan's domestic assault arrest statute lets them arrest without a warrant, whether or not the assault happened in their presence.[12] Agency policy must also provide for emergency assistance to victims, which can include remaining at the scene for a reasonable time until, in the officer's reasonable judgment, the likelihood of further imminent violence has been eliminated.[13] The arrest decision is covered in Is arrest mandatory in Michigan? and the whole sequence in What happens when police respond to a domestic call.
What happens to evidence if the entry or search was unlawful?
The question is decided by a judge on a motion to suppress.
- The general rule. When evidence has been seized in violation of the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, it must ordinarily be excluded from trial.[6]
- What it reaches. The exclusionary rule generally bars materials seized and observations made during an unconstitutional search, and also evidence that is the product or indirect result of the illegal search, often called the "fruit of the poisonous tree."[7]
- Its limits. The purpose of the rule is to deter police misconduct, and it does not automatically apply once a court finds a Fourth Amendment violation.[7]
- Timing. A motion to suppress generally must be made in advance of trial.[14] A defendant is generally entitled to an evidentiary hearing when the admissibility of evidence is challenged on constitutional grounds.[15]
Suppression removes particular evidence; it is not a dismissal.[7] Evidence that is not a product of the entry, such as a 911 recording made before officers arrived, is a separate question.[7][16] See Evidence used in Michigan domestic violence cases. The procedure is covered in Motions to suppress evidence.
Practical points for anyone at the door
For a person who called for help: you can tell officers you want them to come in, and you can point out injuries, damage, and where the other person is. The officer must leave you a written notice with the agency's phone number and the officer's name and badge number.[17]
For a person who objects to the entry: say so calmly and clearly, and do not physically block or struggle with officers. Whether the entry was lawful is argued later in court, with a lawyer, on the record of what officers knew at the time. What is said during the encounter can be used as evidence; see Talking to the police: your rights at the scene and after.
What people get wrong
"Police always need a warrant to come into a home." Emergency aid and consent are both recognized exceptions.[1][6]
"I told them to leave, so everything after that is illegal." On a domestic dispute call, a co-occupant's withdrawal of consent to police presence does not stop officers from continuing to investigate potential domestic violence.[10]
"Once they are in, they can search anything." An emergency-aid entry is limited to what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency and keep officers safe.[2]
"An illegal entry means the case is dismissed." The remedy is exclusion of evidence, and even that is not automatic.[6][7]
Common questions
Do police need a warrant to enter a home on a domestic violence call in Michigan?
Not always. Officers may enter without a warrant when they have an objectively reasonable basis for believing someone inside needs emergency assistance.[1] They may also enter with the consent of an occupant.[8] The U.S. Supreme Court has said there is no question about police authority to enter a dwelling to protect a resident from domestic violence when they have good reason to believe such a threat exists.[4]
My partner let the police in, but I told them to leave. Was that legal?
It depends on what the officers were doing. A present co-occupant's express refusal defeats the other occupant's consent to a search for evidence.[3] But the Michigan Court of Appeals has held that a co-occupant's withdrawal of consent to the presence of police does not stop officers from continuing to investigate potential domestic violence.[10]
Can police search the whole house once they are inside?
Not on the strength of an emergency alone. In Case v Montana, decided in 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court said an emergency-aid entry provides no basis to search the premises beyond what is reasonably needed to deal with the emergency while maintaining the officers' safety.[2] A wider search needs a warrant, valid consent, or another recognized exception.[6]
After I was arrested, my partner let police search. Is that allowed?
Generally yes. In Fernandez v California, the U.S. Supreme Court held that an occupant who is absent because of a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same position as an occupant who is absent for any other reason, so the remaining occupant's consent is valid.[5]
What happens to evidence if the entry or search was unlawful?
The defense can ask the court to suppress it. Ordinarily, evidence seized in violation of the prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures must be excluded from trial.[6] The rule can also reach evidence that is the product of the illegal search, but it does not apply automatically whenever a violation is found.[7] A motion to suppress generally must be made before trial.[14]
Sources
- Brigham City v Stuart, 547 US 398, 400, 405-407 (2006); Case v Montana, 607 US ___ (2026) — Michigan Courts
- Case v Montana, 607 US ___ (2026) — Michigan Courts
- Georgia v Randolph, 547 US 103, 120 (2006) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- Georgia v Randolph, 547 US 103, 118 (2006) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- Fernandez v California, 571 US 292, 294, 303 (2014) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11; People v Evans, ___ Mich App ___ (2025) — Michigan Courts
- People v Bogucki, ___ Mich App ___ (2025); People v Lucynski, ___ Mich ___ (2024) — Michigan Courts
- City of Westland v Kodlowski, 298 Mich App 647, 668-669 (2012) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- Georgia v Randolph, 547 US 103, 118, 120 (2006) — Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School
- City of Westland v Kodlowski, 298 Mich App 647, 667–669 (2012), vacated in part on other grounds, rev'd in part on other grounds 495 Mich 871 (2013) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- MCL 764.15c(4) — Michigan Legislature
- MCL 764.15a — Michigan Legislature
- MCL 776.22(3)(c)–(l), (4) — Michigan Legislature
- People v Manning, 243 Mich App 615, 625 (2000); People v Ferguson, 376 Mich 90, 93-95 (1965) — Michigan Courts
- People v Reynolds, 93 Mich App 516, 519 (1979); People v Johnson, 202 Mich App 281, 285 (1993); People v Kaufman, 457 Mich 266, 276 (1998); MCR 6.110(D)(2); People v Walker (On Rehearing), 374 Mich 331, 338 (1965) — Michigan Courts
- MCL 768.27c; MRE 803(1), (2), (5), (6); MRE 804(b)(1), (6) — Michigan Judicial Institute, Domestic Violence Benchbook
- MCL 764.15c(1)–(2) — Michigan Legislature
This page is general legal information about Michigan law, published by the office of Attorney Shawn Haff. It is not legal advice and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws change and every case turns on its own facts — check the sources linked above and talk to a licensed Michigan attorney about your situation. If you are in danger, call 911. The National Domestic Violence Hotline is 1-800-799-7233.