MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT | April 2022 Special Session

Oral arguments from Tuesday, April 26, 2022, on the campus of Hillsdale College.
HON. BRIDGET M. MCCORMACK
Chief Justice
HON. BRIAN K. ZAHRA
HON. DAVID F. VIVIANO
HON. RICHARD H. BERNSTEIN
HON. ELIZABETH T. CLEMENT
HON. MEGAN K. CAVANAGH
HON. ELIZABETH M. WELCH,
Justices

[@turbochad69]

Interesting watch. It is an intriguing case ngl. Thank you very much for posting this Hillsdale! I wish things like this was shown more…

[@margyrowland]

Obviously the policeman was bullying the driver and using fake accusations, his authority and uniform and equipment to scare the person into submission. Let’s hope the judges get this right for sake of ordinary good people.

[@RudyPMunoz]

Thank You.

[@neldabuckley9687]

Fascinating. Hope to hear the verdict at some point.

[@philobetto5106]

I hope someday all Judges could treat the law and court cases with this same care and fairness
when not on video

[@RudyPMunoz]

The U. S. Supreme Court has emphasized that mere suspicion or good faith on the part of arresting officers is not sufficient to constitute probable cause for an arrest. See, Director General of Railroads v. Kastenbaum, (1923) 263 US 25, 68 L. Ed. 146, 44 S. Ct. 52; Mallory v. U.S., (1957) 354 US 449, 1 L.Ed. 2d 1479, 77 S.Ct. 1356; Henry v. U.S., (1959) 361 U.S. 98, 4 L. Ed. 2d 134, 80 S.Ct. 168; Wong Sun v. U.S., (1963) 371 U.S. 471, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441, 83 S.Ct. 407; Beck v. Ohio, (1964) 379 U.S. 89, 13 L.Ed. 2d 142, 85 S.Ct. 223; Whiteley v. Warden of Wyoming Penitentiary, (1971) 401 U.S. 560, 28 L.Ed. 2d 306 at 986, 91 S. Ct. 1031 (that good faith on the part of the arresting officer was not enough.).

[@JSomerled]

Good lesson..know your rights.Don’t volunteer anything to the police.. Conversation leads to detention,don’t get yourself arrested
If the interference was legitimate,shouldn’t the police at that time use lights and detain.. If the arrest was made due to conversation,then why did the officer feel the need to include interference of traffic..Maybe to hide the fact that barring a citizens right to move freely without interference was violated.
If they moved on before the impedance,it wasn’t
Also,if the person where to ask the police to move to give him freedom to travel,would he have,or would another violation be instigated?
Unfortunately there’s no conclusion in this video..I’d be curious to hear how the judges decide.

[@kittybrowneye3163]

Doesn't matter if they read all the case law the law is the law these judges are terrible

[@RudyPMunoz]

Then you have what is called fruits of a poisonous tree.

[@jackwilliamatkins5602]

At the top of my spiral staircase is 😂

[@tanyasoriano8798]

Thanks

[@marycoleman1009]

Is this a progressive judge?

[@RudyPMunoz]

Now if the officer believed his flow of traffic was being obstructed at that time. The officer represents the public interest.

[@rtru1968]

7y8z8

[@hellohowdy226]

Kidnappers