In re Forfeiture of $28,088

12 Citing cases

  1. People v. Adams

    No. 339920 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    When a confidential informant admits his own participation in illegal activity and where the statement tended to subject the informant to criminal liability such that a reasonable person in his position would not have admitted it unless he believed it to be true, the statement has a high indicia of reliability. In Re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 172 Mich App 200, 206-207; 431 NW2d 437 (1988); People v Gleason, 122 Mich App 482, 491; 333 NW2d 85 (1983); MRE 804(b)(3). Furthermore, a warrant may issue based upon the information provided by a confidential informant when the police conduct an independent investigation to confirm the accuracy and reliability of the information.

  2. In re Forfeiture of Property

    441 Mich. 77 (Mich. 1992)   Cited 10 times   2 Legal Analyses

    The Court of Appeals first observed that forfeiture actions are in rem proceedings. In re Forfeiture of $28,088 of United States Currency, 172 Mich. App. 200, 203; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). In rem jurisdiction over personal property within Michigan lies with courts of record in this state.

  3. In re Application of Consumers Energy Company for Rate Increase

    291 Mich. App. 106 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 35 times
    Noting that collateral estoppel retains limited operation in cases originating in administrative agencies

    Assuming, without deciding, that the Attorney General was vulnerable to a standing challenge below, we deem appellate objections forfeited because none was raised. See In re Complaint of Mich Cable Telecom Ass'n, 241 Mich App 344, 361-362; 615 NW2d 255 (2000) (affirming a decision to reject a challenge to a party's standing on the ground that the challenge was not timely brought); In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich App 200, 205; 431 NW2d 437 (1988) (declining to entertain the appellee's challenge to the claimant-appellant's standing where the issue was not raised below and there was no cross-appeal). For these reasons, we will consider the tree-trimming/forestry tracker as part of the claim that the PSC engaged in improper retroactive ratemaking.

  4. Michigan Milk Prod. v. Department, Treas

    242 Mich. App. 486 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 53 times
    In Mich. Milk Producers, 242 Mich. App. at 487-488, 495, 618 N.W.2d 917, there was no question that "milk production" was within the scope of the exemption, and the question was whether the use of the equipment was for producing milk (exempt) or marketing milk (not exempt).

    We reject as unsupported by the record respondent's recent claim that petitioner is not engaged in a business enterprise, particularly in view of respondent's concession to the contrary before the tribunal. In re Forfeiture of $28,088 of United States Currency, 172 Mich. App. 200, 206; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). In any event, subsection 4(f) refers to business enterprises in order to distinguish production for commerce from production for personal use. Mueller, supra at 574.

  5. In re Forfeiture of 19203 Albany

    210 Mich. App. 337 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 3 times
    Finding that a circuit court properly had jurisdiction over property seized pursuant to a controlled substances arrest

    Forfeiture proceedings are in rem proceedings. In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich. App. 200, 203; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). A forfeiture proceeding brought under the controlled substances act requires the seizing agency to be in possession or control of the res in order to vest the court with jurisdiction to enter an order of forfeiture.

  6. In re Forfeiture of 301 Cass Street

    194 Mich. App. 381 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 11 times

    Also noteworthy is the fact that the majority of courts considering the issue have applied the rules of evidence, including the exclusionary rule, to forfeiture proceedings. See Conservation Dep't v Brown, 335 Mich. 343, 350-351; 55 N.W.2d 859 (1952) (reviewing legality of a seizure of illegally used fishing nets during a forfeiture proceeding); In re $15,232, supra, 183 Mich. App. 834-837 (hearsay not admissible); In re Forfeiture of $28,088 of United States Currency, 172 Mich. App. 200, 206; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988) (reviewing validity of a search warrant during a forfeiture proceeding); In re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 171 Mich. App. 684, 686-687; 431 N.W.2d 42 (1988) (reviewing legality of investigative stop during a forfeiture proceeding); In re Forfeiture of United States Currency, 166 Mich. App. 81, 89, 91-92; 420 N.W.2d 131 (1988) (holding that a suppression issue decided in a criminal case could not be relitigated in a forfeiture proceeding, but that the rules of evidence should be strictly applied). We note that the ruling in In re Forfeiture of One 1985 Mercedes Benz, 174 Mich. App. 203, 205; 435 N.W.2d 426 (1988), in which a panel of this Court indicated that hearsay evidence was admissible in a forfeiture proceeding, goes against the weight of authority.

  7. In re Forfeiture of Suitcases

    193 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 4 times

    Forfeiture proceedings are in rem proceedings. In re Forfeiture of $28,088 of United States Currency, 172 Mich. App. 200, 203; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). In rem jurisdiction over personal property situated within this state lies with the courts of record of the state.

  8. In re Forfeiture of $126,174

    479 N.W.2d 8 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    See MCL 333.7523; MSA 14.15(7523); In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich. App. 200; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). Martin's personal interest was already subject to the tax lien under MCL 205.29(1); MSA 7.657(29)(1), which provides in pertinent part:

  9. In re Forfeiture of $30,632.41

    459 N.W.2d 99 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 8 times

    Forfeiture proceedings are in rem civil proceedings. People v US Currency, 158 Mich. App. 126; 404 N.W.2d 634 (1986); In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich. App. 200; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). The civil in rem forfeiture proceeding is a legal anomaly that proceeds on an archaic theory that inanimate objects themselves can be guilty of wrongdoing. Winn, Seizures of private property in the war against drugs: What process is due? 41 Southwestern L J 1111 (1988).

  10. People v. Jackson

    180 Mich. App. 339 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 8 times
    In People v Jackson, 180 Mich. App. 339, 346; 446 N.W.2d 891 (1989), this Court held that Michigan courts have declined to adopt a good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, finding greater protection afforded a defendant under the state constitution.

    However, our Courts have declined to adopt a good faith exception, finding greater protection afforded defendant under our own state constitution. See, e.g., People v Tanis, 153 Mich. 806, 813; 396 N.W.2d 544 (1986), lv den 426 Mich. 877 (1986); In re Forfeiture of $28,088, 172 Mich. App. 200, 206, n 1; 431 N.W.2d 437 (1988). Reversed.