# People v. Hill

> Michigan Supreme Court · November 13, 1987 · 429 Mich. 382

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741840

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Hill
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** November 13, 1987
- **Citations:** 429 Mich. 382; 415 N.W.2d 193
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Archer
- **Judges:** Riley, Levin, Cavanagh, Boyle, Archer, Griffin, Brickley
- **Cited by:** 47 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741840

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- discussing the focus test applied by some panels of this Court to the issue of whether a Miranda warning was required at the time of the search in this case

## Opinion text

Archer, J.
I concur and have signed the majority opinion. I write to add that I would inquire, looking at all the relevant circumstances, whether, at the time of the interrogation, a reasonable person 1 would have believed that "he ha[d] been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966).
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Archer, J._
"[T]he only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.” Berkemer v McCarty, 468 US 420, 442 ; 104 S Ct 3138 ; 82 L Ed 2d 317 (1984).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9741840. Public record. Not legal advice.