State agencies (existing): generally; use of open fields doctrine by law enforcement officers and state agencies; prohibit. Creates new act.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Greg Alexander and 27 co-sponsors

Restricts use of the open fields doctrine by prohibiting searches by law enforcement and state agency actors, requiring evaluation under other Fourth Amendment standards.

bill electronically reproduced 06/24/2026

#criminalprocedure:warrants #stateagencies(existing):generally

Summary of HB 6128 (Michigan, 2025-2026)

Purpose and intent

The bill seeks to limit the application of the open fields doctrine by prohibiting its use in searches conducted by law enforcement officers and by employees, officers, or agents of state agencies.

In effect, it would restrict the ability of law enforcement and state agencies to rely on open fields as a basis to conduct searches, expanding protections against search intrusions beyond current doctrine.

Key provisions and changes

Definitions (Sec. 1):

“Law enforcement officer” is defined as the term used in the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards Act (1965 PA 203, MCL 28.602).
“Open fields doctrine” refers to the U.S. Supreme Court’s doctrine established in Hester v. United States (1924) and reaffirmed in Oliver v. United States (1984).
“State agency” encompasses any state department, board, commission, office, agency, institution, or other unit of state government.

Prohibition on open fields searches (Sec. 2):

The open fields doctrine does not apply to a search conducted by a law enforcement officer or by an employee, officer, or agent of a state agency.
This effectively requires such searches to be evaluated under other Fourth Amendment standards or applicable state law, rather than dismissing the intrusion as permissible because it occurred in open fields.

Who or what would be affected

Law enforcement officers (as defined by state statute) conducting searches.

Employees, officers, or agents of state agencies performing searches.

State agencies and their activities in relation to property or locations that might be considered “open fields” under current common-law doctrine.

Likely interactions with investigative procedures, surveillance, and property access that previously could rely on the open fields rationale.

Procedural and timeline aspects

Introduced in June 2026 and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Bill language establishes definitions and the core prohibition. If advanced, it would move through committee process, potential amendments, and floor consideration.

No explicit effective date is stated in the text provided; typically, enacted statutes include an implementable effective date (e.g., upon publication or a specific date thereafter).

Notes on potential impact

Shifts a legal standard for searches by state actors away from the open fields justification, requiring more particularized justification for searches in areas traditionally deemed to be “open fields.”

Could affect evidence admissibility in cases where searches previously relied on the open fields doctrine as a justification for intrusions.

May require training updates for law enforcement and state agency personnel on Fourth Amendment applications and state-level search protocols.

The practical impact will depend on how courts interpret the interaction between this statute and existing constitutional protections, as well as how other provisions (if any) address exceptions or exigent circumstances.

If you’d like, I can provide a brief comparative note with how the open fields doctrine currently operates in Michigan and potential constitutional questions that could arise from this bill.