Michigan Property Owners Ask Court to Reject Federal Open Fields Doctrine Under Michigan Constitution

The Michigan property and constitutional rights law firm of Outside Legal Counsel PLC ("OLC"), on behalf of Michigan residents Dennis and Daynelle Vanderlaan, has filed a motion for summary disposition asking the Michigan Court of Claims to formally hold that the Michigan Constitution provides greater protection for private property than the federal "open fields" doctrine. The motion asks the Court to declare that Article I, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution prohibits conservation officers from intentionally entering private recreational property without a warrant, consent, exigent circumstances, or another recognized exception to the warrant requirement.

The motion is part of a lawsuit filed last fall against the Michigan Department of Natural Resources after a conservation officer entered the Vanderlaans' private hunting property during the opening day of firearm deer season to investigate false allegations of hunter harassment. 

Video of Interaction: https://youtu.be/GqYQnIHVafA

While the lawsuit was filed in 2025, the newly filed motion asks the Court to resolve what OLC contends is a pure question of constitutional law that has never been squarely answered by a published Michigan appellate court: whether Article I, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution rejects the federal open fields doctrine.

"This case is about far more than one hunting complaint," said attorney Philip L. Ellison, counsel for the Vanderlaans. "It asks whether millions of acres of privately owned Michigan land are entitled to constitutional protection from warrantless governmental intrusion. We believe the Michigan Constitution answers that question with a resounding yes."

The lawsuit challenges the continued application in Michigan of the federal "open fields doctrine," a rule announced by the United States Supreme Court in Oliver v. United States in 1984 based on a decision originating from 1924 (Hester v United States). Under that doctrine, government officers believe they generally may enter privately owned land located beyond the curtilage of a home without first obtaining a search warrant because those areas are not considered protected by the Fourth Amendment.

As a practical matter, the doctrine has authorized government officers (including DNR conservation officers) to walk onto posted hunting property, farmland, timberland, and other privately owned acreage to conduct criminal investigations without first obtaining judicial approval. Although property owners retain the legal right to exclude virtually every member of the public from their land, the doctrine has long treated government investigators differently.

OLC's motion argues that Michigan's Constitution contains materially different language than the federal Constitution and therefore requires its own independent interpretation. Unlike the Fourth Amendment, which protects "persons, houses, papers, and effects," Article I, Section 11 protects the "persons, houses, papers and possessions" of every person.

"The people of Michigan deliberately chose different constitutional language," Ellison said. "Our courts should interpret the Michigan Constitution according to the words adopted by Michigan voters—not simply assume federal precedent controls."

According to the lawsuit, Conservation Officer Cameron Wright responded to a complaint from neighboring hunters on the opening day of firearm deer season. The motion alleges that Officer Wright reached the Vanderlaans' property line, attempted to locate them from outside the property, and, after being unable to do so, deliberately crossed onto their privately owned land and walked through wooded terrain until locating the couple inside their hunting blind.

OLC argues that the officer's physical entry onto private property was not merely incidental to the investigation but was the investigative method itself. According to the motion, the officer entered the property for the very purpose of locating, identifying, and questioning the Vanderlaans during a criminal investigation.

"The government did not happen upon evidence while lawfully present," Ellison said. "The government crossed onto private land because that was the only way to find the citizens it wanted to investigate. That is precisely the type of governmental intrusion constitutional search-and-seizure protections are intended to regulate."

The case presents an issue affecting thousands of Michigan landowners, not just the Vanderlaans. Michigan conservation officers routinely investigate complaints involving hunting, fishing, baiting, trespass, wildlife violations, and hunter disputes on privately owned rural property without first seeking consent. Under the federal open fields doctrine, those investigations have often proceeded without warrants even when officers intentionally entered land that owners had purchased, maintained, posted, and exclusively controlled.

"The question is whether ownership of rural property carries the same constitutional dignity as ownership of a home," Ellison said. "The Constitution should not disappear simply because a citizen walks beyond the backyard."

The Michigan challenge comes shortly after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued what is widely viewed as one of the most significant state constitutional property-rights decisions in decades. In Punxsutawney Hunting Club, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Game Commission, the court held that Pennsylvania's constitutional protection of "possessions" extends beyond the curtilage of a home and rejected automatic reliance on the federal open fields doctrine.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court concluded that state courts have an independent obligation to interpret the language of their own constitutions rather than simply importing federal Fourth Amendment doctrine. OLC argues that Michigan's Constitution contains the same critical textual distinction by protecting "possessions" instead of "effects."

OLC's motion also notes that Pennsylvania joins a growing number of states—including Tennessee, Vermont, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, and Washington—that have departed from or significantly limited the federal open fields doctrine under their own constitutions.

"The Pennsylvania decision demonstrates that state constitutions are not second-class constitutional documents," Ellison said. "They are independent charters of liberty. Michigan's Constitution deserves the same careful textual analysis."

Because no published Michigan appellate decision has directly addressed whether Article I, Section 11 independently rejects the federal open fields doctrine, the case could establish important statewide precedent governing the constitutional rights of property owners, farmers, hunters, conservation officers, and other law enforcement agencies.

If the Court agrees with the Vanderlaans' position, the decision would recognize that privately owned land actively occupied, controlled, and used by its owners is a constitutionally protected "possession" under Michigan law. Government officials would remain free to investigate crime, but they would generally be required to obtain a warrant or rely upon a recognized exception before intentionally entering such private property.

The case is pending before the Michigan Court of Claims.

Outside Legal Counsel PLC is a Michigan litigation firm concentrating on constitutional law, property rights, civil rights, and government accountability. The firm regularly represents clients in precedent-setting litigation before Michigan's state and federal courts, including the Michigan Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the Supreme Court of the United States.