## Facts

- The Cliffords’ Detroit home was severely damaged by a fire while they were out of town.
- Firefighters extinguished the fire around 7:04 a.m. and all officials then left the premises.
- Around 1:00 p.m., arson investigators arrived for the first time and found a crew boarding up the house and pumping water from the basement; the crew was sent at the Cliffords’ direction through their insurance agent to secure the home.
- Without the owners’ consent and without a warrant, investigators entered and conducted an extensive search.
- In the basement, investigators found fuel cans and a crock pot connected to an electrical timer and concluded the fire had been deliberately set; they seized and marked evidence.
- Investigators expanded the search to upper portions of the home and found additional arson-related evidence.
- Michigan charged the Cliffords with willfully and maliciously burning a dwelling and its contents.

## Issues

1. Whether officials may conduct a warrantless, nonconsensual, post-emergency search of a fire-damaged private residence to determine cause and origin and/or gather arson evidence.
2. If a warrant is required, whether an administrative warrant suffices or whether a criminal warrant supported by probable cause is required, depending on the search’s primary objective.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the state appellate judgment.
- The Court held that, where homeowners retain reasonable expectations of privacy in a fire-damaged residence, post-fire investigative searches are subject to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement absent consent or exigent circumstances.
- The Court distinguished between (i) emergency entry and a reasonable post-extinguishment presence and (ii) a later reentry, which is a separate Fourth Amendment event.
- The Court stated that an administrative warrant may be sufficient when the primary purpose is determining the fire’s cause and origin, but a criminal search warrant based on probable cause is required when the primary purpose is to gather evidence of arson or other criminal activity.
- Because the investigators’ warrantless search (including the basement and upper areas) was not justified by consent or exigent circumstances, the resulting evidence was obtained in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and had to be suppressed.

## Legal Principles

- The occurrence of a fire does not suspend the Fourth Amendment; reasonable expectations of privacy can persist in fire-damaged premises, especially in a private home.
- After emergency activities end and officials leave, a subsequent official reentry generally requires consent or a warrant.
- Warrant type depends on purpose:
  - Administrative warrant: permissible when the primary objective is to determine cause and origin.
  - Criminal search warrant (probable cause): required when the primary objective is to obtain evidence of criminal activity.
- Even when entry is permissible, the search scope must be limited to its lawful objective; expansion beyond that objective triggers standard Fourth Amendment constraints.

## Conclusion

Michigan v. Clifford held that post-fire investigative reentry into a private residence is ordinarily governed by the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement once the emergency has ended, and that the required warrant depends on whether officials are conducting an administrative cause-and-origin inquiry or seeking criminal evidence such as arson.


Michigan v. Clifford, 464 U.S. 287 (1984)