Michigan v. Tyler
436 U.S. 499 · Decided May 31, 1978 · Supreme Court of the United States
Record summary. This page is generated from the Supreme Court Database’s coded data about the case. It describes who decided what, not the Court’s reasoning. Read the opinion itself before relying on it. Not legal advice.
At a glance
Michigan v. Tyler was decided on May 31, 1978 by a vote of 7–1. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Potter Stewart wrote the opinion of the Court. SCDB classifies its main issue as “Search and seizure (general)” in the Criminal Procedure area.
Read the opinion
Case details
- Citations
- 436 U.S. 499 · 98 S. Ct. 1942 · 56 L. Ed. 2d 486 · 1978 U.S. LEXIS 97
- Docket number
- 76-1608
- Decided
- May 31, 1978
- Argued
- January 10, 1978
- Court era
- Burger Court
- Decision type
- Opinion of the Court (orally argued)
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome for petitioner
- The petitioning party did not receive a favorable disposition
- Vote
- 7–1
- Majority opinion
- Potter Stewart
- Opinion assigned by
- Warren E. Burger
- How the case arrived
- Certiorari
- Issue (SCDB)
- Search and seizure (general)
- Issue area
- Criminal Procedure
- Legal provision
- Fourth Amendment
- Type of law
- Constitutional amendment
- Decision direction (SCDB)
- Liberal what this means
How the Justices voted
| Justice | Vote | Separate writing |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Potter Stewart | Majority | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Byron R. White | Special concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice Thurgood Marshall | Special concurrence | |
| Chief Justice Warren E. Burger | Majority | |
| Justice Harry A. Blackmun | Majority | |
| Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. | Majority | |
| Justice William H. Rehnquist | Dissent | Wrote an opinion |
| Justice John Paul Stevens | Concurrence | Wrote an opinion |
Did not participate: William J. Brennan Jr..
Full case caption
Michigan v. Tyler et al.
SCDB identifiers: case 1977-096, docket 1977-096-01.
Related decisions
Other cases on “Search and seizure (general)”
- Zurcher v. Stanford Daily
- Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc.Law held unconstitutional
- Mincey v. Arizona
- Franks v. Delaware
- United States v. Ceccolini
- United States v. New York Telephone Co.
Cases on the same legal provision: Fourth Amendment
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms
- Rakas v. Illinois
- Delaware v. Prouse
- Dalia v. United States
- United States v. Chadwick
- Dunaway v. New York
Same Term, same area (Criminal Procedure)
- Rinaldi v. United States
- Pennsylvania v. Mimms
- United States v. New York Telephone Co.
- Moore v. Illinois
- Smith v. Digmon
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes
Source: Supreme Court Database, 2026 Release 01 (data file dated September 8, 2026). Imported into CaseTrail November 5, 2026. Coverage: decisions from the 1946 through 2025 Terms. Methodology · Report an error