Law360 (October 21, 2026, 8:43 PM EDT) -- A Michigan state appellate court has ruled that a man's conviction on two counts of obstructing and resisting police is not moot just because the officers entered the man's home using an arrest warrant that had a different address.
A three-judge panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals said Tuesday that police correctly arrested Colin Garret Heys despite the discrepency because an arrest warrant is different from a search warrant, and that a set of jury instructions relating to the legality of the arrest did not unfairly bias Heys' defense.
"The fact that the address listed in the arrest warrant differed from the location where police actually arrested defendant did not affect the requirements of the arrest warrant here, i.e., the description of defendant himself or the support for probable cause," Judge Brock A. Swartzle wrote in an
opinion for the panel. "Although the arrest warrant was not admitted into evidence, one officer testified that he followed procedures to verify a valid arrest warrant."
A resident in the home where Heys was living contacted police on the day he was arrested and told them Heys had an active warrant for his arrest. Police verified that Heys had a warrant, and despite the address not matching, four officers were dispatched to Heys home, according to the opinion.
The resident who called police left a door open and told officers they could enter the home. Officers knocked on the door, entered and went upstairs to where Heys was located.
Heys was told by officers to place his hands on his head and he told officers to get out and did not comply with their commands. He ignored officers' orders, and after being shot with a Taser, Heys was carried out of the home by police, according to the opinion.
One of the officers described the procedure at trial as a "warrant pick-up" and said that after verifying that a warrant exists, police attempted to arrest the subject of the warrant. The officer also testified that he was given information about where Heys could be located.
Heys sought a dismissal of the charges during the trial, arguing the arrest was unlawful. He also requested a jury instruction indicating he did not provide consent for the officers to enter his home.
The trial court denied both requests and a jury convicted Heys of two counts of resisting and obstructing a police officer. The trial court sentenced Heys to 277 days in jail on each count.
Heys appealed, contending police acted illegally when they arrested him and that the warrant could not be used because the address was incorrect. He also argued on appeal that the denied jury instruction unfairly affected his ability to mount a defense.
The appellate panel said Tuesday that Heys appeared to confuse the standard for an arrest warrant and the standard for a search warrant. An arrest warrant requires only a description of the person being sought and an affidavit supporting probable cause, the judges noted.
A search warrant, by contrast, requires a more in-depth description of the location that is to be searched, and that the location should be described with some particularity, according to the opinion. The discrepancy in the addresses is not enough to invalidate Heys' arrest warrant, the panel found.
The appeals court rejected Heys' jury instruction challenge, concluding that the requested consent instruction was unsupported by the law and evidence. The panel said the instructions could have been more detailed but that they fairly presented the issues and did not violate Heys' defense about the legality of the warrant.
Judges Brock A. Swartzle, Matthew Ackerman and Christopher M. Trebilcock sat on the panel for the Michigan Court of Appeals.
The government is represented by Audra Jean Blodgett of the Kent County Prosecutor's Office.
Heys is represented by Susan K. Walsh of Susan K. Walsh
Attorney at Law.
The case is People v. Colin Garret Heys, case number 374300, in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
--Editing by Covey Son.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.