People v. Burrell
| Citation | 417 Mich. 439,339 N.W.2d 403 |
| Decision Date | 01 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | 64196,Docket Nos. 64159 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joe Anton BURRELL, Defendant-Appellant. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jessie BROWN, Defendant-Appellant. , |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
David H. Sawyer, Kent County Pros. Atty., Carol S. Irons, Chief Appellate Atty., Grand Rapids, for plaintiff-appellee.
Victor I. Smedstad, Grand Rapids, for defendants-appellants.
We are faced with a stop by the police of the defendants because of defective vehicle equipment followed by a detention at a time when the officers had no articulable basis for suspecting that the detainees had committed a crime.
We hold that a person may not be detained for roadside questioning beyond the scope of a stop, absent at least an articulable basis for suspecting other criminal activity. U.S. Const., Am. IV.
On December 16, 1977, Kent County Deputy Sheriff W. Phillip Blackport, while on road patrol in the Kentwood area, observed two black males driving slowly in an older model black Oldsmobile at approximately 6:35 p.m. Deputy Blackport was suspicious of the vehicle and its occupants because of its slow speed and because, "prior to that, the month before that, we had had armed robberies involving two black males, and it was either in an older model--there was information that Kentwood and Grand Rapids had robberies, older model, either Buick or Oldsmobile, black over dark or black vehicle, and there were always two black males involved". 1
Blackport radioed another unit to report the existence of the suspicious circumstances. He turned his vehicle around in an attempt to follow the Oldsmobile, but lost sight of it. He commenced a search.
At 6:57 p.m., Blackport encountered what appeared to be the same vehicle, again going in the opposite direction. Since the driver's side window of the patrol car was now rolled down 2, he was able to hear that the vehicle had a defective exhaust. He stopped the vehicle for this equipment violation. 3
After requesting a back-up unit, Blackport approached the vehicle. He was met at the rear of the car by defendant Jessie Brown. Blackport requested that Brown display for inspection his driver's license and the registration of the vehicle. Brown informed the officer that he did not have a driver's license in his possession and that the vehicle belonged to a friend. While Brown and defendant Joe Anton Burrell, the passenger in the vehicle, searched the glove compartment for the registration, Blackport radioed a request for a Law Enforcement Information Net-work (LEIN) check of the vehicle, of Brown, and of "Joe Williams", the name Burrell had given to Blackport. 4
At 7:10 p.m., Kent County Deputy Sheriff Allen Lee Blanker overheard the LEIN request by Deputy Blackport. The name "Jessie Brown" caused Deputy Blanker to recall briefing information he had received on "house burglary suspects" Jessie Brown and Joseph Burrell. Blanker radioed Blackport that he was en route with a "flier" or "hot sheet" regarding Jessie Brown and Joseph Burrell. Pictures of the two suspects were reproduced along the top border of the sheet. Blanker testified that he suspected that "Joe Williams" was Joe Burrell. Blanker arrived at the scene of the stop between 7:10 and 7:15 p.m.
Upon arrival, Blanker conferred with Blackport and Deputy Ed Westhouse, Blackport's back-up. The officers noted that the pictures of Brown and Burrell resembled Brown and "Williams". Blanker then walked up to "Joe Williams" and said, "I thought your name was Joe Burrell." Burrell replied, "No, my name is Joe Williams." Blanker relayed this denial to Blackport and Westhouse.
On the basis of Burrell's denial and the picture on the "hot sheet", the officers decided to detain Burrell for investigation and possible arrest for giving false information to a police officer. 5
By 7:15 p.m., the LEIN check was completed, and no adverse information was obtained. There were no "wants" or warrants for Brown or "Williams". There was no report that the vehicle had been stolen. In addition, it was learned that Brown had been issued an operator's license which was still valid.
At approximately 7:20 p.m., Blanker requested that his supervisor, Sergeant DeBold, come to the scene. DeBold instructed the officers to pat search the defendants and to detain them in Deputy Westhouse's vehicle. DeBold arrived by 7:25 p.m. and took command of the investigation. Sometime after the defendants were detained in the back of Westhouse's vehicle, but before Blanker left the scene to investigate a reported breaking and entering, Westhouse, in the presence of Blanker, allegedly asked Brown if he could "look inside the car". 6 Brown reportedly consented to the search. 7
At 7:30 p.m., a citation was issued to Brown for failure to have a valid operator's permit in his possession while driving a vehicle 8, and he was specifically informed that he would not be allowed to leave the scene until a positive identification of his passenger could be obtained. He was further informed that he and Burrell were to be transported to the station house because, in the words of Deputy Blackport, "we were intending on taking him down for pictures and prints so we could obtain a positive identification of both subjects because we believed that we didn't know for sure if Jessie Brown was Jessie Brown, and we believed Joe Williams was Joe Anton Burrell". However, the officers did not leave the scene of the stop because they were informed that Detective Brown from the Walker City Police Department could positively identify Brown and Burrell. The officers requested that Detective Brown proceed to the scene. Detective Brown arrived shortly after 8:00 p.m.
At 7:41 p.m., Deputy Blanker was dispatched to investigate a breaking and entering at a nearby residence. Upon arrival at the residence, he was informed that two Christmas presents wrapped in "Mickey Mouse wrapping paper" had been stolen. Blanker recalled seeing packages similarly wrapped in Brown's car. He alerted his radio supervisor at approximately 7:50 p.m. about this similarity and requested that the complainant accompany him to the scene of defendants' detention to identify the packages in the back of the Oldsmobile. Arriving at 8:00 p.m., the complainant was instructed to look into the car. There he observed, "jammed under the seat", two gift-wrapped packages similar to those which had been removed from his home.
Between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m., Kent County Detective Lieutenant Jack Christensen arrived on the scene and took charge of the investigation. Christensen had been attending the Kent County Sheriff's Department annual ball. He had been kept informed of the progress of the unfolding investigation by periodic phone calls. He recalled being told sometime between 7:30 and 8:00 p.m. that two as yet not positively identified suspects of a house burglary were being detained. He had instructed the officers "to make absolutely certain they knew who they had out there before they let anyone go". Christensen left for the scene of defendants' detention when he learned that a complainant had been found.
The complainant was later returned to the scene so that he could identify the packages in the presence of Christensen. The packages were still in the Oldsmobile. At 8:30 p.m., defendants were read their Miranda 9 warnings, and they were questioned about their possession of the packages.
Defendants were arrested and charged with breaking and entering an occupied dwelling house. 10 Informations were filed charging defendants as fourth-felony offenders. 11 Defendants' motions to suppress evidence seized incident to the stop were denied. On March 28, 1978, each defendant was convicted of the breaking and entering offense by the trial court, sitting without a jury. Immediately thereafter, the defendants were arraigned on the supplemental information. Motions for a new trial were denied. On May 9, 1978, each defendant was sentenced to a term of from 10 to 15 years imprisonment.
On June 8, 1978, each defendant was found guilty by a jury under the supplemental information of having been convicted of four felonies. On June 20, 1978, the trial court entered an order vacating the breaking and entering convictions in these cases because defendants had been convicted of being fourth-felony offenders. 12 Each defendant was sentenced for a period of 20 to 40 years imprisonment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed defendants' convictions in unpublished opinions per curiam.
We granted leave to appeal. 13
Defendants raise issues of constitutional stature about their stop and detention for roadside questioning. 14 As to the stop, defendants claim that the motivation for the original stop of the vehicle was racial (two black men driving slowly in a dark automobile in a white suburb of Grand Rapids) and not because of defective equipment. Defendants contend that the conclusion that the stop was pretextual and that the inference that the stop was racially motivated is compelled by the fact that no citation was ever issued for the noisy exhaust system. Defendants further argue that the 90-minute roadside detention for questioning which preceded their arrest and during which their vehicle was searched was impermissible because they were held without cause to believe either that a crime had been committed or that they had committed a crime. Thus, defendants aver that the stop and the detention were violative of their Fourth Amendment rights to be free from unreasonable seizure and unreasonable search 15, and that, since the seizure and the search were illegal, evidence obtained as a result ought to have been suppressed.
This Court will not disturb a trial court's ruling at a suppression hearing unless that ruling is found to be clearly erroneous....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Davis
......People v. Custer, 242 Mich.App. 59, 64, 618 N.W.2d 75 (2000), rev'd in part on other grounds 465 Mich. 319, 630 N.W.2d 870 (2001). See also People v. Burrell", 417 Mich. 439, 448, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983), and People v. Lombardo, 216 Mich.App. 500, 504, 549 N.W.2d 596 (1996). In addition, we review de novo the lower court's ultimate ruling with regard to the motion to suppress. Custer, supra; People v. Garvin, 235 Mich.App. 90, 96, 597 N.W.2d 194 (1999). \xC2"......
-
People v. Aldrich
......10 A reviewing court may not disturb a trial court's ruling at a suppression hearing unless that ruling is clearly erroneous. People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983) . Where a trial court's decision concerned a mixed question of fact and law, the court's findings are reviewed for clear error, while its application of the law to the facts is reviewed de novo. People v. Barrera, 451 Mich. 261, 269, 547 N.W.2d 280 ......
-
People v. Kurylczyk
...... Franklin Anderson, supra, 389 Mich. at 168-169, 205 N.W.2d 461. . On review, the trial court's decision to admit identification evidence will not be reversed unless it is clearly erroneous. Id. at 169, 205 N.W.2d 461; People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983). Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. at 449, 339 N.W.2d 403. . Defendant Kurylczyk argues that the pretrial photographic array used to identify him ......
-
People v. Vasquez
......See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ; People v. Nash, 418 Mich. 196, 211, 341 N.W.2d 439 (1983) ; People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, n. 15, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983) . Under the circumstances of this case, art. 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution must be construed as providing the same protections as its federal counterpart. See People v. Toohey, 438 Mich. 265, 270-271, 475 N.W.2d 16 (1991), and People v. ......