People v. Bullock

• Decision Date: 16 June 1992
• Docket Number: Docket Nos. 89661,No. 16,89662,16
• Citation: 440 Mich. 15,485 N.W.2d 866
• Parties: , 61 USLW 2036 PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ruth BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellee. PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth HASSON, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 866

485 N.W.2d 866

440 Mich. 15, 61 USLW 2036

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Ruth BULLOCK, Defendant-Appellee.

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.Kenneth HASSON, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket Nos. 89661, 89662.

Calendar No. 16.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Oct. 10, 1991.

Decided June 16, 1992.

[440 Mich. 20] Charles D. Sherman, Pros. Atty. by Joel S. Gehrke, St. Johns, for plaintiff-appellant Asst. Prosecutor.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol.Gen., William E. Molner, Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Attys.Gen., Appellate Div., Lansing, for Atty. Gen. as amicus curiae, in support of the People of the State of Mich.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol.Gen., Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Appellate Div., Lansing, for amicus curiae, of the Atty. Gen. concerning the Constitutionality of the life without parole penalty provisions of 1978 P.A. 368.

John R. Minock, Detroit, for amicus Criminal Defense Attys. of Michigan.

Robert Weiss, President, Pros.Attys.Ass'n. of Michigan, John D. O'Hair, Pros.Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, for Pros.Attys.Ass'n. of Michigan as amicus curiae, in support of the People of the State of Mich.

Richard Thompson, Pros.Atty. by Michael J. Modelski, Chief, Appellate Div., Pontiac, for plaintiff-appellant.

Elizabeth L. Jacobs, Detroit, for amicus Leon Brown.

OPINION

MICHAEL F. CAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

We address in these consolidated cases the validity of a search conducted without a warrant, and the question whether Michigan's mandatory penalty of life in prison without possibility of parole, for possession of 650 grams or more of any mixture containing cocaine, is "cruel or unusual" under our state constitution.

I.FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 24, 1988, defendant Hasson traveled by air from Los Angeles to Lansing's Capital City Airport.He had a return ticket to Los Angeles on a flight scheduled to leave less than four hours after his arrival, yet he had checked two large suitcases.Acting on a tip from airline agents relayed through the Los Angeles police, the Michigan State Police met Hasson's flight.Before Hasson claimed his luggage, a police dog alerted officers to the presence of illegal drugs in both suitcases.The police observed Hasson deplane, retrieve his luggage, make a call from a public phone, and walk outside to the public driveway.After about thirty minutes, Hasson flagged down a car driven and owned by defendant Bullock.Bullock's seventeen-year-old grandson was a passenger in the car.Hasson placed his luggage in the trunk and got in the car, which began to pull away.

At that point, the police stopped the car and arrested all three occupants.The police, without attempting to obtain a warrant, then proceeded to search the entire car.¹They examined the glove compartment, Bullock's purse which she left in the car, and the luggage Hasson had placed in the trunk.They found traces of cocaine in the glove compartment and Bullock's purse, and over fifteen kilograms of cocaine in Hasson's luggage.² This cocaine was admitted as evidence at trial over Hasson's and Bullock's objections, and both were convicted, in separate jury trials, of knowingly possessing 650 grams or more of cocaine in violation of M.C.L. Sec. 333.7403(2)(a)(i);M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(i).³ As mandated by that statute, in conjunction with M.C.L. Sec. 791.234(4);M.S.A. Sec. 28.2304(4), both defendants were sentenced to life in prison without any possibility of parole.

The Court of Appeals, in separate unpublished opinions per curiam decided April 24, 1990, ⁴ reversed both defendants' convictions.The Court held that the cocaine found in Hasson's luggage should have been excluded as the fruit of an invalid search because, while the police had probable cause to believe the luggage contained contraband and therefore were justified in seizing it, the police had no warrant to search it and the case did not fall within the so-called "automobile exception" to the warrant requirement.Because the state lacked sufficient evidence to prosecute without the excluded cocaine, the Court did not remand for retrial in Hasson.The Court, while finding that Bullock lacked standing to challenge the search of Hasson's luggage, held that the traces of cocaine found in Bullock's purse and the glove compartment should also have been excluded as the fruit of an illegal search.Because the Court found that the introduction of that cocaine as evidence was not harmless with regard to Bullock's conviction for possession of the cocaine in Hasson's luggage, the Court reversed the conviction and remanded for retrial in Bullock.

We granted leave to appeal, 436 Mich. 881(1990), and subsequently agreed to consider whether the mandatory penalty of life in prison without possibility of parole was invalid under either the federal or state constitutions.⁵ Following oral argument during the 1990-91 term, we ordered reargument this term to address the effect of the United States Supreme Court's intervening decisions in California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619(1991)(dealing with the search issue), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 2680, 115 L.Ed.2d 836(1991)(dealing with the penalty issue).

II.ANALYSIS

A.The Search Issue: Hasson

There is no basis in the Michigan Constitution for excluding from evidence the cocaine discovered in this case.Const. 1963, art. 1, Sec. 11 provides that it "shall not be construed to bar from evidence in any criminal proceeding any narcotic drug ... seized by a peace officer outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state."⁶ Our analysis is thus governed exclusively by the United States Constitution, as currently construed by the United States Supreme Court.SeePeople v. Chapman, 425 Mich. 245, 252-253, 387 N.W.2d 835(1986).

While the reasoning of the Court of Appeals on this issue constitutes a plausible application of federal constitutional search and seizure law as it existed at the time of that Court's decision, the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in California v. Acevedo, supra, plainly destroys any claim that Hasson might have had on this issue, and compels reversal of the Court of Appeals.The Court in Acevedo, overrulingArkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235(1979), as reaffirmed inUnited States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 812-813, 824, 102 S.Ct. 2157, 2166-2167, 2172, 72 L.Ed.2d 572(1982), expanded the automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement and held that police may open and search any container placed or found in an automobile, as long as they have the requisite probable cause with regard to such a container, even if such probable cause focuses specifically on the container and arises before the container is placed in the automobile.SeeAcevedo, 500 U.S. at ---- - ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1988-1991, 114 L.Ed.2d at 630-634.

The Court of Appeals rejected Hasson's claim that probable cause was lacking in this case, and that holding is not challenged before this Court.Thus, given that the police had probable cause to search Hasson's luggage, and because the placement of the luggage in Bullock's car brings this case within the automobile exception as defined by Acevedo, the failure to obtain a warrant does not render the search invalid.The cocaine was properly admitted as evidence at trial.

B.The Search Issue: Bullock

Just as in Hasson, for reasons noted above, our analysis here is governed exclusively by the United States Constitution, as currently construed by the United States Supreme Court.The Court of Appeals found the search of Bullock's purse and the glove compartment of her car invalid, not for lack of a warrant--which, assuming probable cause, would clearly have been unnecessary under the automobile exception even prior to Acevedo--but because it found insufficient probable cause.The Court of Appeals correctly noted that even a search of a car without a warrant pursuant to the automobile exception is strictly limited in scope by the objects of the search and the places in which there is probable cause to believe they may be found, as the United States Supreme Court noted in Ross, 456 U.S. at 824, 102 S.Ct. at 2172, and strongly reaffirmed in Acevedo, 500 U.S. at ----, 111 S.Ct. at 1991, 114 L.Ed.2d at 634.The Court of Appeals reasoned that the probable cause in this case extended to Hasson's luggage and no further.The people contest the Court of Appeals holding that there was insufficient probable cause to search the passenger compartment of Bullock's car, given the probable cause relating to Hasson's luggage and the circumstances under which Hasson arrived at the airport and was picked up by Bullock, apparently in response to Hasson's phone call.

Probable cause is by its very nature an issue closely tied to the specific facts of each case, and the question in this case is arguably a close one.We need not decide that question, however.Under New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768(1981), the police may, as a contemporaneous incident of a lawful custodial arrest of the occupant of an automobile, search the entire passenger compartment of the automobile and any containers found therein, including glove compartments and purses.Because Hasson's arrest, at least, was unquestionably valid, there can be no doubt that this search was also valid, irrespective of the existence of probable cause, a warrant, or exigent circumstances.SeeChapman, 425 Mich. at 250-252, 387 N.W.2d 835.The traces of cocaine found in Bullock's purse and in the glove compartment were thus properly admitted as evidence at trial.⁷

C.The Penalty Issue: Bullock and Hasson

1.The Applicability of Const. 1963, art. 1, Sec. 16

The United States Supreme Court, in Harmelin v. Michigan, supra, rejected a...