People v. Campbell

Decision Date23 July 2019
Docket NumberNo. 344078,344078
Citation942 N.W.2d 51,329 Mich.App. 185
Parties PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jason Scott CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, J. Stuart Spencer, Prosecuting Attorney, and Zackary A. Sylvain, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Per Curiam.

In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted1 an order granting a motion in limine filed by defendant, Jason Scott Campbell. The prosecution charged Campbell with three counts of carrying a concealed weapon in a vehicle, MCL 750.227, after Campbell disclosed the presence of the weapons in his vehicle in response to officer questioning during a traffic stop. On Campbell's motion, the trial court suppressed all three firearms and Campbell's statements concerning the same. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2018, Campbell was traveling in a pickup truck and pulling a trailer, on which sat a welding truck he had recently purchased in Minnesota for use in his business. A motor carrier officer (MCO) noticed that a taillight on Campbell's trailer was not working and signaled for Campbell to pull over. The MCO testified that he believed Campbell's vehicle was commercial because of its size and the equipment Campbell was pulling (the welding truck), which the MCO described as similar to a truck but with unusual equipment mounted to it. The MCO testified that Campbell's pickup truck also had the name of a business, a symbol, and a phone number displayed on the tailgate, but it did not have carrier identification displayed on the sides as required by state and federal regulations.2 The absence of proper carrier identification did not lead the MCO to believe the vehicle was noncommercial because, in his experience, some drivers are unaware of the requirements applicable to commercial vehicles traveling across state lines.

The traffic stop was recorded, although some of Campbell's responses are difficult to hear. The MCO approached Campbell's vehicle at 7:52 a.m., introduced himself, and advised Campbell that the right taillight on his trailer was out. The MCO asked Campbell about the nature of his travel, and Campbell explained that he was traveling from Minnesota to West Branch, Michigan, to pick up a Bobcat for a friend. The MCO then asked Campbell whether he had any guns or weapons in the vehicle. The MCO testified that he asked Campbell about the presence of weapons because Campbell seemed nervous and Campbell's hands remained on the steering wheel. In the MCO's experience, individuals who have a concealed pistol license (CPL) often exhibit similar behavior.

Campbell admitted that he had a firearm, prompting the MCO to ask if Campbell had a CPL. Campbell answered that he did not but explained that he lived in New Mexico, where he did not need a license or permit to carry a firearm in his vehicle.3 The MCO confirmed that the gun was loaded and advised Campbell that he intended to verify the gun's registration. The MCO retrieved the gun as well as Campbell's license and registration.

From the patrol car, the MCO radioed a sheriff's deputy for assistance. The MCO summarized his discovery of the gun and made different statements about whether Campbell's vehicle was commercial. Specifically, the MCO stated his uncertainty about whether Campbell's vehicle was commercial and, therefore, whether the MCO had jurisdiction to conduct the traffic stop;4 but the MCO also expressed his belief that Campbell might be lying to him. When the sheriff's deputy arrived and indicated that he could not "take over" a traffic stop initiated by the MCO, the MCO remained uncertain regarding how to proceed and radioed his sergeant for guidance.

After consulting with his sergeant, the MCO returned to Campbell's vehicle and advised Campbell that he would be taken to jail for carrying a concealed gun without a CPL. The MCO asked Campbell if he had any more weapons in the vehicle, and Campbell disclosed two additional guns. After handcuffing Campbell and placing him in the patrol car, the MCO and the sheriff's deputy searched Campbell's vehicle and located the two additional weapons. The MCO then read Campbell his Miranda5 rights and questioned Campbell further about the guns.

The trial court granted Campbell's motion in limine, noting that "[t]here was no insignia on [Campbell's] vehicle to suggest [it] was registered as a commercial vehicle" and that the MCO quickly came to the conclusion that Campbell was not a commercial carrier. The trial court found no evidence to support the MCO's justification for initially asking Campbell about weapons in the vehicle, i.e., that Campbell was acting nervous, and determined that the MCO's subsequent questioning about additional weapons constituted custodial interrogation without the benefit of Miranda warnings. Accordingly, the trial court suppressed all the evidence from the traffic stop, including Campbell's admissions about the weapons and the weapons themselves.

II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

We review de novo constitutional issues and the application of the exclusionary rule. People v. Jones , 260 Mich. App. 424, 427, 678 N.W.2d 627 (2004). The trial court's factual findings with respect to a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error. People v. Waclawski , 286 Mich. App. 634, 693, 780 N.W.2d 321 (2009). "A finding is clearly erroneous when it leaves this Court with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake." Id. When the record contains a video recording of the events in question, however, this Court "need not rely on the trial court's conclusions as to what the video contains." People v. Kavanaugh , 320 Mich. App. 293, 298, 907 N.W.2d 845 (2017). We review de novo questions of statutory interpretation. People v. Anderson , 501 Mich. 175, 182, 912 N.W.2d 503 (2018).

III. ANALYSIS
A. COMMERCIAL VEHICLE

The prosecution first defends the MCO's authority to make the traffic stop, arguing that Campbell's vehicle was commercial and that the MCO made a reasonable mistake of fact or law when he determined that Campbell's vehicle was not commercial. Despite repeatedly referring to the MCO's conclusion that the vehicle was not commercial, the trial court did not analyze the relevant statutes or make that finding itself. Instead, the trial court premised suppression of the evidence on constitutional principles embodied in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Nonetheless, in the interest of judicial expediency and to provide guidance on remand, we will briefly address the prosecution's contention that Campbell was operating a commercial vehicle when he was pulled over by the MCO.

This Court's primary goal in construing a statute is to determine and give effect to the intent of the Legislature, turning first to the statutory language to ascertain that intent. People v. Baham , 321 Mich. App. 228, 237, 909 N.W.2d 836 (2017). In construing a statute, we interpret defined terms in accordance with their statutory definitions and undefined terms in accordance with their ordinary and generally accepted meanings.

People v. Giovannini , 271 Mich. App. 409, 413, 722 N.W.2d 237 (2006). "[W]hen statutory language is unambiguous, judicial construction is not required or permitted because the Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed." People v. Weeder , 469 Mich. 493, 497, 674 N.W.2d 372 (2004).

MCL 28.6d(1) authorizes the director of the Michigan State Police to "appoint officers with limited arrest powers for motor carrier enforcement." "Such officers ... shall have all powers conferred upon peace officers for the purpose of enforcing the general laws of this state as they pertain to commercial vehicles." Id. The Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq. , defines the term "commercial vehicle" to include

all motor vehicles used for the transportation of passengers for hire, or constructed or used for transportation of goods, wares, or merchandise, and all motor vehicles designed and used for drawing other vehicles that are not constructed to carry a load independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load being drawn. Commercial vehicle does not include a limousine operated by a limousine driver, a taxicab operated by a taxicab driver, or a personal vehicle operated by a transportation network company driver. [ MCL 257.7.]

The prosecution contends that Campbell's pickup truck and trailer satisfied this definition of a commercial vehicle. We agree. Campbell's pickup truck was a "vehicle that is self-propelled" and was therefore a "motor vehicle." MCL 257.33. While the pickup truck itself may not have fully satisfied the quoted statutory definition of a commercial vehicle, it is highly relevant that Campbell was pulling a trailer at the time he was stopped by the MCO. In pertinent part, the Michigan Vehicle Code defines a "vehicle" as "every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, except devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks ...." MCL 257.79. Although the evidence concerning the nature of the trailer is limited, it was clearly used to transport property under the power of the pickup truck to which it was attached. Additionally, it was neither self-propelled in any manner nor of a size or class that would permit transportation of its load without motive power from another vehicle or motor vehicle. Accordingly, we agree that Campbell's pickup truck was a "motor vehicle[ ] designed and used for drawing other vehicles that are not constructed to carry a load independently or any part of the weight of a vehicle or load being drawn." MCL 257.7.

While we recognize that the Michigan Vehicle Code separately defines the term ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • September 29, 2022
    ...Instead," '[p]otential violations occur, if at all, only upon the admission of unwarned statements into evidence at trial.'" Campbell, 329 Mich.App. at 205, quoting Patane, 542 U.S. at 641. As a "[p]hysical evidence obtained as a result of an unwarned statement remains admissible as long as......
  • People v. Saarela
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 13, 2022
    ... ... Mich.App. 468, 472; 807 N.W.2d 56 (2011). One such exception ... is for an investigative or Terry [ 10 ] stop ... Id ... at 473. A routine ... traffic stop is a brief encounter that is similar in nature ... to a Terry stop. People v Campbell , 329 ... Mich.App. 185, 197; 942 N.W.2d 51 (2019) ...          "A ... traffic stop is justified if the officer has an articulable ... and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its ... occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law," ... ...
  • People v. Moore
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • October 27, 2022
    ... ... However, the exclusionary rule is subject to numerous ... exceptions and does not extend to "[p]hysical evidence ... obtained as a result of an unwarned statement" unless ... that statement was actually involuntary. People v ... Campbell , 329 Mich.App. 185, 204-205; 942 N.W.2d 51 ... (2019). It is clear that defendant's response to the ... police officer's question was not coerced, so even ... presuming defendant's statement was inadmissible, the ... shotgun found by the police would have remained ... ...
  • People v. Jones
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 26, 2022
    ... ... See Barritt , 325 Mich.App. at ... 561-562 ...          This ... Court has held that "[p]hysical evidence obtained as a ... result of an unwarned statement remains admissible as long as ... the statement was voluntary." People v ... Campbell , 329 Mich.App. 185, 204-205; 942 N.W.2d 51 ... (2019). However, as explained earlier, because the physical ... evidence was obtained as a result the unlawful prolonged stop ... in violation of defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, all ... evidence from the unlawful seizure ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT