People v. Chesternut

• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: People v. Chesternut, 157 Mich.App. 181, 403 N.W.2d 74 (Mich. App. 1987)
• Decision Date: 16 April 1987
• Docket Number: Docket No. 87071
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Mose CHESTERNUT, Defendant-Appellee. 157 Mich.App. 181, 403 N.W.2d 74

Page 74

403 N.W.2d 74

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael Mose CHESTERNUT, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 87071.

157 Mich.App. 181, 403 N.W.2d 74

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Aug. 27, 1986.

Decided Oct. 17, 1986.

Released for Publication April 16, 1987.

[157 MICHAPP 181] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. [157 MICHAPP 182] Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of the Criminal Div., Research, Training and Appeals, Andrea L. Solak, Principal Atty., Appeals, for the People.

Defenders' Office--Legal Aid and Defender Ass'n of Detroit by David Cripps, Detroit, for defendant-appellee on appeal.

Before MacKENZIE, P.J., and BRONSON and BENSON, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The prosecutor appeals by leave granted from an order granting defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges. Defendant had been charged with knowingly possessing various illegal drugs. The evidence was suppressed and the charges dismissed based on a finding that there had been an illegal search and seizure of the defendant.

The facts indicate that defendant was standing on a street corner talking with another man when a marked police car appeared at the corner on routine patrol. When the defendant saw the police car he started running and the police gave chase in their patrol car. Detroit police officer Kenneth Peltier testified that they chased the defendant because he ran and they wanted to see where he was going. While pursuing the defendant, the police saw the defendant throw something on the ground, then stop. Upon recovery of the packets thrown down by the defendant, the police determined that they contained suspected drugs and defendant was arrested. The examining magistrate and the trial court suppressed the evidence seized based on People v. Terrell, 77 Mich.App. 676, 259 N.W.2d 187 (1977), finding that because the police [157 MICHAPP 183] admittedly had not seen the defendant do anything wrong, it was illegal to pursue him.

Appellate review of a lower court's grant or denial of a motion to suppress evidence is made under the clearly erroneous standard. People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983). A lower court's finding will be found to be clearly erroneous only where, although there is evidence to support the ruling, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. People v. United States Currency, 148 Mich.App. 326, 329, 383 N.W.2d 633 (1986). In this case, although we find the result unfortunate, we cannot say that the lower court's ruling was clearly erroneous under the present law or the facts presented.

It is undisputed in this case that when the police decided to pursue the defendant they did not possess probable cause to arrest him, but simply wanted to investigate why he was running. In People v. Terrell, supra, 77 Mich.App. at 679, 259 N.W.2d 187, this Court held that a police officer's investigatory pursuit of a defendant must be tested by the Fourth Amendment's general proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures. As soon as the officers began their pursuit, defendant's freedom was restricted. Based on Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the criteria for a constitutionally valid limited intrusion upon a citizen's liberty, short of probable cause for arrest, are that the police must have a particularized suspicion, based on an objective observation, that the person investigated has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal wrongdoing. People v. Shabaz, 424 Mich. 42, 59, 378 N.W.2d 451 (1985). In both Terrell and Shabaz, the Courts determined that flight from the police alone does not provide [157 MICHAPP 184] the reasonable suspicion...