People v. Faucett
| Decision Date | 06 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 131566 |
| Citation | 193 Mich.App. 499,484 N.W.2d 670 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merl Jonathan FAUCETT, Defendant-Appellee. 193 Mich.App. 499, 484 N.W.2d 670 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[193 MICHAPP 500] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., Dennis P. Grenkowicz, Pros. Atty., and Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for people.
Robert Kane & Associates by Robert B. Kane, Alpena, for defendant-appellee on appeal.
Before GRIFFIN, P.J., and HOOD and McDONALD, JJ.
The people appeal by leave granted a July 26, 1990, order of the Alpena Circuit Court. In this order, the circuit court affirmed a district court order suppressing evidence and dismissing an information charging defendant with possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7401(2)(c); M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7401)(2)(c). We affirm.
This case requires that we apply the holding in Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), and decide whether an anonymous tip received by police was sufficiently corroborated to provide the "reasonable suspicion" necessary under the Fourth Amendment to lawfully [193 MICHAPP 501] stop defendant's vehicle. 1 The record reflects that at approximately 6:30 p.m. on July 9, 1988, a dispatcher with the Alpena Police Department received an anonymous telephone call that a "newer model blue pickup, possibly a Datsun" was en route to town carrying a quarter pound of cocaine or marijuana. The caller stated that the vehicle was headed to town on Werth Road, that the driver would be Merl Faucett, and that the drugs would be in a carrying case in the back of the vehicle behind the seat. When asked if he knew the direction of travel from Werth Road, the caller stated that the vehicle would be "turning on to Hobbs Drive, and then possibly ... turning on to either Third or Grant."
Acting on the tip, Officer Michael Roy of the Alpena Police Department began looking for the blue pickup. Within minutes, Officer Roy observed a blue Mazda pickup truck traveling on Hobbs Drive. Roy testified that he recognized the driver of the truck from a previous arrest and immediately began to follow him. A check of the license plate number confirmed that the pickup truck belonged to defendant, Merl Faucett.
Officer Roy stopped defendant's vehicle after it turned on to Grant Street. Roy explained to defendant that he was being detained in connection with a drug investigation. Roy then asked defendant to get out of the truck and searched him for weapons. About this time, Michigan State Police Trooper Roger Liedke arrived on the scene. Liedke had received the same information as Officer Roy. Trooper Liedke approached the vehicle and [193 MICHAPP 502] through the open window on the passenger side of the truck smelled a strong odor of fresh marijuana. Liedke then searched the truck and found a black attache case containing eleven bags of marijuana.
As noted, the dispositive issue in this appeal is whether Officer Roy had "reasonable suspicion" to stop defendant's vehicle. Applying the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court in Alabama v. White, supra, the circuit court held that Roy did not have a reasonable suspicion to stop the truck, and affirmed the district court order suppressing the marijuana. We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and must now decide whether the circuit court's ruling was clearly erroneous. People v. Shaw, 188 Mich.App. 520, 524, 470 N.W.2d 90 (1991).
In Alabama v. White, supra, the United States Supreme Court addressed the propriety of an investigatory stop based on an anonymous tip the police had received over the telephone that the defendant would be leaving a certain address in a brown Plymouth station wagon with the right taillight lens broken. The police were further advised that the defendant would be driving to Dobey's Motel and that she would have in her possession about an ounce of cocaine inside a brown attache case. Acting on the tip, the officers went to the address, where they observed the defendant leave the building and enter the station wagon. The police then followed the station wagon along the most direct route to Dobey's Motel, where the defendant was stopped just before reaching the motel. A subsequent consent search produced marijuana, and cocaine was later found inside the defendant's purse.
[193 MICHAPP 503] Concluding that the investigatory stop that ultimately produced the drugs was constitutionally permissible, the Supreme Court reasoned that the anonymous tip had been "sufficiently corroborated" by the defendant's subsequent actions to give rise to a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. 496 U.S. at 331-32, 110 S.Ct. at 2417, 110 L.Ed.2d at 309. In pertinent part, the Court explained:
The Court's opinion in [Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983) ] gave credit to the proposition that because an informant is shown to be right about some things, he is probably right about other facts that he has alleged, including the claim that the object of the tip is engaged in criminal activity. 462 US at 244; 103 SCt 2317 [2335]; 76 LEd2d 527. Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude in this case that the independent corroboration by the police of significant aspects of the informer's predictions imparted some degree of reliability to the other allegations made by the caller.
We think it also important that, as in Gates, "the anonymous [tip] contained a range of details relating not just to easily obtained facts and conditions existing at the time of the tip, but to future actions of third parties ordinarily not easily predicted." Gates, 462 US at 246; 103 SCt 2317 [2336]; 76 LEd2d 527. The fact that the officers found a car precisely matching the caller's description in front of the 235 building is an example of the former. Anyone could have "predicted" that fact because it was a condition presumably existing at the time of the call. What was important was the caller's ability to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goettl v. State, 90-284
...... He could see at least four people in the Volvo. At the time he saw the car with the people in it, the officer was at a pay telephone talking to an agent of the drug task force. That .... In People v. Faucett, 193 Mich.App. 499, 484 N.W.2d 670, 672 (1992), the court held that activities predicted by an anonymous telephone caller "were so lacking in ......
- People v. Faucett
- People v. Faucett