People v. Faucett

• Citation: 442 Mich. 153,499 N.W.2d 764
• Decision Date: 11 May 1993
• Docket Number: No. 93765,No. 12,93765,12
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merl Jonathan FAUCETT, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 764

499 N.W.2d 764

442 Mich. 153

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Merl Jonathan FAUCETT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 93765.

Calendar No. 12.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued Dec. 10, 1992.

Decided May 11, 1993.

[442 Mich. 154] Alpena County Prosecutor Office Dennis P. Grenkowicz, Robert A. Reuther, Stuart R. Sergeant, Asst. Pros. Atty., Alpena, for plaintiff/appellant.

Robert B. Kane & Associates, Robert B. Kane, Alpena, for defendant/appellee.

Before the entire bench.

OPINION

RILEY, Justice.

We are called upon to review the exclusion of evidence in proceedings for defendant's possession of approximately a quarter pound of marijuana. Specifically, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' conclusion that an anonymous telephone call relied upon by the Alpena Police Department to make an investigative stop of defendant's vehicle did not provide the basis to support a reasonable suspicion of criminal behavior. Resolution of this issue requires this Court to consider for the first time the effect of Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, 110 S.Ct. 2412, 110 L.Ed.2d 301 (1990), upon Michigan jurisprudence. ¹ We conclude that given the totality of the circumstances, the police officer had reasonable suspicion to make an investigative stop. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. FACTS

At approximately 6:30 p.m. on July 9, 1988, the Alpena Police dispatcher received a telephone call from an anonymous source who stated that defendant was presently transporting a quarter pound of either marijuana or cocaine in a "newer model blue pickup, possibly a Datsun." The caller stated that defendant was en route to Alpena via Werth Road. The informant also stated that defendant would be turning onto Hobbs Drive, then possibly onto either Third or Grant. According to the tip, the drugs were concealed in a carrying case behind the front seat of the vehicle.

This information was relayed to Officer Michael Roy of the Alpena Police Department and to other law enforcement authorities including the state police. Minutes after receiving the information, Officer Roy observed a blue Mazda pickup truck traveling on Hobbs Drive. Officer Roy recognized defendant driver from a previous arrest and began to follow him. ² A LEIN search of the license plate revealed that defendant owned the blue pickup truck. When defendant turned onto Grant Street, Officer Roy pulled him over and explained that he had been stopped in connection with a drug investigation. Officer Roy conducted a weapons search of defendant and placed him in the back of his patrol car.

At about the same time, Michigan State Police Trooper Roger Liedke arrived at the scene. Having heard the same information that was relayed to Officer Roy, Trooper Liedke approached the pickup truck. Through the open passenger side window, Trooper Liedke detected the strong odor of fresh marijuana. ³ The subsequent search of the pickup truck uncovered a black attache case containing eleven bags of marijuana behind the front seat.

The district court ordered suppression of the evidence on the ground that the anonymous tip did not support the investigative stop that led to seizure of the contraband. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the district court's dismissal, as did the Court of Appeals, which concluded that the facts failed to establish the existence of a "special familiarity with [defendant's] affairs" to the extent that it was unreasonable for the police to conclude that the anonymous caller's information regarding the drugs was correct simply because the statements about defendant's travel route and the pickup truck were correct. 193 Mich.App. 499, 504, 484 N.W.2d 670 (1992). This Court granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal the issue whether the anonymous tip, together with independent police corroboration, created a "reasonable suspicion" supporting an investigative stop in accord with the totality of the circumstances test enunciated in White. ⁴

II. ANALYSIS

The exclusionary rule providing for suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence derives from protections contained in the United States Constitution. ⁵ U.S. Const., Am. IV ensures the following:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Fourth Amendment, then, protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 9, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 1873, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 2578, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); People v. Shabaz, 424 Mich. 42, 52, 378 N.W.2d 451 (1985). The reasonableness of a Fourth Amendment seizure balances the governmental interest that justifies the intrusion against an individual's right to be free of arbitrary police interference. Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 20-21, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-80; Brignoni-Ponce, supra.

In addition, the federal constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures have been extended to state proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 1691, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961); People v. Nash, 418 Mich. 196, 211, 341 N.W.2d 439 (1983) (opinion of Brickley, J.); People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, n. 15, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983). Because the Michigan Constitution does not provide more protection than its federal counterpart, under the circumstances of this case, federal law controls our inquiry. Thus, consideration of defendant's motion for exclusion of the marijuana necessarily implicates his federal constitutional rights. See People v. Toohey, 438 Mich. 265, 270-271, 475 N.W.2d 16 (1991), and People v. Collins, 438 Mich. 8, 25-31, 475 N.W.2d 684 (1991). ⁶

A. Historical Overview

The seminal federal case recognizing the validity of investigative stops is Terry v. Ohio, supra. In Terry, a police officer stopped three men whom he suspected of "casing a job, a stick-up" after observing two of the men repeatedly walk past and peer into a store window. 392 U.S. at 6, 88 S.Ct. at 1872. The officer stopped the men and asked for identification. Because adequate identification was not provided, the officer conducted a weapons search of the petitioner. The search uncovered a .38 caliber revolver in the left breast pocket of the petitioner's overcoat. Another weapon was found in the possession of one of the other men. In response to the defendants' motion to suppress the guns as the product of an illegal search and seizure, the Supreme Court recognized an intermediate form of weapons search for less than probable cause to arrest as long as the search was based upon specific and articulable facts together with any rational inferences drawn from those facts. Terry, supra, 392 U.S. at 20-21, 88 S.Ct. at 1879-80.

Over a decade later, the Supreme Court decided Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 1921, 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972), in which it concluded that the information provided by a known informant supported a reasonable suspicion of criminality that justified an investigative stop. In Adams, the informant told a police officer that an individual seated in a nearby vehicle possessed narcotics and carried a gun at his waist. On the basis of this information, the officer asked the individual to get out of his vehicle. Instead, the defendant rolled down his window. Although the gun was not visible, the officer reached into the vehicle and found the weapon where the informant said it would be. The subsequent search incident to the arrest for suspected illegal possession of a weapon uncovered another gun, a machete, and a substantial quantity of heroin. The Court concluded that the tipster's information carried with it sufficient indicia of reliability to justify an investigative stop, distinguishing the case from the type requiring probable cause subject to the strictures of the Aguilar and Spinelli cases. ⁷ In reaching this conclusion, the majority stated:

"Informants' tips, like all other clues and evidence coming to a policeman on the scene, may vary greatly in their value and reliability. One simple rule will not cover every situation. Some tips, completely lacking in indicia of reliability, would either warrant no police response or require further investigation before a forcible stop of a suspect would be authorized. But in some situations ... the subtleties of the hearsay rule should not thwart an appropriate police response." 407 U.S. at 147, 92 S.Ct. at 1924.

In United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S.Ct. 690, 66 L.Ed.2d 621 (1981), the Supreme Court was asked to assess the constitutionality of an investigative stop of a truck containing illegal aliens. The Court concluded that the observations of border patrol officers were sufficient to justify an investigative stop of a vehicle. The border patrol was suspicious of the smuggling of aliens into the United States along a particular portion of the Mexican border. ⁸ The border patrol suspected that the aliens, initially on foot, were met by a vehicle that could carry a large group without arousing suspicion. On surveillance, the border patrol saw only two vehicles that could carry a large group of people. The vehicle that returned from the east after having passed the officers earlier from the west was stopped and its driver was informed that he had been pulled over for an immigration check. When the driver consented to a search of the rear of the vehicle, the border patrol discovered six illegal aliens.

In assessing the validity of the investigative stop, the Cortez Court relied upon...