People v. Godwin, Docket No. 30456

• Decision Date: 07 November 1979
• Docket Number: Docket No. 30456
• Citation: 288 N.W.2d 354,94 Mich.App. 286
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles GODWIN, Defendant-Appellant. 94 Mich.App. 286, 288 N.W.2d 354
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 354

288 N.W.2d 354

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles GODWIN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 30456.

94 Mich.App. 286, 288 N.W.2d 354

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Nov. 7, 1979.

Released for Publication Feb. 28, 1980.

[94 MICHAPP 287] Godfrey J. Dillard, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before KAUFMAN, P. J., and MAHER and RILEY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted of possession of heroin with the intent to deliver, M.C.L § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a), by a Recorder's Court jury. He was subsequently sentenced to three years probation. From this conviction and sentence, defendant appeals as of right.

The facts are not in dispute. Defendant was the victim of a gunshot wound to the head. After he was transported to the hospital in critical condition, the car in which he was discovered was taken into police custody. One of the car's windows had [94 MICHAPP 288] been shot out and the keys were left in the ignition. In conducting a subsequent inventory search of the automobile, a police officer unlocked the glove compartment with these keys and discovered a brown bag containing heroin. Defendant moved to suppress this evidence on the ground that it was discovered through an illegal search. The court denied defendant's motion and admitted the heroin into evidence at trial over defendant's objection.

Defendant now claims the trial court's denial of his motion and its admission of this heroin into evidence constituted reversible error.

Preliminarily, it is necessary to address the people's challenge to defendant's standing. The people argue that at no time did defendant assert a possessory interest in the automobile or the bag containing the heroin. Therefore, he did not demonstrate his standing to complain of the search and seizure. We disagree. This Court continues to follow the "automatic standing" rule established in Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960). ¹ Thus, a defendant has standing to contest a search and seizure where, as here, he is charged with an offense that includes, as an essential element of the offense charged, possession of the seized evidence at the time of the contested search and seizure. See Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 229, 93 S.Ct. 1565, 1569, 36 L.Ed.2d 208 (1973) and People v. Greenwood, 87 Mich.App. 509, 512-513, 274 N.W.2d 832 (1978).

[94 MICHAPP 289] Although defendant had standing to challenge the legality of the inventory search, we find that this search did not exceed permissible bounds under the peculiar facts presented in this case. To reiterate, the heroin was found in the locked glove box of the car defendant was discovered in. The car had one window shot out and the keys were in the ignition.

The scope of an inventory search does extend to the glove compartment of a vehicle since it is frequently a repository for important documents and other valuables deserving police protection. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 372, 96 S.Ct. 3092, 49 L.Ed.2d 1000 (1976). The justifications for such an inventory search are: (1) the protection of property while held in police custody; (2) protection of the police against claims over lost or stolen property; and (3) protection of police from potential danger, South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, 369, 96 S.Ct. 3097, People v. Merchant, 86 Mich.App. 355, 361, 272 N.W.2d 656 (1978).

The central question in this case, then, is whether, under any of the above rationales, the police were justified in searching the locked glove compartment. The South Dakota v. Opperman case dealt with the inventory search of an unlocked glove compartment.

The inventory search of a locked trunk has been upheld, however. In United States v. Gerlach, 350 F.Supp. 180 (E.D.Mich., 1972), an inventory search of a locked trunk was held as valid. The Court indicated, in...