People v. Hardiman

• Decision Date: 04 August 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 84173
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maurice HARDIMAN, Defendant-Appellee. 151 Mich.App. 115, 390 N.W.2d 210
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 210

390 N.W.2d 210

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maurice HARDIMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 84173.

151 Mich.App. 115, 390 N.W.2d 210

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Feb. 12, 1986.

Decided April 21, 1986.

Released for Publication Aug. 4, 1986.

[151 MICHAPP 116] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Andrea L. Solak, Principal Attorney, Appeals, for the people.

Legal Aid & Defender Association of Detroit by David Cripps, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before MacKENZIE, P.J., CYNAR and MARTIN, ^* JJ.

MARTIN, Judge.

The Wayne County Prosecutor appeals as of right from an order suppressing a .38-caliber gun and three live rounds of ammunition. The ammunition was seized from defendant and the gun was seized from the glove compartment of defendant's vehicle following defendant's arrest on a misdemeanor charge of driving without a license, M.C.L. Sec. 257.904a; M.S.A. Sec. 9.2604(1). The suppression order resulted in the dismissal of a charge of carrying a concealed weapon in a motor vehicle, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424. The only issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court properly suppressed the evidence on the basis that the [151 MICHAPP 117] searches and seizures violated the interim bail act. We find that the searches and seizures were proper and are left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion to suppress.

At the evidentiary hearing below, Detroit Police Officers Dale Mathes and Thomas Martin testified that they were on vehicular patrol when they observed defendant driving on Woodward Avenue in a vehicle, the headlights and taillights of which were flashing on and off. Believing that the car might be stolen, the officers signalled defendant to pull over to the curb. Defendant did not pull over for about four minutes, during which time the officers observed defendant reach toward the glove box in an apparent attempt to hide or retrieve something. The officers were suspicious, in part because they were patrolling an area known for a prevalence of armed robberies of homosexuals. After defendant pulled over, he produced a suspended driver's license and revealed that he had no registration. Officer Martin removed defendant from the vehicle, placed him under arrest for driving without a license, and performed a fruitless pat-down search. Then, Officer Martin proceeded to search the interior of defendant's car and found the gun in the glove compartment. Following this search, Officer Mathes searched defendant more thoroughly and found the ammunition in defendant's left front pocket.

At the end of the hearing, the court denied defendant's motion and ruled that the search of defendant's vehicle was a valid search incident to defendant's arrest. However, the court reversed itself at a hearing on defendant's motion for reconsideration. In support, the court stated that under the interim bail act, M.C.L. Sec. 780.581; M.S.A. Sec. 28.872(1), the officer should not have conducted more than a [151 MICHAPP 118] pat-down search of defendant before defendant was given an opportunity to, or advised of his rights to, post bail. Thus, the court concluded that the search of the vehicle was illegal and granted the rehearing and the motion to suppress.

This Court will reverse a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence only if the ruling was clearly erroneous. A ruling is clearly erroneous where the reviewing court is firmly convinced that a mistake has been made. People v. Alfafara, 140 Mich.App. 551, 555-556, 364 N.W.2d 743 (1985); People v. Jackson, 123 Mich.App. 423, 425, 332 N.W.2d 564 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1100.35 (1983). In this case, we conclude that the order of suppression was clearly erroneous.

In suppressing the evidence, the trial court held that it was seized in violation of the interim bail act, supra. Essentially, this act provides that a person arrested for a misdemeanor shall be taken without unreasonable delay before the most convenient magistrate to answer the complaint made against him. If a magistrate is not available or an immediate trial may not be had, the arrestee may leave an appearance bond with the arresting officer or his direct supervisor. M.C.L. Sec. 780.581; M.S.A. Sec. 28.872(1). In construing this act, the Michigan Supreme Court in People v. Dixon, 392 Mich. 691, 703, 705-706, 222 N.W.2d 749 (1974), held that evidence seized in a jailhouse inventory search must be suppressed because the search was conducted even though defendant had not been previously informed of his statutory right to immediate bail.

Subsequently, in People v. Garcia, 81 Mich.App. 260, 265 N.W.2d 115 (1978) (Judge Gillis dissenting), this Court, relying on Dixon, reversed the defendant's convictions of possession of cocaine and carrying a concealed weapon in an automobile. [151 MICHAPP 119] The defendant had been stopped for a minor traffic violation and was arrested for operating his vehicle without a valid driver's license. The police officer conducted a pat-down search for weapons and found a tinfoil packet of cocaine. This led to a more thorough search of defendant's pockets, which yielded a second packet of cocaine. Finally, after three searches of defendant's vehicle, the police discovered and seized a gun. This Court found that the searches, although...