People v. Jackson
Decision Date | 06 May 1983 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 63223 |
Citation | 123 Mich.App. 423,332 N.W.2d 564 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Karl JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee. 123 Mich.App. 423, 332 N.W.2d 564 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[123 MICHAPP 425] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief Appellate Asst. Pros. Atty., Civil and Appeals, and Andrea L. Solak, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Mark R. Hall, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before CYNAR, P.J., and KAUFMAN and MacKENZIE, JJ.
Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed pistol, M.C.L. Sec. 750.227; M.S.A. Sec. 28.424. A pretrial motion by defendant to suppress the pistol as obtained through an illegal search and seizure was granted, and the case was dismissed. This Court granted the prosecution's application for delayed appeal.
This Court will reverse a trial court ruling on a motion to suppress evidence only if the ruling was clearly erroneous. See, for example, People v. Bandy, 105 Mich.App. 240, 244, 306 N.W.2d 465 (1981). Here it was not disputed that defendant was lawfully arrested by police officers for the misdemeanor of offering to engage the services of a female person for the purposes of prostitution, M.C.L. Sec. 750.449a; M.S.A. Sec. 28.704(1). At the time of his arrest, defendant was carrying a canvas handbag. The arresting officer testified that he took the handbag from defendant, noted that it was unusually heavy, felt the shape of a gun inside, and then opened the bag and discovered the gun. The officer then handcuffed defendant and frisked him.
When a person is arrested, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested [123 MICHAPP 426] or the area within his immediate control to secure weapons or other things which might be used to assault the officer or effect an escape and to secure evidence of the crime which the person arrested might otherwise destroy. Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 763-764, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 2040-41, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). In this context, the area within the arrestee's immediate control is the area from which the arrestee might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 395 U.S. 763, 89 S.Ct. at 2040. In United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235, 94 S.Ct. 467, 477, 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973), the Court explained:
Defendant and the trial court relied upon United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977), and Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979). In Chadwick, defendants were arrested when a [123 MICHAPP 427] trained police dog indicated that a footlocker which defendants had transported across the country on a train and then reclaimed contained controlled substances. The Court declined to create an exception for luggage searches which was analogous to the esception for automobile searches. The Court noted that, while luggage, like an automobile, is highly mobile, a greater expectation of privacy exists for the contents of luggage than for the contents of an automobile. The Court emphasized that the search in Chadwick could not be justified as incidental to the arrest, because it took place more than an hour after federal agents gained exclusive control of the footlocker and long after defendants were securely in custody. In Sanders, the Court reiterated its previous holding in Chadwick. The Court noted that the state had not attempted to justify the search as being incidental to a lawful arrest and pointed out that the searched luggage had been in the trunk of the automobile in which defendant was riding and so was not within defendant's immediate control. Sanders, p. 763, fn. 11, 99 S.Ct. at p. 2593, fn. 11.
In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 459-460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 2864, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the Court held:
The Belton Court emphasized that neither Chadwick nor Sanders involved a search incidental to a lawful arrest. In view of Belton, reliance on Chadwick and Sanders by defendant and the trial court was misplaced. Defendant contends that his handbag passed beyond his immediate control when the arresting officers took it from him. Defendant emphasizes that he was outnumbered by the officers present and was handcuffed shortly after the handbag was taken. However, in Belton, defendant had been removed from the automobile, yet controlled substances found zipped into a pocket of a jacket which defendant had left in the passenger compartment of the automobile were properly seized. See 453 U.S. 461, fn. 5, 101 S.Ct. 2865, fn. 5. The handbag here was as much within defendant's immediate control as the jacket in Belton was within the immediate control of the defendant in that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Alfafara
...this Court incorporated Belton into Michigan law, finding no state constitutional impediment to its adoption. People v. Jackson, 123 Mich.App. 423, 332 N.W.2d 564 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1100.35 (1983). See also People v. Miller (On Remand), 128 Mich.App. 298, 340 N.W.2d 858 (1983), and ......
-
People v. $207.41 U.S. Currency (State Report Title: People v. U.S. Currency)
...evidence is made on the "clearly erroneous" standard. People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983); People v. Jackson, 123 Mich.App. 423, 332 N.W.2d 564 (1983). A finding is clearly erroneous where, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is firmly convinced......
-
People v. Kerschner, Docket No. 67181
...of his arrest. A trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress will be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. People v. Jackson, 123 Mich.App. 423, 332 N.W.2d 564 (1983). A ruling is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Peop......
-
People v. Ragland
...that defendant posed a danger to the officer. People v. Waddell, 132 Mich.App. 171, 173, 347 N.W.2d 13 (1984); People v. Jackson, 123 Mich.App. 423, 429, 332 N.W.2d 564 (1983), lv. den. 417 Mich. 1100.35 (1983). Under the objective test of Belton, the search and subsequent seizure of the gu......