People v. Mathews
| Decision Date | 02 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 348155 |
| Parties | PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TREMELL C. MATHEWS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
UNPUBLISHED
Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 18-008966-01-FH
Before: Tukel, P.J., and Servitto and Beckering, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence and dismissing the charges of possession of a controlled substance less than 25 grams, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v), and possession of marihuana MCL 333.7403(2)(d). We affirm.
On September 20, 2108, Detroit Police Officer Michael Bailey was driving a patrol car, with Officers Yossif Mana and Antoine Hill as passengers, when he saw defendant run a red light in the city of Detroit. Officer Bailey initiated a traffic stop and, upon speaking to defendant, was told that defendant did not have a driver's license and that he did not have insurance for the vehicle he was driving. Officer Bailey had defendant step out of the vehicle and patted him down. He searched defendant a second time, finding several lottery tickets in defendant's pants pocket. Officer Bailey returned the tickets to defendant's pocket and then instructed defendant to stand in front of the patrol car's dashboard camera (dashcam). Defendant, who was not handcuffed or physically restrained in any way, complied, and Officer Hill stood near defendant at the patrol car. Officer Bailey then proceeded to search defendant's vehicle.
During his search, Officer Bailey found four folded lottery tickets that contained suspected heroin under the vehicle's headliner where it met the windshield. Officer Bailey then instructed Officer Mana to search defendant again. During his search of defendant, Officer Mana found a bag of marijuana and a bag of heroin in defendant's pockets. Officer Mana then handcuffed defendant and informed him that he was under arrest. Defendant was charged with possession of the substances found in his pockets.[1]
A preliminary examination was held in this matter, after which defendant was bound over to the circuit court as charged. Thereafter, defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence and for dismissal. Defendant contended that after he exited his vehicle, his person was twice searched by Officer Bailey. Defendant was then directed to stand in front of Officer Bailey's patrol car, which he did. Defendant asserts that he was not told he was under arrest, nor was he placed in restraints to indicate that he was under arrest. Nevertheless, according to defendant, Officer Bailey began to conduct an invalid "inventory search" of his vehicle and allegedly recovered suspected heroin in the headliner of the vehicle. Defendant averred that Officer Mana then searched him a third time and that neither the third search of his person, nor the search of his vehicle was a search incident to arrest. Defendant further asserted that the search of his vehicle was made in violation of departmental procedure requirements to fill out an impound inventory card, was unconstitutional in that it was not a lawful inventory search, and that no probable cause existed to search his vehicle.[2] The trial court granted defendant's motion, finding that the prosecution's failure to provide an automobile inventory card with respect to the vehicle search demonstrated the police officers' failure to comply with their own policy and that further, without evidence of an inventory card, the prosecution could not sustain its case against defendant.
The prosecution now appeals the trial court's order asserting that the search of defendant's vehicle was a valid inventory search and was conducted in accordance with departmental policy, such that the vehicle search and the third search of defendant's person were not unconstitutional searches. We disagree.
"We review for clear error a trial court's findings of fact in a suppression hearing, but we review de novo its ultimate decision on a motion to suppress." People v Hyde, 285 Mich.App. 428, 436; 775 N.W.2d 833 (2009). "Clear error occurs if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake." People v Johnson, 502 Mich. 541, 565 918 N.W.2d 676 (2018) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "To the extent that a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo." People v Tanner, 496 Mich. 199, 206; 853 N.W.2d 653 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted). We also review de novo "whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies." People v Anthony, 327 Mich.App 24, 32; 932 N.W.2d 202 (2019).
Both the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article 1, § 11 of the Michigan Constitution guarantee every person's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. People v Slaughter, 489 Mich. 302, 310-11; 803 N.W.2d 171 (2011). To that end, a warrant supported by probable cause is generally required in order to deem a search reasonable. In re Forfeiture of $176, 598, 443 Mich. 261, 265; 505 N.W.2d 201 (1993). There are, however, several specifically established exceptions to the warrant requirement. Relevant to the instant matter, these include searches incident to contemporaneous lawful arrests and inventory searches conducted according to established procedure. Slaughter, 489 Mich. at 311.
The Supreme Court has held that immediately upon arrest, an officer may lawfully search the person of an arrestee and the area within the arrestee's immediate control without first procuring a warrant. Illinois v Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 644; 103 S.Ct. 2605; 77 L.Ed.2d 65 (1983). Known as a "search incident to arrest," such searches are permissible in order to "protect evidence in the possession of the arrestee and to protect the officer from danger posed by articles in the arrestee's possession." Id. at 644-645, quoting United States v Robinson, 414 U.S. 218, 235; 94 S.Ct. 467; 38 L.Ed.2d 427 (1973). The "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement further permits police to search a vehicle incident to an arrest: (1) when the arrestee is unsecured and within reaching distance of the vehicle's compartments, and (2) when police reasonably believe that evidence related to the crime of arrest may be found in the vehicle. Arizona v Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343; 129 S.Ct. 1710; 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). These two narrow circumstances best serve the interest of officer safety, which is the fundamental rationale of the "search incident to arrest" exception to the warrant requirement. Id. at 338, 347-348.
Under the inventory search exception, the police may conduct an inventory search of a vehicle, in accordance with its departmental regulations, that is being impounded following the driver's valid arrest. People v Toohey, 438 Mich. 265, 271-72; 475 N.W.2d 16 (1991). Such an inventory search "is considered to be an administrative function performed by the police, rather than part of a criminal investigation which the Fourth Amendment was intended to circumscribe." Id. "Inventory procedures serve to protect an owner's property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of lost, stolen, or vandalized property, and to guard the police from danger." Florida v Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4; 110 S.Ct. 1632; 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (citations omitted). But "an inventory search must not be a ruse for a general rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence." Id. Thus, "[t]he lack of an underlying motive or bad faith by the police in conducting an inventory search is an important aspect which courts must consider in determining the validity of such a search." Toohey, 438 Mich. at 276. "To be constitutional, an inventory search must be conducted in accordance with established departmental procedures, which all police officers are required to follow, and must not be used as a pretext for criminal investigation." Id. at 284 (emphasis in original).
Evaluation of the reasonableness of a search or seizure depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Id. at 272. "The benchmark for satisfaction of Fourth Amendment rights is reasonableness, and reasonableness requires a fact-specific inquiry that is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances." People v Corr, 287 Mich.App. 499, 507; 788 N.W.2d 860 (2010), quoting Hyde, 285 Mich.App. at 436.
It is uncontested that the police in this matter searched defendant's person and vehicle without a search warrant. There appears to be no claim of unconstitutionality with respect to the initial and secondary search of defendant's person by Officer Bailey. Officer Bailey initiated a traffic stop of defendant's vehicle when he purportedly saw defendant disregarding a red light. Officer Bailey's preliminary examination testimony and his body camera (bodycam) video played at preliminary examination establish that upon questioning, defendant readily admitted that he did not have a driver's license (a misdemeanor under MCL 257.904), that the vehicle was uninsured, and that he had marijuana on him (but had his medical marijuana card in his wallet). At that point, defendant was asked to step out of the vehicle, which he did, and Officer Bailey twice patted defendant down, finding nothing he deemed suspicious on defendant's person. Defendant does not appear to challenge these two searches. The searches that followed, however, present a different story. The issues for our resolution, then, are whether the third warrantless search of defendant's person and the warrantless search of his vehicle fell within an exception to the warrant requirement.
I. ARREST
Officer Bailey testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial