People v. Moore
| Citation | 465 N.W.2d 573,186 Mich.App. 551 |
| Decision Date | 19 November 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 130516 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Terrance Ross MOORE, Defendant-Appellee. (On Remand) |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training and Appeals, for People.
Steven Fishman and Michael F. Bakaian, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before DOCTOROFF, P.J., and MAHER and REILLY, JJ.
ON REMAND
In our previous opinion, People v. Moore, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided June 15, 1989 (Docket No. 106275), we affirmed the trial court's order suppressing evidence seized without a warrant under the plain view doctrine on the basis that the evidence seized was not discovered "inadvertently." We further concluded that the search without a warrant was not justified by exigent circumstances. The United States Supreme Court vacated our judgment and remanded this case for further consideration in light of its recent decision in Horton v. California, 495 U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 2301, 110 L.Ed.2d 112 (1990). We now reverse and remand for trial. --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 3208, 110 L.Ed.2d 656.
The relevant facts were set forth in our earlier opinion:
On the night of defendant's arrest, the Detroit Police Department broadcast a radio run indicating that gun shots had been heard inside a "known dope house." Nine police officers responded to the call. While some uniformed officers went to the front door of the house, three plainclothes officers moved to the back of the house to prevent the possible escape of any occupants. From their position immediately outside the back door, the officers were able to see inside the house through a window. As the uniformed officers knocked on the front door, the three plainclothes officers witnessed defendant carry a package down the basement stairs. Based on their prior experience, the officers recognized the package as a kilo of cocaine wrapped for overseas shipment. After a short time, the defendant returned empty handed from the basement and went to answer the front door. The three plainclothes officers then returned to the front of the house.
After answering the front door, defendant spoke with the uniformed officers and denied that anyone had been shot inside the house. Although defendant invited the police inside the house to determine whether there had been a shooting, defendant did not consent to a general search of the house. Once inside the house, several of the officers began to search the main and second floors of the house. However, one of the plainclothes officers went directly into the basement. At the suppression hearing, this officer testified that although his primary purpose for entering the basement was to search for possible shooting victims, he was also aware that the defendant had taken the suspected cocaine into the basement and he believed it was still there. Once in the basement, the officer shined his flashlight up toward the ceiling and noticed the suspected cocaine package lodged in the rafters. This package was seized and defendant was subsequently arrested.
Relying on the United States Supreme Court's plurality decision in Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cooke, Docket No. 126713
...that the Michigan Constitution 1 affords no greater protection than does the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., People v. Moore (On Remand), 186 Mich.App. 551, 554-555, 465 N.W.2d 573 (1990). However, although Moore was approved for publication on November 19, 1990, it was initially released as a......