People v. Obadele
| Decision Date | 29 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 19054--5,No. 1,1 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Imari OBADELE, Albert Love and Earl Gordon, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Ruth Ritter, George W. Crockett, III, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, App. Div., Patricia J. Boyle and Timothy M. Kenny, Asst. Pros. Attys., for defendants-appellees.
Before J. H. GILLIS, P.J., and ALLEN and PETERSON, * JJ.
On August 10, 1973 defendants, Albert Love, Imari Obadele and Earl Gordon, were arrested and charged with carrying a dangerous weapon in an automobile, M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424. Defendant Obadele was also charged with possession of a controlled substance (phencyclidine) contrary to M.C.L.A. § 335.341(4)(b); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(4)(b).
At the preliminary examination uncontroverted testimony established the following: At approximately 3:45 a.m. on August 10, 1973, arresting officer James Gizicki and his partner were patrolling the vicinity of Grand River and McGraw streets in Detroit in a marked scout car. Officer Gizicki observed that a 1964 Chevrolet sedan, traveling in front of them, bore Michigan license plate JFR--634. This license number was listed on the 'hot sheet' indicating that the car had been stolen. After the police dispatcher confirmed that the Chevrolet was a stolen vehicle, Gizicki, over the scout car loudspeaker, ordered the vehicle's driver, defendant Love, to pull the car over to the curb and stop.
Love pulled over to the curb, but continued driving at a slow rate of speed, about 3--5 miles an hour. During this time Officer Gizicki observed Obadele in the front passenger seat and Gordon in the right rear seat bend down out of sight. Again, Gizicki announced over the loudspeaker for the vehicle to stop and for everyone in the vehicle to sit upright and to keep their hands out in the open. This time everyone in the vehicle complied with the order.
Officer Gizicki approached the vehicle from the driver's side and his partner, Officer Dameron, approached the vehicle from the passenger's side. Defendant Love did not have the automobile registration; he told the officers that the car belonged to defendant Gordon. Gordon was asked if he had proof of ownership and he stated that he did not. The three defendants were ordered out of the vehicle, and each was searched. Officer Gizicki 1 went into the vehicle and looked under the right front seat. There he found and seized a .38 caliber blue steel revolver and a .32 caliber blue steel revolver and holster.
Defendants were taken to the second precinct. There a custodial search of defendant Obadele was conducted. Three vials, two containing a liquid and one a powder, were found in a leather purse-type pouch on the right front of his belt. A subsequent chemical analysis identified the contents of one of the vials as 2.4 grams of powder containing phencyclidine, a controlled substance.
After the preliminary examination, defendants were bound over for trial as charged. Defendants filed a motion to suppress evidence and quash the information. On October 3, 1973, the trial court heard the motion and concluded that the guns and drugs were seized as a result of unlawful searches and seizures. The motion was granted and the case dismissed. The people appeal.
First, the people argue that the search of the car and the seizure of the guns was proper. 2 People v. Whalen, 390 Mich. 672, 682, 213 N.W.2d 116, 121 (1973), established the following rules to be applied to the automobile searches:
'1. Reasonableness is the test that is to be applied for both the stop of, and the search of moving motor vehicles.
'2. Said reasonableness will be determined from the facts and circumstances of each case.
'3. Fewer foundation facts are necessary to support a finding of reasonableness when moving vehicles are involved, than if a house or a home were involved.
'4. A stop of a motor vehicle for investigatory purposes may be based upon fewer facts than those necessary to support a finding of reasonableness where both a stop and a search is conducted by the police.
We hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case the search and seizure was reasonable. At 3:45 a.m. the police observed a stolen car traveling in downtown Detroit. Instead of stopping when ordered to do so by the police, the defendants, apparently stalling, continued driving at about 3--5 miles per hour. While driving at this slow rate of speed, and knowing that they would soon be stopped and questioned by the police, the two passengeres bent down out of sight, apparently putting something under the front seat. We think these facts, when viewed in their totality, gave the police reasonable grounds to believe that defendants were in possession of tools or evidence of a crime, or contraband.
Defendants, citing People v. Reeves, 23 Mich.App. 183, 178 N.W.2d 115 (1970); and People v. Pitts, 40 Mich.App. 567, 199 N.W.2d 271 (1972), contend that a furtive gesture alone, such as bending over, is not sufficient to support an automobile search. We agree. However, in this case we have more than a furtive gesture. The information known to the police at the time of the arrest and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the stop, considered together with the furtive gesture, create probable cause for this search.
Several Michigan cases have upheld searches where the facts were similar to those here. In People v. Evans, 3 Mich.App. 1, 141 N.W.2d 668 (1966), two Detroit police officers, at 4:45 a.m., observed defendant walking rapidly and carrying a package. The officers followed defendant in their squad car, and eventually discovered him in an alley hiding behind a garbage can. A search of the package and defendant's clothing uncovered numerous bottles of liquor. Defendant was subsequently charged with breaking and entering. This Court held the search valid, concluding that defendant 'by evading and hiding from the police, gave them sufficient reason to make immediate search and seizure.' Evans, supra, 3 Mich. at 7, 141 N.W.2d at 670.
In People v. Hall, 40 Mich.App. 329, 198 N.W.2d 762 (1972), the three defendants were driving on I--94 at 4 a.m. when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brooks
...with the reasoning of the majority and with those two paragraphs of the concurring opinion. The defendant in People v. Obadele, 58 Mich.App. 139, 227 N.W.2d 258 (1975), was arrested for carrying weapons in a car. At the station house, he was searched. The police found three vials in a pouch......
-
People v. Kreichman
...331, 533 P.2d 91; cf. State v. Finklea, 313 So.2d 224, 226 (La.), and especially dissenting opn. at pp. 226--227; People v. Obadele, 58 Misc.App. 139, 143, 227 N.W.2d 258). People v. Martin, 48 A.D.2d 213, 368 N.Y.S.2d 342, is inapposite, assuming that it was correctly decided. The Martin c......
-
People v. Ulrich
...21 Mich.App. 224, 175 N.W.2d 301 (1970); People v. Knight, 41 Mich.App. 293, 294, 199 N.W.2d 861 (1972), and People v. Obadele, 58 Mich.App. 139, 227 N.W.2d 258 (1975). In support of their argument defendants cite People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, 253, 97 N.W.2d 16 (1959), where the Court ......
-
People v. Smith
...seizure. As a general rule, this Court will not review an issue raised for the first time on appeal. See People v. Obadele, 58 Mich.App. 139, 142, fn 2, 227 N.W.2d 258, 259 (1975). However, this rule is not inflexible and, where consideration of a claim not previously raised is necessary to......