People v. Poole, Docket No. 133710
| Decision Date | 06 April 1993 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 133710 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darrin E. POOLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Richard Thompson, Pros. Atty., Michael J. Modelski, Chief, Appellate Div., and Kathryn G. Barnes, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Ronald E. Kaplovitz, Pontiac, for defendant-appellant on appeal.
Before BRENNAN, P.J., and HOOD and TAYLOR, JJ.
Defendant appeals as of right from his conviction, following a jury trial, of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine. M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); M.S.A. § 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iv). He was sentenced to a term of one to twenty years. We remand.
Defendant was stopped by the police for speeding on the freeway. A subsequent check of the Law Enforcement Information Network disclosed that he was driving while his driver's license was suspended. M.C.L. § 257.904(2); M.S.A. § 9.2604(2), a misdemeanor. He was then arrested and his vehicle was impounded. Defendant's passenger possessed no valid driver's license.
The vehicle was subjected to an inventory search at the side of the road. Cocaine was found inside a paper bag located in the pocket of a pair of jeans that was inside the trunk. An address book containing notations such as "Eleven packs equals a hundred and ten dollars" was found inside the glove box.
On appeal, defendant argues that evidence of the address book and the drugs should have been suppressed because the police failed to inform him of his right to post interim bail, M.C.L. § 780.581; M.S.A. § 28.872(1), and therefore, the inventory search was illegal. We disagree.
At the time of defendant's arrest in 1988, the release of misdemeanor prisoners act provided that a person arrested for committing a misdemeanor had to be taken, "without unnecessary delay, ... before the most convenient magistrate of the county in which the offense was committed to answer the complaint." M.C.L. § 780.581(1); M.S.A. § 28.872(1)(1). 1 The act further provided that, "if a magistrate is not available or immediate trial cannot be had, the person arrested may leave with the arresting officer or the direct supervisor of the arresting officer or department ... as a bond to guarantee his or her appearance, a sum of money ... not to exceed the amount of the possible fine but not less than 20% of the amount of the minimum possible fine that may be imposed for the offense for which the person was arrested." M.C.L. § 780.581(2); M.S.A. § 28.872(1)(2).
An arresting officer must inform the arrested person of the right to post interim bail. People v. Dixon, 392 Mich. 691, 703, 222 N.W.2d 749 (1974). Evidence obtained in violation of the statute must be suppressed. Id. at 705, 222 N.W.2d 749.
The purpose of the statute is to protect citizens from the "unwarranted and unnecessary inconvenience, embarrassment and risk attendant [to] incarceration for a minor offense." Id. at 705-706, 222 N.W.2d 749 (emphasis added); see also People v. Chapman, 425 Mich. 245, 257, n. 15, 260, 387 N.W.2d 835 (1986). Therefore, the statute does not deprive the arresting officer of the right to conduct a search of the person and of the driver and passenger compartments of the vehicle pursuant to a lawful custodial arrest. Id. at 260, 387 N.W.2d 835; People v. Ragland, 149 Mich.App. 277, 281-283, 385 N.W.2d 772 (1986). Likewise, the statute is not violated by taking a person to the police station and processing the arrest as long as intrusions that are attendant to incarceration are not imposed upon the arrested person. See Dixon, supra 392 Mich. at 706-707, 222 N.W.2d 749; see also Chapman, supra 425 Mich. at 257-258, 260, 387 N.W.2d 835. Nothing in the statute requires that a defendant be allowed to post bail at the scene. 2
We find that the statute was not violated in this case by the officer's failure to immediately inform defendant of his right to post interim bail. People v. Weston, 161 Mich.App. 311, 314, 409 N.W.2d 819 (1987); People v. Combs, 160 Mich.App. 666, 672, 408 N.W.2d 420 (1987). Further, we find that, even if the statute had been violated, defendant has not shown a causal nexus between the alleged violation and the discovery of the evidence. Weston, supra 161 Mich.App. at 314-315, 409 N.W.2d 819. The address book was discovered during a lawful search of the passenger compartment pursuant to defendant's arrest. The legality of the impoundment of defendant's car and of the attendant inventory search that uncovered drugs in the trunk will be discussed infra. People v. Krezen, 427 Mich. 681, 685, 397 N.W.2d 803 (1986).
Defendant properly points out that the officer was not required to arrest him and impound his vehicle merely because he had a suspended license. Rather, the officer had the discretion to issue defendant a citation with instructions to appear in court. M.C.L. § 257.727(d); M.S.A. § 9.2427(d) (formerly subsection ; see also Dixon, supra 392 Mich. at 701, n. 13, 702-703, 222 N.W.2d 749. However, there is no allegation that an improper motive caused the officer to arrest defendant rather than issue him a citation.
The legality of the inventory search that followed defendant's arrest depends in part on whether the car was lawfully impounded. Krezen, supra 427 Mich. at 685, 397 N.W.2d 803. Here, the officer testified that it was department policy to impound a vehicle "when a person is arrested and there is no one there that can take care of the car." Because defendant's passenger had no valid driver's license, the officer properly impounded the vehicle pursuant to department policy. See, e.g., People v. Toohey, 438 Mich. 265, 288-289, 475 N.W.2d 16 (1991); People v. Castle, 126 Mich.App. 203, 210, 337 N.W.2d 48 (1983); People v. Roberson, 80 Mich.App. 241, 243, 263 N.W.2d 42 (1977). The fact that there may have been less intrusive ways to achieve the legitimate goals of an inventory search--the protection of property, the prevention of claims against the police, and the protection of police officers--does not make the decision to impound the vehicle unlawful. Toohey, supra 438 Mich. at 283, 290, 475 N.W.2d 16.
Because the vehicle was lawfully impounded, the validity of the inventory search depends on the whether there were standardized criteria, policies, or routines regulating how inventory searches were to be conducted. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 1635, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990) (); People v. Long (On Remand), 419 Mich....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mathews
...some discretion in executing an inventory search consistent with departmental policies, that discretion is not unfettered. Poole, 199 Mich.App. at 266 (citation omitted). After all, the foremost goal of policies "is to prevent inventory searches from being used as 'a ruse for general rummag......
-
People v. Green
...the opening of containers are permissible. Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990); People v. Poole, 199 Mich.App. 261, 266, 501 N.W.2d 265 (1993). The searches of the vehicle and the closed briefcase were conducted in accordance with a standardized policy, and......
-
People v. Mead
...incriminating evidence." Florida v. Wells , 495 U.S. 1, 4, 110 S.Ct. 1632, 109 L.Ed.2d 1 (1990). See also People v. Poole , 199 Mich.App. 261, 266, 501 N.W.2d 265 (1993). Rather, the search "protect[s] an owner’s property while it is in the custody of the police, to insure against claims of......
-
People v. Phillips
...there were standardized criteria, policies, or routines regulating how inventory searches were to be conducted." People v Poole, 199 Mich.App. 261, 266; 501 N.W.2d 265 (1993). In this case, Trooper Fields testified that after Beard told him that the car was a rental car not leased to him, h......