People v. Siegel
| Citation | 291 N.W.2d 134,95 Mich.App. 594 |
| Decision Date | 21 February 1980 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43582 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kurt Charles SIEGEL, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
Michael S. Friedman, Southfield, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., David H. Sawyer, Pros. Atty., Carol S. Irons, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BRONSON, P. J., and ALLEN and MAHER, JJ.
The defendant appeals as of right from his jury conviction for possession of cocaine, M.C.L. § 335.341(4)(b); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(4)(b). The defendant was sentenced to a term of 21/2 to 4 years of imprisonment.
At the preliminary examination, the arresting officer, Robert Wildman, testified that he and his partner were called to 1745 Willis in the City of Grand Rapids to investigate a possible breaking and entering of a vacant house. After speaking briefly with neighbors, the officers walked up to the house, noting a white and maroon car parked in the driveway with Florida license plates. They could see someone with a flashlight walking around the kitchen, so they went to the back of the house. The back door was closed but not locked, and appeared to have been kicked in. The defendant and a man named Eiko were found to be inside. Mr. Siegel stated that he was the owner of the house, yet he had no key or any identification in his possession, although Mr. Eiko did have identification. The officers then ran a LEIN check and determined that there was an outstanding bench warrant on Mr. Siegel for a traffic offense in Niles, Michigan. Officer Wildman then went to the glove compartment of the car and found a leather wallet containing a picture identification for the defendant under the name Daniel McDonald. Mr. Siegel was then placed in a transfer cruiser and taken downtown by Officer Buekema. After Mr. Siegel's departure, the officers conducted an inventory search of the parked automobile, which a LEIN check disclosed was registered in Florida under the name of Scott Siegel, whose name was on the registration. The officers found a billy club which was lying on the carpeting on the passenger side, to the left of the front seat. They also found a bag of marijuana lying on the console, and a leather case in the tirewell of the trunk which contained a loaded .25 caliber automatic pistol. Officer Sweetman, Wildman's partner, did not testify at the preliminary examination.
Richard Buekema, the officer who transported the defendant to jail subsequent to his arrest, stated that he always checks the back seat of his cruiser when he takes his car out, in order to make sure that nothing was left by a previous occupant. On the day in question, he had followed his custom of making sure the back seat was "clean". After transporting the defendant, he checked the back seat again, and found a folded white packet on the floor underneath the seat, over the hump. The packet contained a white powdery substance, later determined to be cocaine. Officer Buekema said that he had to lift the back seat up in order to see the packet.
Pursuant to the testimony previously summarized, the defendant was bound over on the charges of possession of a billy club and possession of cocaine. Defendant then made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the inventory search and to quash the information, and a suppression hearing was held.
Officer Wildman testified again at the suppression hearing. At this time, he said that when they entered the house, Mr. Siegel identified himself, said he was the owner, and was showing the house to Mr. Eiko. However, he had no key with which to gain entry into the house. Officer Wildman left the two men in the kitchen area with his partner, and went back to the scout car to run a computer check, which took about 5 or 10 minutes. When he learned of an outstanding warrant based on a speeding ticket, he returned to the house and placed the defendant under arrest. He said that the basis for the arrest was the warrant and also breaking and entering an unoccupied dwelling. After the defendant was taken downtown, Eiko was at first told that he could leave, but then Officer Wildman decided to arrest him for breaking and entering also. Previously, the defendant said that the car in the driveway belonged to his brother, Scott Siegel, and this was confirmed by a LEIN check. The defendant gave the officer the keys to the car. Officer Wildman explained his post-arrest inventory search of the car as a matter of department policy. The car would be towed to the station for safekeeping, even though it was parked on private property, since it was a vacant house belonging to an unknown person. The officer did not ask the defendant if he could make any other arrangements for the car and said he was not concerned with his personal safety at the time he made the inventory search. He said that when he checked the glove box for identification, he only saw the brown wallet not the items found in the subsequent inventory search. The officer said he was not looking for any fruits of the breaking and entering during the inventory search. At the time of the inventory search, Mr. Eiko was standing outside near one of the police cruisers and had not yet been placed under arrest.
Robert Eiko also testified at the suppression hearing. He stated that he had known the defendant for some time. Mr. Eiko was in the remodeling business. The defendant offered to sell him the house on Willis Street, or have him remodel it, so he went there in order to inspect the premises. The house had previously been damaged by a fire, at which time the doors were all kicked in and all of the doorjambs were broken. The defendant was going to leave the next morning, so they went to see the house at night. Eiko drove the defendant's car because Siegel did not have a driver's license. As they were coming up from the basement to the kitchen, some police officers came in and questioned them. After they explained their presence, Siegel and Eiko were allowed to go on about their business of inspecting the house, although one policeman followed them. The defendant then took Eiko outside to show him the garage and lot lines. When they returned to the house, the officers told Siegel he was under arrest for a traffic ticket. Eiko asked if he was under arrest, and he was told, "not yet". Eiko did not hear the officers tell Siegel that he was under arrest for breaking and entering. After Siegel was arrested, the officers offered to call a cab for Eiko, so he waited around for a while. He finally started to walk away when one officer called him back and said that he had better go with them. He was booked on the charge of breaking and entering at the station.
The trial court denied the motion to suppress and the motion to quash the information. A jury trial commenced on October 11, 1978.
During the trial, Officer Wildman took the stand for the third time. His version of the events was significantly different this time. He stated that after first questioning Mr. Siegel, he went to the car to try and find a registration, identification, or proof of ownership, and saw the billy club lying next to the driver's seat, and then he saw the bag of marijuana on the console between the bucket seats. Officer Wildman then opened the glove compartment and removed a brown leather wallet which had a picture of the defendant under the name of Daniel McDonald. He also found a registration under the name of Scott Siegel. Wildman removed these items from the car, returned to the house, advised defendant of a traffic warrant, and placed him under arrest. He then escorted defendant outside and turned him over to Officer Buekema to transport him to the jail. At that time, he questioned Mr. Eiko, and arrested him for breaking and entering. According to police policy, defendant's car was taken into police custody for safekeeping.
Ronald Sweetman, Wildman's partner, testified for the first time at the trial. He stated that he and Wildman responded to a reported breaking and entering, and when they saw someone in the house, they radioed for assistance and the house was surrounded. At that point, they went inside. Siegel and Eiko came upstairs to the kitchen from the basement. They identified themselves, and Eiko produced identification. Wildman left to do a LEIN check, and Sweetman stayed with Siegel and Eiko. Since he had "no real grounds to arrest them and the whole thing was kind of a mix-up", Sweetman accompanied then while they roamed about the house, going from room to room, and later outside to the garage. At some point, someone tried to ascertain the owner of the house from the city directory, but Sweetman did not see the result of the inquiry. Wildman returned and said that there was an outstanding bench warrant on Siegel for an unpaid traffic ticket, and defendant was arrested at this time. Wildman conducted a pat-down search, and Sweetman took the defendant to the back seat of Officer Buekema's cruiser. Defendant was very cooperative and so they did not handcuff him. He was alone in the cruiser. Eiko was still standing near the house at this time. He was later taken downtown, but was never formally charged with anything as the result of the events of that night. At this time, Sweetman went over to assist Wildman in listing the articles found during the inventory search of the car.
The defendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress the marijuana that was discovered during the inventory search and the automobile because that search was not valid and the bag was not in plain view.
The people have the burden of proving the reasonableness of any search and seizure. People v. White, 392 Mich. 404, 221 N.W.2d 357 (1974). If the people fail to meet this burden, the courts will suppress the admission into evidence of any fruits of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Nash
...of proving the reasonableness of any search and seizure. People v. White, 392 Mich. 404, 221 N.W.2d 357 (1974); People v. Siegel, 95 Mich.App. 594, 601, 291 N.W.2d 134 (1980). Failure to sustain this burden will result in suppression of evidence of any fruits of the illegal search. Mapp v. ......
-
Forfeiture of $176,598, In re, Docket No. 93248
...v. McIntosh, 110 Mich.App. 139, 312 N.W.2d 415 (1981); People v. Kramer, 103 Mich.App. 747, 303 N.W.2d 880 (1981); People v. Siegel, 95 Mich.App. 594, 291 N.W.2d 134 (1980); People v. Clark, 68 Mich.App. 674, 243 N.W.2d 914 (1976).18 Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640, 103 S.Ct. 2605, 77 L......
-
State v. Hernandez
...seizure of the car on the ground that such action is needed for the protection of the vehicle and its contents. See People v. Siegel, 95 Mich.App. 594, 291 N.W.2d 134 (1980); State v. Simpson, 95 Wash.2d 170, 622 P.2d 1199 (1980); United States v. Squires, 456 F.2d 967 (2d Cir. 1972); State......
-
State v. Callaway
...State v. Phifer, 39 N.C.App. 278, 250 S.E.2d 309 (1979); Benavides v. State, 600 S.W.2d 809 (Tex.Crim.App.1980); People v. Siegel, 95 Mich.App. 594, 291 N.W.2d 134 (1980). ...