People v. Spencley

• Citation: 495 N.W.2d 824,197 Mich.App. 505
• Decision Date: 21 December 1992
• Docket Number: Docket No. 134468
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James SPENCLEY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)

Page 824

495 N.W.2d 824

197 Mich.App. 505

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James SPENCLEY, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 134468.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Nov. 3, 1992, at Grand Rapids.

Decided Dec. 21, 1992, at 9:20 a.m.

Released For Publication March 18, 1993.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., O. Paul Schendel, Pros. Atty., and Charles D. Hackney, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the People.

David G. Huft, Beulah, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, P.J., and SAWYER and JANSEN, JJ.

SAWYER, Judge.

Defendant James Spencley pleaded guilty in the 85th District Court of operating a motor vehicle while impaired. M.C.L. Sec. 257.625b; M.S.A Sec. 9.2325(2). Defendant then appealed to the Benzie Circuit Court, which reversed. The people now appeal by leave granted, and we affirm.

In the circuit court, defendant argued that there was insufficient evidence of operating a motor vehicle to support the plea and that his arrest without a warrant was illegal because the misdemeanor was not committed in the presence of the arresting officer. The facts are not disputed. Defendant's vehicle, with the lights on and the engine running, was found parked partially on the shoulder of US-31 and partially in the driveway of a motel. The reporting officer observed tire tracks from the highway to the location of the vehicle, but observed no footprints on either side of the vehicle. Defendant was inside, crouched down behind the wheel, asleep, and had a strong odor of alcohol. On leaving the vehicle, defendant was very unsteady and his speech was slurred. Defendant tendered an unconditional plea of guilty to the lesser charge of operating a motor vehicle while impaired, admitting that he operated the vehicle while intoxicated and that a blood alcohol test indicated that he had a blood alcohol level of 0.13 percent or 0.14 percent.

Defendant moved to withdraw his plea, but in the end withdrew the motion. His guilty plea was treated as conditional on the right to raise on appeal the argument that his arrest was illegal. On appeal to the circuit court, the court found that defendant's arrest was, in fact, illegal and, therefore, reversed defendant's conviction.

On appeal, the people spend most of their brief explaining why they can prove that defendant operated a motor vehicle while intoxicated without the officers actually having witnessed the operation of the vehicle. Accepting as true, without deciding, that the prosecutor has sufficient evidence to establish defendant's guilt without the officers having actually observed the operation of the vehicle, the prosecutor presents no meaningful argument concerning the lawfulness of the arrest. Rather, the prosecutor states an unsubstantiated and conclusory statement that if a jury could convict on the facts, then the officers had a basis for arresting the driver. That grossly oversimplifies the analysis because it does not address the crucial question presented in this case, namely, whether the officers were authorized to arrest defendant inasmuch as the offense was committed outside their presence. Defendant was not operating the vehicle at the time he was discovered by the officers. See People v. Pomeroy (On Rehearing), 419 Mich. 441, 447, 355 N.W.2d 98 (1984).

Assuming, however, that there are sufficient facts from which to conclude that defendant was operating the vehicle while impaired at some time before the officers' arrival, was defendant's arrest without a warrant at that time justified? The prosecutor points to no applicable authority justifying the arrest without a warrant for the misdemeanor offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating...