People v. Tavernier

• Decision Date: 06 March 2012
• Docket Number: Docket No. 302678.
• Parties: PEOPLE v. TAVERNIER.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

295 Mich.App. 582

815 N.W.2d 154

PEOPLE

v.TAVERNIER.

Docket No. 302678.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 5, 2012 at Detroit.

Decided Jan. 26, 2012.

Approved for publication March 6, 2012.

Bill Schuette, Attorney General, John J. Bursch, Solicitor General, Kym L. Worthy, Prosecuting Attorney, and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, for the people.

William W. Swor, Detroit, for defendant.

Before: DONOFRIO, P.J., and STEPHENS and RONAYNE KRAUSE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as of right his convictions following a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, possession of a firearm by a felon, MCL 750.224f, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony-firearm), MCL 750.227b, operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated and with an occupant under the age of 16, MCL 257.625(7)(a)( i ), and possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d). He was sentenced to two years' incarceration for the felony-firearm conviction to be served consecutively to three years' probation for the other convictions. We affirm.

On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence based on Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 343–344, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009). We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's findings of fact at a suppression hearing for clear error and reviews de novo its ultimate decision on a motion to suppress the evidence. People v. Hyde, 285 Mich.App. 428, 438, 775 N.W.2d 833 (2009); People v. Mullen, 282 Mich.App. 14, 21, 762 N.W.2d 170 (2008). Whether the exclusionary rule should be applied to a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a question of law reviewed de novo. People v. Custer, 465 Mich. 319, 326, 630 N.W.2d 870 (2001).

In New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454, 460, 101 S.Ct. 2860, 69 L.Ed.2d 768 (1981), the United States Supreme Court held that when an officer lawfully arrests “the occupant of an automobile, he may, as a contemporaneous incident of that arrest, search the passenger compartment of that automobile” as well as the “contents of any containers found within the passenger compartment....” However, in Gant, 556 U.S. at 343, 129 S.Ct. 1710, quoting Thornton v. United States, 541 U.S. 615, 632, 124 S.Ct. 2127, 158 L.Ed.2d 905 (2004) (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment), the Court held: “[W]e also conclude that circumstances unique to the vehicle context justify a search incident to a lawful arrest when it is ‘reasonable to believe evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle.’ ” The Gant Court further explained:

Police may search a vehicle incident to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest. When these justifications are absent, a search of an arrestee's vehicle will be unreasonableunless police obtain a warrant or show that another exception to the warrant requirement applies. [gant, 556 U.S. at 351, 129 S.ct. 1710.]

Several cases, including Gant, provide guidance in determining reasonableness. In Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21–22, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), the Court stated that in determining reasonableness, the trial court must consider whether the facts known to the officer at the time of the stop would warrant a reasonably prudent person to suspect criminal activity. An officer's conclusion must be drawn from reasonable inferences based on the facts in light of his training and experience. Id. at 27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. “The reasonableness of an officer's suspicion is determined case by case on the basis of the totality of all the facts and circumstances.” People v. LoCicero (After Remand), 453 Mich. 496, 501–502, 556 N.W.2d 498 (1996). “[T]hose circumstances must be viewed ‘as understood and interpreted by law enforcement officers, not legal scholars....' ” People v. Oliver, 464 Mich. 184, 192, 627 N.W.2d 297 (2001), quoting People v. Nelson, 443 Mich. 626, 632, 505 N.W.2d 266 (1993). The United States Supreme Court has said that deference should be given to the experience of law enforcement officers and their assessments of criminal modes and patterns. United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 273, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002).

The Gant Court did not expressly define the meaning of the phrase “reasonable to believe,” nor did it expound on when it is reasonable for an officer to believe that the passenger compartment of a vehicle might contain evidence of the crime for which the vehicle's occupant was arrested, but it did provide strong clues regarding what is reasonable. The Court said that the offenses of arrest in Belton (unlawful possession of marijuana) and Thornton (unlawful possession of marijuana and crack cocaine) supplied “a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle and any containers therein.” Gant, 556 U.S. at 344, 129 S.Ct. 1710. The Court also gave examples of offenses for which there is no reason to believe that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest would be found in the vehicle, such as civil infractions and driving without a valid license. Id. at 343–344, 129 S.Ct. 1710.Gant also specifically stated that “ the offense of arrest will supply a basis for searching the passenger compartment of an arrestee's vehicle and any containers therein.” Id. at 344, 129 S.Ct. 1710.

The legality of the search in this case was based on the second prong of the Gant holding, that “it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” Id. at 347, 351, 129 S.Ct. 1710. Upon review de novo, we conclude that the trial court's factual findings were consistent with the testimony and other evidence in the record.¹ Before his search of defendant's vehicle, the arresting officer had information from another police officer that defendant was driving erratically and was possibly driving while intoxicated. When the officer activated his overhead lights to indicate to defendant to stop his vehicle, defendant's vehicle ran over a...