People v. Williams
| Decision Date | 11 May 2005 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 127115. |
| Citation | 696 N.W.2d 636,472 Mich. 308 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John Lavell WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Catherine Castagne, Prosecuting Attorney, and Eric Restuccia, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for the people.
Patrick & Kwiatkowski, P.L.L.C. (by Aaron J. Gauthier), Cheboygan, MI, for the defendant.
This case concerns the constitutionality of a traffic stop. After stopping defendant's vehicle for speeding, a state trooper asked defendant routine questions about his travel plans and obtained his consent to search the vehicle. Cocaine and marijuana were discovered during the search. Defendant argues, and the Court of Appeals determined, that his consent was invalid because his detention exceeded the proper scope of a traffic stop, in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have suppressed the fruits of the search.1
We conclude that the detention was reasonable and did not exceed the proper scope of a traffic stop. Because defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated as a result of the detention, his consent was valid. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for reinstatement of defendant's convictions and sentences.
On February 14, 2003, Michigan State Police Trooper Jason Varoni observed defendant's vehicle traveling eighty-eight miles an hour on I-75 in Cheboygan County, where the posted speed limit was seventy miles an hour. He stopped defendant's vehicle. Upon request, defendant produced his driver's license. Trooper Varoni told defendant why he had been stopped and asked defendant where he was going. Defendant answered that he was going to Cheboygan to visit friends and that he was staying at the Holiday Inn.
Because Cheboygan does not have a Holiday Inn, Trooper Varoni was suspicious of this response and asked defendant to step from the vehicle to answer additional questions. Defendant did so and, in response to further questioning, explained that he was coming from Detroit and that he intended to stay in Cheboygan for two days. No luggage was visible in the vehicle's passenger compartment; when asked about this, defendant said that he brought no luggage on the trip. Trooper Varoni asked defendant if he had "been in trouble before," and defendant disclosed that he had previously been arrested for a marijuana-related offense.
Trooper Varoni then questioned the vehicle's other two occupants about their own travel plans, but their inconsistent responses only increased his suspicions.2 This questioning was completed about five to eight minutes after the traffic stop occurred. Trooper Varoni then informed defendant that he had received conflicting stories from the occupants of the vehicle. He asked for defendant's consent to search the vehicle, and defendant agreed.
Trooper Varoni contacted the Tuscarora Township canine unit, and asked that a drug-detection dog be sent to the scene. The canine unit arrived within three minutes and the dog signaled the presence of narcotics in the backseat of the vehicle. Trooper Varoni did not find any narcotics in that area, and he asked defendant for consent to search the vehicle's trunk. Defendant initially agreed, but then withdrew his consent. A warrant was obtained, and the police discovered substances that appeared to be marijuana and cocaine.3 Trooper Varoni wrote defendant a citation for speeding and two drug-related felonies, and arrested him.
Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver fifty grams or more but less than 225 grams of a substance containing cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and possession with intent to deliver marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii). He moved to suppress evidence of the controlled substances seized from his vehicle, asserting that the search4 and seizure were predicated on an illegal detention. The trial court denied the motion. It concluded that the statements made by the occupants of the vehicle raised reasonable suspicions in Trooper Varoni's mind. It further concluded that the delay caused by the additional questioning was not unreasonable under the circumstances presented.
Defendant was convicted as charged following a bench trial, and was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of seven to twenty years (for the cocaine conviction) and two to four years (for the marijuana conviction).
Defendant appealed, challenging the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress, and the Court of Appeals reversed. Concluding that the initial traffic stop had been lawful, the Court then determined that the trooper "unlawfully exceeded the initial stop when he asked defendant to step out of the vehicle" to answer questions about his travel plans while the officer possessed only a "generalized hunch" that criminal activity was afoot. The trooper's questions had no relevance to the traffic stop, the Court held, and he had no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant asking the questions. The Court concluded that Trooper Varoni was acting on a "hunch," which is insufficient grounds for pursuing an investigatory stop. For these reasons, it reversed the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress.
The prosecutor applied to this Court for leave to appeal.
This Court reviews a trial court's findings at a suppression hearing for clear error. People v. Jenkins, 472 Mich. 26, 31, 691 N.W.2d 759 (2005); People v. Custer, 465 Mich. 319, 325-326, 630 N.W.2d 870 (2001). But the application of constitutional standards regarding searches and seizures to essentially uncontested facts is entitled to less deference; for this reason, we review de novo the trial court's ultimate ruling on the motion to suppress. Jenkins, supra; People v. Oliver, 464 Mich. 184, 191-192, 627 N.W.2d 297 (2001).
We review here the Court of Appeals determination that the traffic stop escalated into an illegal detention in violation of the Fourth Amendment, rendering defendant's eventual consent to search a nullity.
The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.5
In assessing the protections created by this amendment, the United States Supreme Court has "long held that the `touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.'" Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) (citation omitted). Reasonableness is measured by examining the totality of the circumstances. Id. Because of "`endless variations in the facts and circumstances'" implicating the Fourth Amendment, reasonableness is a fact-intensive inquiry that does not lend itself to resolution through the application of bright-line rules. Id., quoting Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 506, 103 S.Ct. 1319, 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983).
In analyzing the propriety of the detention here, we apply the standard set forth in Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968).6 Under Terry, the reasonableness of a search or seizure depends on "whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place."7 Terry, supra at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868.
In this case, there is no dispute that the initial traffic stop was occasioned by defendant's speeding, and was therefore based on probable cause and was reasonable. Robinette, supra at 38, 117 S.Ct. 417. Under Terry, the remaining question is whether the subsequent detention was "reasonably related in scope to the circumstances" of this case. Terry, supra at 20, 88 S.Ct. 1868. We conclude that it was.
As a threshold matter, the Court of Appeals erred when it agreed with defendant that the purpose of this traffic stop was fully effectuated when defendant handed Trooper Varoni his driver's license and other requested paperwork. This view of the essential nature of the traffic stop imposes an unreasonable restriction on an officer's ability to investigate a violation of the law.
A traffic stop is reasonable as long as the driver is detained only for the purpose of allowing an officer to ask reasonable questions concerning the violation of law and its context for a reasonable period.8 The determination whether a traffic stop is reasonable must necessarily take into account the evolving circumstances with which the officer is faced. As we observed in People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 453, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983), when a traffic stop reveals a new set of circumstances, an officer is justified in extending the detention long enough to resolve the suspicion raised.9
It is no violation of the Fourth Amendment for an officer to ask reasonable questions in order to obtain additional information about the underlying offense and the circumstances leading to its commission. For example, in addition to asking for the necessary identification and paperwork, an officer may also ask questions relating to the reason for the stop, including questions about the driver's destination and travel plans. United States v. Williams, 271 F.3d 1262, 1267 (C.A.10, 2001).10 Specifically, an officer may ask about the "purpose and itinerary of a driver's trip during the traffic stop" in order to determine whether a "violation has taken place, and if so, whether a citation or warning should be issued or an arrest made." United States v. Brigham, 382 F.3d 500, 508 (C.A.5, 2004). Such inquiries are "within the scope of investigation attendant to the traffic stop."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Tierney, Docket No. 252185.
...439, 93 S.Ct. 2523, 2527, 37 L.Ed.2d 706, 713 (1973). [State v. Kitchen, 572 N.W.2d 106, 109 (N.D., 1997).] In People v. Williams, 472 Mich. 308, 314, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005), our Supreme Court recently reiterated that the facts of each case control the Fourth Amendment In assessing the prote......
-
People v. Hammerlund
...II. STANDARD OF REVIEW We review a trial court’s findings of fact at a suppression hearing for clear error. People v. Williams , 472 Mich. 308, 313, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005). We examine the facts as they were presented to the trial court at the time of the suppression hearing, not as supplemen......
-
People v. Anthony
...We review de novo the trial court’s ultimate ruling as to whether the Fourth Amendment was violated. People v. Williams , 472 Mich. 308, 313, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005). But the facts underlying that ruling are subject to review for clear error, and the facts have already been found. Here, the o......
-
People v. Woodard
...standards regarding searches and seizures to essentially uncontested facts is entitled to less deference[.]" People v. Williams , 472 Mich. 308, 313, 696 N.W.2d 636 (2005). We review de novo whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether the exclusionary rule applies. People v. Mungo......
-
Table of Cases
...370 F.3d 630 (6th Cir. 2004) 68 Williams v. Cambridge Board of Educ., 186 F. Supp. 2d 808 (S.D. Ohio 2002) 13 Williams, People v., 696 N.W.2d 636 (Mich. 2005) 40 Williams, State v., 590 S.E.2d 151 (Ga. App. 2003) 51 Williams, United States v., 181 F.3d 945 (8th Cir. 1999) 125 Williams, Unit......
-
Chapter 2. Traffic Detentions
...driver’s purpose for traveling”). If the answers about travel plans are suspicious, the officer may inquire further. People v. Williams, 696 N.W.2d 636 (Mich. 2005). The officer may also ask the passengers about their intended travel plans. United States v. Johnson, 58 F.3d 356 (8th Cir. 19......