People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 04 August 1986
• Docket Number: Docket No. 84053
• Citation: 151 Mich.App. 354,390 N.W.2d 187
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 187

390 N.W.2d 187

151 Mich.App. 354

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Allen WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 84053.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Jan. 15, 1986.

Decided March 20, 1986.

Released for Publication Aug. 4, 1986.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Rosemary A. Gordon, Asst. Pros. Atty., for people.

Gerald M. Lorence, Detroit, for defendant-appellee on appeal.

Before WALSH, P.J., and CYNAR and KAUFMAN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with possession of cocaine, M.C.L. Sec. 333.7403; M.S.A. Sec. 14.15(7403). At the preliminary examination, the magistrate found that the incriminating evidence had been abandoned by the defendant and bound defendant over for trial. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted defendant's motion on the basis that the police lacked probable cause to stop the defendant.

The sole issue raised on appeal is whether the trial court clearly erred in granting defendant's motion. We review the trial court's ruling on the motion to suppress the evidence to determine whether it was clearly erroneous. People v. Burrell, 417 Mich. 439, 448, 339 N.W.2d 403 (1983); People v. Clifton Fuqua, 146 Mich.App. 250, 257, 379 N.W.2d 442 (1985).

The arresting officer testified that he was in an unmarked car patrolling the area of Alexandrine and Woodward in the City of Detroit when he observed two men leaving the second floor of the Bon Lynn Motel. The officer had received information that a man was dealing in narcotics from the hotel and he had previously investigated drug-related complaints involving the hotel. In order to keep the men under surveillance, the officer made two u-turns in front of the hotel. Apparently, the defendant saw the car and, after spotting it, he dropped a small white package to the left of the stairwell. While two officers left to stop the suspects, a third officer retrieved the package, which he discovered was a Kool cigarette pack, containing packets of narcotics. Based on these facts, we find that the defendant abandoned the property and, therefore, had no justifiable expectation of privacy concerning it.

In People v. Boykin, 119 Mich.App. 763, 327 N.W.2d 351 (1982), a panel of this Court applied the theory of abandonment to facts analogous to those in the instant case. There, the police were investigating a complaint that drugs were being sold openly on the street. They observed the defendant and two companions standing on a sidewalk in the area. As they approached the three men, the defendant threw a bottle against the wall and ran. One officer retrieved the bottle while the others pursued the defendant. The bottle was found to contain illegal drugs.

On appeal, this Court held that the defendant had abandoned the bottle and that its subsequent appropriation could not be deemed unlawful. The Court further stated that it need not determine the legality of the arrest because the evidence was not the fruit of the arrest. Morever, the Court noted that, even if the arrest was made without probable cause, the invalidity of the arrest would not deprive the trial court of jurisdiction.

Abandonment is even more conclusively demonstrated in the present case. Here, the defendant discarded...