PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
September 21, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 214551
Muskegon Circuit Court
AARON LASHAWN STUCKEY, LC No. 98-038371 AR
a/k/a AARON LAWSHAWN STUCKEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_____________________________________________
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with possession of less than 25 grams of
cocaine, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v). The district
court excluded the evidence as the fruit of an illegal search, and the
circuit court affirmed the district court's decision. Plaintiff appeals by
leave granted the circuit court's order excluding the evidence and
dismissing the case. We reverse, but for reasons different than those
argued in plaintiff's brief
The parties agree on the essential facts. A police officer pulled
defendant over when, after checking the license plate of the car defendant
was driving, the officer discovered that the car belonged to a woman who
had at least two outstanding warrants. After the officer pulled defendant
over, defendant got out of the car and walked toward the officer. Because
defendant was male, it was immediately obvious that he was not the person
for whom the warrants had been issued. However, the officer discovered that
defendant did not have a driver's license, arrested him, and searched the
car. In the course of that search, the officer found a quantity of crack
cocaine.
The district court and circuit court excluded the drugs and dismissed
the charges because the purpose of the stop was to find the woman named in
the warrants. The lower courts reasoned that once the officer determined
that the driver was not the person named on the outstanding warrants, he
had no right to detain defendant any further. Consequently, they found that
the request for defendant's license came during an unconstitutional
seizure. For the reasons discussed below, we disagree.
-1-
We review de novo the issue of whether a seizure was reasonable under
the Fourth Amendment. People v Bloxson, 205 Mich App 236, 245; 517 NW2d 563
(1994).
The legality of the initial stop is not at issue here. Temporary
investigative detentions must be supported by a reasonable, articulable
suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot. People v LoCicero, After
Remand, 453 Mich 496, 501-504; 556 NW2d 498 (1996). "A valid investigatory
stop must be justified at its inception and must be reasonably related in
scope to the circumstances that justified interference by the police with a
person's security." People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 98; 549 NW2d 849
(1996). Knowledge that the person who owned the car had outstanding
warrants justified the investigatory stop here.
Furthermore, the search of the car was justified as a search incident
to an arrest. Under New York v Belton, 453 US 454; 101 S Ct 2860; 69 L Ed
2d 768 (1981), a lawful custodial arrest of the driver or occupant of a
motor vehicle justifies a search of the vehicle incident to the arrest. See
People v Miller (On Remand), 128 Mich App 298, 305; 340 NW2d 858 (1983).
The search of a vehicle is valid even if the driver is no longer in the
vehicle when it was searched and even if the arrest was for a misdemeanor.
People v Waddell, 132 Mich App 171; 347 NW2d 13 (1984). Defendant was
arrested for driving without a license. However, it was the fact that
defendant did not have a driver's license that led to his arrest and the
subsequent search of the car. Defendant was not initially detained based on
any suspicion that he had committed a crime, so the question becomes
whether the officer had any basis on which to request defendant's license.
If the request for the license was proper, then defendant's arrest was
proper, and the evidence was properly seized.
Viewing the totality of the circumstances, the officer's request for
defendant's license was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances
that justified the initial stop. Champion, supra. It was reasonable that
the officer request defendant's identification, knowing that the owner of
the car was a female. Furthermore, it was reasonable that the officer
briefly question defendant to determine whether his use of the vehicle was
authorized. Finally, it was reasonable that the officer would request
defendant's identification before identifying the passenger. Because the
passenger was a female, the passenger could have been the woman for whom
the warrants had been issued. Nothing in the record suggests that during
the time defendant was detained the officer was not diligently pursuing an
investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel his suspicions quickly.
See People v Chambers, 195 Mich App 118, 123; 489 NW2d 168 (1992). The
scope of the detention was reasonable; thus, the arrest was not unlawful on
the basis that it resulted from an unlawful seizure. Consequently, the
drugs were properly seized during a search incident to a valid arrest.
Reversed. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2-
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
__________________________________________
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, UNPUBLISHED
September 21, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 214551
Muskegon Circuit Court
AARON LASHAWN STUCKEY, a/k/a LC No. 98-038371 AR
AARON LAWSHAWN STUCKEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Hoekstra and Gage, JJ.
CAVANAGH, P.J. (dissenting).
I would affirm, as I would find no reasonable basis for the officer's
stop of the defendant's car.
The majority concludes, "defendant was not initially detained based on
any suspicion that he had committed a crime." If that is so, I can see no
other reason to stop the car, based upon the police officer's observations
and knowledge that the driver, a male, was not the woman with an
outstanding felony warrant for whom he was looking.
I would find the ruling of the circuit court to be appropriate, and
affirm.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-1-
|