Motion to suppress evidence of a firearm & less than 25 grams of heroin the police secured following a search of a vehicle in which the defendant was traveling as a passenger; People v. Tavernier; People v. Houstina; Arizona v. Gant; Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW)

On remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, the court held that the search of the minivan the defendant was traveling in and the safe contained in the minivan were lawful as incident to his arrest. Thus, it reversed the trial court’s suppression order and remanded. He was charged with CCW, possession of less than 25 grams of heroin, felony-firearm, and possession of marijuana. He moved to suppress evidence of a firearm and less than 25 grams of heroin that the police secured following a search of a minivan in which he was traveling as a passenger. On appeal, the thrust of the prosecution’s challenges to the trial court’s suppression order was that the minivan defendant was traveling in and the safe contained in the minivan were lawful as incident to his arrest. The record evidence adduced at the suppression hearing confirmed that it was reasonable for Officer J to suspect that evidence relevant to the crime of arrest would be yielded following a search of the minivan and safe. The court is “required to evaluate the totality of the circumstances leading up to the search, looking at the facts that were available to [J], and, deferring to his law enforcement experience, determine the legality of the search he undertook on that basis.” J testified that “he pursued the vehicle defendant was traveling in after receiving a call regarding a nearby disturbance and where the vehicle matched the description given by the caller to a 911 dispatcher.” The vehicle defendant was traveling in was stopped because it had an improper license plate. He initially lied to J and gave him an alias. After being confronted by police, he admitted that he had multiple outstanding warrants. He also admitted to police as he got out of the minivan that he was in possession of marijuana. Under these facts, it was certainly reasonable for J to conclude that “evidence relevant to the offense of marijuana possession would be retrieved following a search of the minivan and the safe.”