Jurisdiction of law enforcement officers outside their geographical boundaries under MCL 764.2a; People v. Hamilton; People v. Collins; People v. Meyer; Probable cause; Bindovers & motions to quash; People v. Waterstone; Preliminary exams; MCR 6.110(A) & (E); MCL 766.13; People v. Yost; Possession of a gun; People v. Minch; People v. Hill; Felon in possession (FIP); MCL 750.224f; People v. Bass; Felony-firearm; MCL 750.227b; People v. Peals; Possession of illegal drugs; People v. Wolfe; Circumstantial evidence & reasonable inferences; People v. Barbee

The court held that defendant’s argument under Meyer was unavailing and in fact supported reversal of the circuit court’s ruling reversing the district court’s bindover decision, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by binding him over for trial. Thus, it reversed and remanded for reinstatement of the charges against him. He was charged with possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less than 450 grams of cocaine, possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin, FIP, and felony-firearm. He moved to quash the information, claiming that the district court erred in binding him over because probable cause was not established that he “possessed the cocaine, heroin, and firearms that were found at a” home in Inkster. Defendant also argued that Detroit police officers “were acting outside of their jurisdiction when they conducted surveillance on him and the home where the drugs were found and then executed a search warrant on the Inkster residence.” The circuit court granted his motion to quash, agreeing with both arguments. It was “undisputed that the Detroit police officers were acting outside of their jurisdiction when they surveilled and executed a search warrant at the” Inkster home. It was also undisputed that they “were not acting in hot pursuit or in conjunction with the Michigan State Police or the Inkster Police Department on” the dates in question. Thus, there was a violation of MCL 764.2a. But pursuant to Hamilton and Collins, the fact that they “acted outside of their jurisdiction in violation of MCL 764.2a did not render the arrest unconstitutional, did not warrant application of the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment relative to the seized evidence, and did not support quashing the information.” However, citing Meyer, defendant argued that “officers acting outside of their jurisdiction may not utilize the power of their office to gather evidence, investigate, or ferret out criminal activity not otherwise observable and then use the information to obtain a search warrant, all of which occurred here, thereby invalidating the warrant on constitutional grounds.” The court rejected this argument, noting that Meyer concluded that the defendant was not entitled to dismissal of the charges against him as a remedy for an officer acting outside his jurisdiction. The circuit court also abused its discretion in finding that the district court lacked probable casue for the bindover.