e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 75322
Opinion Date : 04/22/2021
e-Journal Date : 05/04/2021
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : People v. Mineau
Practice Area(s) : Criminal Law
Judge(s) : Per Curiam - Murray, Markey, and Letica
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Motion to suppress evidence; Search & seizure; People v Mead; Exceptions to the warrant requirement; People v Kazmierczak; The automobile exception; People v Levine; Probable cause; People v Cohen

Summary

Holding that the initial search of defendant’s vehicle for alcohol and the subsequent search for narcotics or controlled substances were supported by probable cause, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress. He was arrested after the traffic stop and charged with possession of meth. He unsuccessfully moved to suppress the meth seized during the stop, claiming police lacked probable cause to search his car. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court erred by denying his motion because the deputy did not have probable cause to search the vehicle. It noted that the deputy knew defendant’s passengers (two 17-year-old girls) “had a history of underage drinking.” In addition, defendant and the girls “gave inconsistent accounts about where they were coming from, although defendant admitted that he had just purchased alcohol at a store, and one of the underage girls said that the alcohol was between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat.” Under the circumstances, “a reasonable person would have a substantial basis to infer a fair probability that evidence of defendant’s furnishing alcohol to minors would be found in the minivan.” The court also rejected his claim that even if the deputy had probable cause to search his vehicle for alcohol, he did not have probable cause to search for narcotics. Based on his experience, the deputy determined “there was a substantial chance the pills” in an unlabeled prescription bottle between the driver’s seat and the front passenger seat “were narcotics or controlled substances.” As a result, he “had a substantial basis for inferring a fair probability that he would find additional narcotics in the vehicle, and he could therefore search all containers within the vehicle reasonably likely to contain narcotics. This includes the pack of cigarettes found on the floor behind the driver’s seat, which held the meth[].”

Full PDF Opinion