Motion to suppress; MCR 6.110(D)(2)(a); People v Kaufman; Search & seizure; People v Pagano; Warrantless search; People v Hughes; The search incident to arrest exception; People v Nguyen; Probable cause; Right to present a defense; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v Vaughn; Trial strategy; People v Rockey; Right of confrontation; United States v Owens; Exculpatory evidence; Brady v Maryland; Identity; Photographic lineup; Unlawful driving away of an automobile (UDAA)

Holding that there were no errors requiring reversal, and that defense counsel was not ineffective, the court affirmed defendant’s convictions. He was convicted of first-degree home invasion, larceny of a firearm, UDAA, FIP, and felony-firearm. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress, noting that because the trooper had probable cause to believe defendant committed the felony of resisting or obstructing a police officer, his arrest of defendant was lawful and constitutional, as was the subsequent search of his backpack. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by denying his request for an evidentiary hearing regarding his renewed motion to suppress. “Considering defendant’s failure to identify what additional testimony might come from the evidentiary hearing and how it would support his claim, [his] argument on appeal regarding the evidentiary hearing” was unpersuasive. The court next rejected his contention that the trial court abused its discretion by limiting his ability to cross-examine an officer regarding the facts of a federal case, noting it properly allowed defendant to cross-examine the officer “about all relevant topics, including his character for truthfulness, as a result of the federal court’s findings.” And counsel was not ineffective for failing to argue that the trial court’s limitation would prevent counsel from fully exploring the officer’s alleged bias. The court further rejected his argument that the prosecution committed a Brady violation, noting that “information held by the federal government and federal law enforcement could not be imputed to the prosecution in this case.” Finally, it rejected his claim that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress a witness’s identification of him, both from the pretrial photographic lineup and during trial, because of an unduly suggestive photographic lineup. “Defendant’s argument that the photographic lineup was impermissible and inadmissible because it was not a corporeal lineup and because his counsel was not present during the process is similarly unpersuasive.”