Search & seizure; Samson v California; People v Tanner; MCL 791.236(19); Distinguishing People v Carr; People v Peterson; People v Richards; People v Hellenthal; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress defendant’s police interview statements; Stipulating to the admission of his parole status; Failure to move to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his house & car; Sentencing; Alleged reliance on acquitted conduct

The court held that defendant did not support his claim “that a parolee’s privacy rights should be decided differently under the Michigan Constitution” than the federal constitution, or that plain error resulted from the trial “court’s failure to suppress the evidence found during the parole search.” Also, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel and he was not entitled to resentencing. He was convicted of possession of meth and sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 46 to 120 months. The case stemmed “from an unscheduled parole compliance check involving the search of” his house and car. He first argued “that the unannounced parole compliance check constituted a warrantless search and that the evidence discovered during the search should have been suppressed.” Defendant claimed “that he was not advised of the conditions of his parole and” that a remand was required. In making this argument, he overlooked “a key point from Samson.” He acknowledged “that he signed a parole order that included a condition consistent with MCL 791.236(19). Under Samson, then, he was unambiguously aware of it. No further explanation of the plain terms of the parole search condition was required.” Defendant also asserted the court “should independently consider the constitutionality of the search under the Michigan Constitution.” The court noted that concurring opinions are not binding on it, “and may only be considered for their persuasive value.” Thus, it was unpersuaded by defendant’s claim, which relied on a Michigan Supreme Court concurrence. Further, defendant merely listed the Tanner “criteria without advancing an original argument as to why the Michigan Constitution should be interpreted differently than the federal constitution with regard to warrantless parole searches.” In addition, to the extent that he tried “to support his argument with citations to caselaw,” the court found the cited cases “inapt.” While defendant cited Carr, this “case is clearly distinguishable, as it involves a parolee, not an incarcerated individual.” Defendant also cited the court’s decisions in Peterson, Richards, and Hellenthal. But each of those cases were issued before 11/90 and thus, were not binding on the court. Affirmed.