Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence; Probable cause; Reasonableness; People v Hughes; Particularity requirement; People v DeRousse; Search of a cell phone; People v Carson; Right to a fair trial; Lay witness opinion testimony; MRE 701; Principle that police officers are lay witnesses when not testifying as an expert; People v Fomby; Sentencing; Reasonableness & proportionality; The advisory nature of the guidelines; Consideration of a defendant’s age & health; People v Snow

Finding no errors requiring reversal, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction and sentence. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver more than 50 grams but less than 450 grams of cocaine and sentenced to 160 to 480 months. His conviction arose out of a traffic stop in which he consented to a search and during which officers seized his cell phone. The phone was later searched pursuant to a search warrant. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that his cell phone “was illegally searched and the text messages found should have been suppressed because the search warrant failed to establish probable cause because it only gave generalized facts about [the] arrest and failed the particularity requirement.” The warrant affidavit noted that in the officer’s “‘training and experience, associates communicate together via phone calls, text messages, emails, and social network posts,’ and that ‘[t]hese communications often contain direct and indirect statements about crimes.’” The investigation also showed that defendant, “who did not own the vehicle, traveled for multiple hours, made a brief stop, and then began his return with what turned out to be a significant amount of cocaine and cash.” As such, it was reasonable for the officer “to believe that defendant would have communications related to this trip on his” cell phone. In addition, although the affidavit failed to satisfy the particularity requirement, the court was not convinced that without the text messages, “the jury would have found defendant not guilty.” It also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by admitting an officer’s testimony about whether defendant was lying when he said he was unaware of anything in the vehicle the trooper should be aware of. It noted that the officer was not testifying as an expert. “His testimony, that he believed defendant was lying to him, was based on his perception and was helpful in understanding his testimony regarding the steps of the investigation.” And his testimony “that he finds illegal things while conducting consent searches ‘all the time,’” was also not improper. Finally, the court rejected his contention that he was entitled to resentencing because his sentence was disproportionate and unreasonable due to his advanced age and poor health. “The trial court properly considered the Snow factors, and relied heavily on the final two factors of protecting the community and deterrence of others in delivering defendant’s sentence. Specifically, [it] noted the large amount of cocaine [he] was convicted of possessing, from which the community needed to be protected.”