Search & seizure; Traffic stop; Investigatory stop; People v Mazzie; Separation of powers; Const 1963, art 3, § 2; MCL 257.227; MCL 500.3101a; Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)

Holding that defendant’s traffic stop was valid, the court affirmed his convictions. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver meth, CCW, resisting or obstructing a police officer, and felony-firearm after a traffic stop and inventory search revealed drugs, drug paraphernalia, ammunition, and a knife. The trial court denied his motion to suppress. While his appeal was pending, he moved for a new trial, which the trial court also denied. On appeal, the court rejected his argument that the officer (D) did not have a valid basis for his traffic stop. “Regardless of the parties’ arguments as to whether the defective tailpipe served an adequate basis for the stop, the prosecution correctly explain[ed] on appeal that the tailpipe only served to pique” D’s interest. It “was actually the lack of insurance for the truck that led to the traffic stop.” And an “officer may rely on LEIN information that a vehicle is uninsured as a proper basis to stop a vehicle. Thus, the traffic stop was valid.” The court also rejected his claim that the Secretary of State violated the separation of powers by providing the electronic insurance information to law enforcement through LEIN. “Separation-of-powers issues arise when one branch of government impermissibly encroaches on the authority of another branch.” There was no evidence here “that the Secretary of State ever encroached on the Legislature’s authority. Indeed, defendant’s unsupported separation-of-powers claim seems to be merely an alternative argument seeking evidence suppression—an argument that we previously rejected when we held that suppression of evidence is not the correct remedy in response to an alleged violation of” MCL 257.227 or MCL 500.3101a.