Motions to suppress preliminary breath test (PBT) results; Probable cause; “Reasonable cause”; MCL 257.625a(2); People v Olson (Unpub); Search warrant for a vehicle’s event data recorder (EDR); Good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule

Although the court agreed “that ‘reasonable cause’ in this situation equates to probable cause, the trial court did not err by denying defendant’s motion to suppress the PBT results because the officers had probable cause.” Also, as to the EDR from his vehicle, the trial court did not err by holding “that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule would apply.” Defendant was charged with OWI causing death. As to his motions to suppress his PBT results, he argued “the officers did not have ‘reasonable cause’ to administer the PBT.” He contended that “reasonable cause” under MCL 257.625a(2) “equates to probable cause, and that, because the officers did not have probable cause, suppression of the PBT results was required.” The prosecution equated the term to “reasonable suspicion.” The court agreed with defendant’s position. It expressly adopted “Olson’s analysis concluding that ‘reasonable cause’ under MCL 257.625a equates to probable cause.” However, it found that “the totality of the circumstances demonstrates that the police had reasonable cause to administer the PBT in this case.” Defendant also argued “that the search warrant for the EDR in his vehicle lacked sufficient probable cause and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule” did not apply. The court held that even if it accepted his “argument that the affidavit was insufficient, the evidence obtained from the EDR would still be admissible at trial.” It found that “the facts were sufficient to suspect that a crime had taken place and the EDR could aid officers in making that determination.” It noted that “at the hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the EDR evidence, the trial court admitted that the affidavit ‘could have been better[,]’ but nonetheless found that it was supported by probable cause because there was ‘some field sobriety information provided at the point in which [the officer’s] affidavit was done and I’m assuming they had the PBT results at the time that this affidavit was done, and could have included that.’ The officer did not indicate that defendant was intoxicated in the affidavit, but he had personal knowledge of this fact on which he could rely when executing the search warrant. Thus, he would not have viewed his affidavit as so lacking in indicia of probable cause that his belief in the existence of probable cause was rendered unreasonable.” Affirmed.