Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; Warrantless arrest; Reasonable suspicion; Terry v Ohio; Distinguishing People v Prude; Probable cause; Warrantless search; Legitimate expectation of privacy; Principle that visitors in a house do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy; People v Parker; Exigent circumstances; People v Trapp (On Remand); Potential destruction of evidence; People v Blasius; Kentucky v King; Comparing People v Houze; The protective-sweep exception; People v Beuschlein

Holding that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-Hall’s motion to suppress, but did err by denying defendant-Williams’s motion to suppress, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in these consolidated appeals. Defendants were charged with operating a chop shop and other offenses. The trial court denied their motions to suppress. On appeal, the court rejected Hall’s argument that he was seized without a warrant, without reasonable suspicion pursuant to Terry, and without probable cause. It found the “officers had probable cause to believe [he] was involved in the operation of a chop shop and the receiving or concealing of stolen property.” It also rejected his claim that the warrantless search of Williams’s property violated his (Hall’s) constitutional rights. To the extent he claimed the search was illegal, he “waived this issue because he specifically stated that he did not have standing to challenge the search. That being said, had [he] not waived the issue, we would be required to hold that he had no reasonable expectation of privacy[.]” The court next rejected Williams’s contention that no warrant exception applied to the warrantless search of his backyard. “Considering the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that the defendants appeared to be actively stripping a vehicle when the officers arrived (which inherently constitutes destroying evidence of the stolen vehicle), and the fact that the helicopter pilot witnessed one of the suspects try to get rid of a firearm, they supported the officers' assertion that there was an imminent risk of removal of evidence pursuant to Blasius, or the imminent destruction of evidence pursuant to King.” Finally, however, the court agreed with Williams that the police violated his rights by entering his home and garage without a warrant, finding the prosecution did not meet its burden to show that the searches were justified by a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.