Motion to quash bindover on a charge of misconduct in office (MCL 750.505); Common law definition; People v Perkins; Whether the reasonableness of defendant’s actions was a question of law; Probable cause; People v Anderson; Consideration of departmental policies & a police report; Relevance; Michigan State Police (MSP)

Holding that the circuit court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to quash his bindover on a charge of misconduct in office under MCL 750.505, the court affirmed. The case arose from an altercation between defendant, a former MSP trooper, and another man (W). The court noted that the issues were “whether the prosecution established probable cause that defendant committed misfeasance or malfeasance with a corrupt intent.” The prosecution framed his “wrongdoing as a violation of the Fourth Amendment based on an unreasonable seizure and the use of excessive force.” He first contended “that the reasonableness of his actions was a question of law and that the circuit court erred by determining it was a question of fact.” But he conceded “that at common law, the reasonableness of an individual’s conduct is a question of fact for the jury. . . . Further, misconduct in office is a common-law offense, so it follows that the reasonableness of [his] actions was a question of fact.” He nonetheless argued, relying heavily on federal cases, “that the reasonableness of a police officer’s conduct under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law.” But the court found his cited authorities distinguishable. And it noted that his position would necessarily require the district “court to weigh the evidence, which it was not permitted to do at the preliminary examination stage.” He also asserted “the district court erred by finding probable cause to bind him over on the charge of misconduct in office.” The court found that his “argument largely pertains to matters of weight, which the district court was not tasked with handling.” In essence, he focused “on the testimony supporting his position and puts forward his own interpretation of the video footage. However, the video footage speaks for itself, and there was ample evidence that justified the bindover.” The court concluded that the “prosecution presented sufficient evidence that defendant’s seizure of [W] was unreasonable, and therefore a wrongful act constituting malfeasance or a lawful act done in a wrongful manner constituting misfeasance.” In addition, it “presented evidence that defendant’s use of force was excessive, which again, could constitute malfeasance or misfeasance.” Thus, the court held that the “district court properly found probable cause to bind defendant over, and the circuit court properly denied” his motion to quash. It also rejected his evidentiary arguments.