Reasonable suspicion for traffic stop; Kansas v Glover; Use of dashcam video; Credibility findings; MCL 257.649; People v Kavanaugh; Plain view seizure of firearm in vehicle; MCL 750.227; People v Champion

The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop and that the handgun and magazine were properly seized under the plain view doctrine, so the trial court correctly denied defendant’s motion to suppress and her conviction for carrying a pistol in a vehicle without a license was affirmed. Defendant turned left from a side street into the officers’ lane, allegedly rolling through a stop sign and forcing the patrol car to brake abruptly, and during the resulting stop the officers saw a handgun in a stack of papers and a magazine in the glove box when defendant retrieved paperwork for her registration and insurance. The trial court reviewed the dashcam footage, found that defendant failed to stop and to yield, credited the officers’ testimony, and ruled that the stop and seizure were lawful. On appeal, the court reviewed the same video and agreed it did not clearly show whether defendant came to a complete stop but noted that it corroborated the officers by showing abrupt braking and a vehicle moving at a constant speed through the intersection. Deferring to the trial court’s credibility findings, the court concluded that the trial court did not “err by finding that the officers observed [defendant] ignore a stop sign and fail to yield to oncoming traffic,” and that “the traffic stop was at least justified by reasonable suspicion that defendant committed a civil infraction.” Turning to the seizure, the court emphasized that the officers were lawfully present during a valid stop, that the firearm and magazine were plainly visible when defendant opened the glove box, and that their incriminating character was immediately apparent because it is illegal to carry a pistol in a vehicle without a license. It held that “the warrantless seizure of the magazine and firearm did not violate” defendant’s “rights, and the trial court did not err when it denied her motion to suppress.”