Motion to suppress; Fourth Amendment; Search incident to arrest; Probable cause to arrest; People v Champion; Driving while license suspended or revoked (DWLS) arrest authority; MCL 764.15(1)(a); “Quickly on the heels” doctrine; People v Nguyen; Facial challenge to the FIP statute; MCL 750.224f; People v Hughes; Facial challenge to the CCW statute; MCL 750.227; People v Langston

The court held that the handgun and drugs were admissible because the search was valid as incident to arrest where probable cause existed to arrest defendant for DWLS. It also held that MCL 750.224f and MCL 750.227 are not facially unconstitutional. During a traffic stop, the officer learned defendant was driving with a revoked license. After arresting the passenger on an outstanding warrant and finding drugs on her, the officer searched defendant and found “eleven individually packaged corner ties” of suspected crack cocaine and a “loaded handgun” in his underwear. Defendant unsuccessfully sought suppression, arguing the detention was improperly extended and the search lacked probable cause or consent. The court upheld denial of suppression because defendant conceded probable cause existed to arrest him for DWLS, and under MCL 764.15(1)(a) the officer could arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in the officer’s presence. It reiterated that a search incident to arrest “‘may occur whenever there is probable cause to arrest,’” and that “‘a search conducted immediately before an arrest may be justified’” if probable cause existed beforehand. It also applied the rule that a search is valid when the arrest follows “quickly on the heels” of the search. Thus, the search was lawful “regardless if drugs were found on” the passenger. As to the unpreserved constitutional challenge, the court rejected defendant’s claim that the FIP and CCW statutes are facially unconstitutional. It relied on binding Court of Appeals precedent rejecting the same attacks, including that felon dispossession laws remain “‘presumptively lawful regulatory measures’” and that Michigan’s “shall-issue” concealed carry licensing scheme does not violate the Second Amendment. Affirmed.