Motion to quash bindover, resisting or obstructing

Motion to quash bindover; Resisting or obstructing; MCL 750.81d(1); Failure to exit the vehicle & to remove face covering; Provision of false identification

The court held that “the prosecution presented evidence satisfying the elements of resisting or obstructing under the probable-cause standard with respect to defendant’s failure to exit the vehicle and his failure to identify himself[.]” Thus, it affirmed the district court’s bindover decision. He was charged with assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer. He unsuccessfully moved to quash the bindover. The court found as “an initial matter, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to bind defendant over on the theory that he resisted or obstructed by failing to remove his face covering when asked.” It noted that according “to the deputy’s testimony, he asked defendant to remove his face covering after defendant was handcuffed and detained in the deputy’s cruiser. The district court found that, assuming [he] was handcuffed behind his back, he could not have complied with the request to remove his face covering.” The court saw “no error in that finding. The prosecution did not present evidence establishing whether defendant’s hands were cuffed behind his back or in front of his person.” As to his “failure to exit the vehicle upon command,” defendant did not comply for one to two minutes. The court held that the “district court erred as a matter of law by concluding that this did not provide a basis for bindover because [he] ultimately voluntarily complied.” It was immaterial that he “eventually complied because ‘the duration of the resistance . . . is of no import, as resistance can occur in even the briefest of moments.’” As to providing false identification, the court agreed “with defendant that the district court erred by basing its probable-cause finding on an assumption that the deputy’s command to defendant to identify himself was lawful.” However, the record supported “the conclusion that the deputy’s command was lawful. Based on the syringes found on the driver, the driver’s connection to the shoplifting incident, defendant’s frantic covering of his arms and face, the lighter found on [his] person, and [his] erratic behavior, [the deputy] had a particularized and objective basis to suspect that defendant was engaged in the possession or use of narcotics.” Thus, he “had reasonable suspicion that defendant was engaged in criminal activity and could lawfully command [him] to identify himself.” The court held that the “district court did not abuse its discretion in binding [him] over for trial on the basis of his failure to comply with that lawful command.”