Search & seizure; Motion to suppress; People v Williams; Expert testimony on drug trafficking; MRE 702; People v Murray; Prosecutorial error; Post-arrest, post-Miranda silence; People v Shafier; Denigrating defense counsel; Vouching; Sentencing; Allocution; MCR 6.425(D)(1)(c)(ii); People v Dixon-Bey; Proportionality; People v Posey (On Remand)

The court held that the traffic stop, search, evidentiary rulings, and trial proceedings did not warrant reversal of defendant’s conviction, but that his sentence had to be vacated because he was denied a meaningful opportunity for allocution. Police stopped defendant after observing traffic violations following surveillance in a high-crime area. They searched him with his consent, recovered about 79.2 grams of meth from inside multiple layers of underwear, and later found drug-sale messages and photos on his phone. The trial court denied suppression, qualified an officer as an expert in local drug trafficking, and sentenced defendant as a fourth-offense habitual offender to 17 to 50 years for possession with intent to deliver meth. On appeal, the court held that the initial stop was lawful because officers had probable cause for traffic violations, and the continued detention was reasonable because defendant’s explanation created additional suspicion before he consented to a search. It also found that the brief exposure during the roadside search did not make the search unconstitutional and that the plain-feel exception applied. The court next held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony because drug-profile testimony is a recognized field and could help explain the significance of the seized items. It further found that the prosecutor’s remarks did not deny defendant a fair trial, although one brief comment on silence “should not have been made[.]” But the court held that resentencing was required because “allocution is the defendant’s opportunity to address the court, not the court’s opportunity to conduct an interrogation or deliver a lecture[,]” and defendant was given only an “‘illusory and superficial opportunity for allocution.’” The court rejected his proportionality challenge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for resentencing.