Resisting or obstructing; Lawfulness of police conduct; MCL 750.81d(1); People v Quinn; Unlawful arrest; Right to resist; People v Moreno; Warrantless misdemeanor arrest; MCL 764.15; People v Trapp; Disturbing the peace; MCL 750.170; MCL 750.504; Investigatory detention; Terry v Ohio; De facto arrest; Abandoned claims; People v Bowling

The court held that defendant was entitled to dismissal of the resisting-or-obstructing charge arising from his initial seizure because he had a right to resist unlawful police conduct, but he failed to show entitlement to dismissal of charges stemming from his conduct at the jail and during transport to the hospital. Police responded to a report that defendant was yelling and possibly intoxicated, but when they arrived he was lying on the ground with his dog and “not engaging in any unlawful or bothersome activity.” The officers handcuffed him, patted him down, and walked him to a patrol vehicle for possible disturbing the peace, a 90-day misdemeanor. He resisted getting into the police vehicle and later struggled with officers at the jail. And while being transported to the hospital after the cell altercation, he bit a paramedic. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss the charges against him and quash the felony information. On appeal, the court first held that the officers could not lawfully arrest defendant for the disturbing the peace offense because MCL 764.15 permits a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor committed outside an officer’s presence only when the misdemeanor is punishable by “more than 92 days,” while disturbing the peace is punishable by “not more than 90 days.” The court also rejected the prosecution’s effort to characterize the seizure as only a detention because the officers’ conduct “went far beyond the permissible limits of a Terry stop,” especially where defendant was handcuffed and forced toward the patrol car when he was not acting disruptively and could not lawfully be arrested for the reported conduct. Relying on Moreno and Trapp, the court held that “‘the seizure, whatever its label, was unreasonable,’” so defendant had a right to resist and the resisting-or-obstructing charge based on that initial encounter had to be quashed. But the court declined to dismiss the remaining charges because he offered only a “sparse and conclusory” argument and failed to provide “meaningful argument or legal authority” showing that the later conduct in the holding cell and ambulance was protected resistance. Reversed in part and remanded.