Traffic stop; Pretext; Fourth Amendment; Const 1963, art 1, § 11; Whren v United States; Prolonged detention; Parolee search; MCL 791.236(19); Standing; Drug-profile testimony; Narcotics expert; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Within-guidelines sentence; Proportionality; People v Posey

The court held that defendant failed to establish error requiring suppression, ineffective assistance, improper drug-profile testimony, or a disproportionate sentence. Defendant was convicted after police used a parolee informant to arrange a drug buy, stopped the vehicle in which he was riding, and found cocaine, meth, and marijuana in the windshield-wiper cowl. On appeal, the court first rejected the pretext-stop challenge because Michigan follows Whren, under which “subjective intentions play no role in ordinary Fourth Amendment probable-cause analysis[,]” and counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise a futile argument. The court next held that the detention and search were not unconstitutional because officers had information from the informant, saw a tequila bottle in the vehicle, and all occupants were parolees. It reasoned that “‘parolees have severely diminished privacy expectations,’” and MCL 791.236(19) subjected defendant to warrantless searches. The court also rejected the drug-profile claim because the narcotics expert explained the significance of drug quantities, packaging, and lack of paraphernalia, but “did not opine that defendant was guilty.” Counsel was not ineffective because he used the testimony to show the case lacked features of a “typical” drug dealer. Finally, the court held that the within-guidelines sentences were proportionate. It reasoned that the trial court considered “the nature of the offense and the defendant’s background,” including his parole status, criminal history, community impact, and mitigation materials. Affirmed.