Motion to quash bindover order; Search & seizure; Fourth Amendment; Automobile exception to the warrant requirement; Investigatory traffic stop; Reasonable suspicion; Navarette v California; Terry v Ohio; Parking in the curtilage of one’s home; United States v Dunn; Distinguishing Collins v Virginia; People v Lyons; Attempted seizure initiated on the roadway before defendant turned into his driveway; “Be on the look out” (BOLO)

Concluding that the patrol officer initiated the investigatory stop and seizure of defendant on the roadway, before he turned into his driveway, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to quash the bindover order. He argued “he was subject to unconstitutional seizure and investigation when the police” seized him in the curtilage of his home, and that he was “entitled to the suppression of any evidence obtained” as a result. In determining whether there was reasonable suspicion for a Terry stop, the court considered all the evidence up to when he “complied with the command to remain in the vehicle. Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances, including, but not limited to, defendant driving his vehicle multiple times on the white parking line, nearly striking a curb while turning, his refusal to stop his vehicle until about 9 to 10 seconds after the police cruiser’s flashers were illuminated, and the BOLO call, the officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was operating his vehicle while intoxicated[.]” The officer testified that defendant stopped his vehicle “in the curtilage of his home.” While defendant relied on Collins, the court found it distinguishable. The officer communicated to him “that he was being seized for purposes of a traffic stop on the roadway, i.e., the attempted seizure was initiated on the public roadway, not in the curtilage[.]” The court concluded “no reasonable person would believe that they were free to leave at the time the officer turned on her overhead lights.” The incident took place late at night with “no other traffic on the road.” Thus, any reasonable person “at that time would have known they were required to pull over to the side of the road as soon as the flashers were illuminated behind them. At that moment, the officer was exercising her lawful authority to stop defendant, just like the officer in Lyons. Instead of complying with the officer, [he] ignored her, pulled into his driveway, and did not stop until he was at the curtilage of his” home. MCL 257.653 very clearly “does not say that a driver may pull into a driveway when the emergency vehicle approaches with flashing lights, it says they must immediately pull to the side of the road and stop.” Affirmed.