Motion to suppress; Search & seizure; Probable cause based on collective police knowledge; People v Nguyen; Vehicle search & search incident to arrest; Due process; Officer’s false explanation for a traffic stop; People v Joly; Prosecutorial error; Preservation & plain-error review; People v Carines; Alleged burden shifting; People v McGhee; Curative jury instructions; As-applied challenge to the FIP statute; MCL 750.224f; Second Amendment; New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n Inc v Bruen; Historical tradition of firearm regulation

The court held that defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied, the prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof, and MCL 750.224f was constitutional as applied to him. He was convicted of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, CCW, FIP, and felony-firearm, third or subsequent offense. Police stopped him after two undercover cocaine purchases. The stopping officer falsely cited a stolen-vehicle investigation, and subsequent searches uncovered cocaine and a firearm. The trial court denied defendant’s suppression and dismissal motions. On appeal, the court concluded that the investigating officers’ collective knowledge supplied probable cause to stop and arrest him. The stopping officer’s lack of personal knowledge was irrelevant because “this was a team investigation, and the relevant question is whether the entire police team had probable cause to stop and arrest defendant.” The court also determined that the vehicle search and search incident to arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Defendant’s due-process challenge to the officer’s false explanation likewise failed because “attempting to stall a suspected drug dealer until police backup arrives does not constitute misconduct or an unfair investigatory process.” The court next rejected his unpreserved burden-shifting claim, explaining that “defendant opened the door to the prosecutor’s questions about the unproduced evidence on re-direct examination” by suggesting that the failure to obtain surveillance footage made the investigation unreliable. Even assuming plain error, defendant failed to show that his substantial rights were affected given the brief reference and overwhelming evidence of guilt. Further, “the trial court’s instructions dispelled any prejudice arising from the prosecutor’s questioning.” Finally, the court rejected defendant’s as-applied challenge to MCL 750.224f, finding that the prosecution satisfied Bruen’s historical-tradition requirement. Given his extensive criminal history, including violent and assaultive conduct, “our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation includes prohibiting individuals such as him from possessing firearms, at least until certain requirements are satisfied indicating his willingness and ability to follow the law.” Affirmed.