Search & seizure; Traffic stop; Articulable & reasonable suspicion; People v Campbell; Warrantless arrest for an offense committed in a peace officer’s presence; MCL 764.15(1)(a); “Search incident to arrest” exception to the warrant requirement; Arizona v Gant; People v Toohey; Double jeopardy; Convictions & sentences for felony-firearm & FIP; People v Thigpen; Proportionality & reasonableness of a within-guidelines sentence; People v Posey

The court held that (1) the initial traffic stop of defendant’s vehicle was a justified, reasonable seizure, (2) he was lawfully arrested, and (3) the search of his person and vehicle were lawful. Further, pursuant to Michigan Supreme Court precedent, his convictions and sentences for FIP and felony-firearm did not violate double jeopardy. Finally, he failed to show any unusual circumstances that would render his presumptively proportionate within-guidelines sentences unreasonable or disproportionate. He was also convicted of CCW and possession of a controlled substance, second or subsequent offense. He was sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Before the stop was effectuated, a police detective (E) observed multiple statutory violations – there was no insurance on the vehicle, defendant was not wearing a seat belt, a taillight was out, and the window tints appeared to be illegal. And because E “witnessed defendant operating an uninsured vehicle—which constitutes a misdemeanor, under MCL 500.3102(2)—defendant was lawfully arrested.” Further, pursuant to the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement, “his person was lawfully searched upon his arrest. A baggy containing cocaine and” meth was found in his front pocket. E “testified that because illegal drugs were found on defendant, officers proceeded to search the vehicle, where they found a firearm. The vehicle search was lawful because: (1) it was reasonable to believe that evidence relevant to the discovered drugs might be found in the vehicle, and (2) the vehicle was being impounded following defendant’s valid arrest.” As to his sentencing challenge, he offered no “compelling argument to overcome the presumption of proportionality.” His claim that he had almost no criminal record was “undermined by the fact that he had eight prior felony convictions, three prior adult misdemeanors, and two juvenile adjudications.” The court concluded that, in crafting the “sentences, the trial court properly considered defendant’s: (1) extensive criminal history, (2) misrepresentation about his ability to stay crime-free, (3) lack of accountability, and (4) failure to appear for his first and second scheduled sentencing hearings.” Affirmed.