A Semi-Trailer on a Michigan Truck does not have to be Registered in Michigan.

The plaintiffs are Michigan-based trucking companies operating in interstate commerce. The trucks are registered in Michigan, but their trailers have been registered in Maine. The case arises out of the Michigan State Police Motor Carrier Division’s decision to issue civil infraction citations because of the plaintiff’s failure to display on their trailers a valid Michigan registration plate in violation of MCL 257.255(1).

The plaintiffs argued that they are not required to register their trailers in Michigan because they participate in the International Registration Plan (IRP). The IRP permits them to register their trucks annually in one “base’ jurisdiction and to obtain credentials to operate in other jurisdictions. The defendants asserted that the IRP should be interpreted to require trailer registration in the jurisdiction where the registrant’s apportioned vehicles are registered.

The trial court concluded that the plain language of Section 404 of the IRP allowed the plaintiffs to register their trailers in any member jurisdiction and to be given full and free reciprocity on Michigan highways. The Court of Appeals agreed. The Court concluded that Michigan must grant full and free reciprocity to trailers properly registered in any member jurisdiction under Section 404. Behnke v. State of Michigan, case no. 272010, released February 21, 2008.

The Bright Line Rule for Searches Incident to a Lawful Arrest.

The issue presented in this case is whether a police office may permissibly search a car incident to a passenger’s arrest where prior to the search there is no probable cause to believe that the car contained contraband or to believe the driver and owner of the car had engaged in any unlawful activity.

Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Deputy Ryan Stuck lawfully initiated a traffic stop of a car driven by the defendant. Mark Dixon was the sole passenger in the car. Upon request, the defendant produced the vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Deputy Stuck also requested the occupants’ driver’s license and ran LEIN checks on both Dixon and the defendant. Deputy Stuck found that Dixon had two outstanding warrants issued for failing to appear in court to answer traffic violations. Deputy Stuck arrested Dixon.

Deputy Stuck directed the defendant to step out of his car, where Deputy Stuck conducted a pat-down search. Thereafter, Deputy Stuck searched the defendant’s car, and he found an unloaded gun in a case underneath the driver seat and ammunition in the glove box. The defendant LEIN check did not reveal that he was issued a concealed weapons permit. Deputy Stuck arrested the defendant for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to MCL 750.227.

In the circuit court, the defendant moved to quash the Felony Information and to suppress the evidence of the gun. The prosecutor relied on New York v. Belton, 453 US 454 (1981), to argue that the arrest of any person justifies the search of the passenger compartment of that car. The circuit court held that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant and therefore, the search of his car was not constitutionally permissible. The prosecutor appealed.

The Court of Appeals, relying on Belton, stated that “Deputy Stuck made an arrest of Dixon, an occupant of the vehicle owned and operated by the defendant.” Consequently, Deputy Stuck was constitutionally permitted to conduct a search of the passenger compartment of defendant’s car.

The Court reversed and remanded for entry of an order denying the defendant’s motion to suppress the gun and for reinstatement of the charges. People v. Mungo, case no. 269250, released January 17, 2008.