Defendant’s conviction of felon in possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute arose from evidence found during a traffic stop. He argued the evidence should have been suppressed because the officer did not have probable cause to pull him over on suspicion of driving
with obstructed vision.

In a revised opinion the court held that in view of the broad scope of Mich. Comp. Law 257.709(1)(c), we cannot accept that police lacked probable cause to stop him based upon the officer initially observing the dangling Tweety Bird.

The court further held the law’s language is unqualified in that an obstruction of any size for any amount of time falls within it. Consequently, the mere sight of the dangling Tweety Bird supplied the quantum of individualized suspicion sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Davis was violating Section 257.709(1)(c).

Thus, the stop was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and the district court correctly denied Davis’ motion to suppress.

Additionally, footnote 2 of the opinion states: “We thank the State of Michigan for submitting its views on whether this law is void for vagueness. Because Davis did not raise the question, we decline to reach it here.”

Therefore, the court did not address the issue regarding the constitutionality of Michigan’s dangling ornament statute because the defendant did not raise it. The case was affirmed. United States v. Davis, case no. 07-1964, decided April 30, 2009.