Federal Case Law United States Supreme Court

The defendant was a passenger in the back seat of a vehicle stopped for a license plate check. The police officer found that the insurance on the vehicle had been suspended.

After the traffic stop, the police officer initiated a conversation with the defendant that was unrelated to the reason for the traffic stop. Thereafter, the officer asked the defendant to exit the vehicle. The officer conducted a patdown search of the defendant because she was concerned for her safety upon noticing signs that he may have been affiliated with a gang.

During the pat-down search, the officer found a gun near his waist; he was arrested, and a further search found marihuana. The defendant was charged with possessing a gun without legal authorization, possession of marihuana, and resisting arrest.

The defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied his motion, and he was convicted of the gun and marihuana counts, but not the resisting arrest charge. The defendant appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress, and the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed his conviction.

The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled that the pat-down search was improper because the encounter with the defendant had become consensual by the time the search was conducted. The Arizona Supreme Court denied review. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Arizona Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that “a reasonable passenger would understand that during the time a car is lawfully stopped, he or she is not free to terminate the encounter with police and move about at will.” The Court further held that “nothing occurred in this case that would have conveyed to the defendant that, prior to the frisk, the traffic stop had ended or that he was otherwise free to depart without police permission.”

Therefore, the Court concluded that the officer was not required by the Fourth Amendment to give the defendant an opportunity to depart without first ensuring that, in so doing, she was not permitting a dangerous person to get behind her. Arizona v. Johnson, case no. 07-1122, decided January 26, 2009.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

United States v. Davis

MCL 257.709(1)(c) prohibits driving with “a dangling ornament or other suspended object that obstructs the vision of the driver of the vehicle, except as authorized by law.”

A Westland police officer observed that the defendant had in his vehicle a four-inch tall “Tweety Bird” airfreshener doll hanging from his rearview mirror. Immediately thereafter, the officer stopped the defendant on suspicion for violating MCL 257.709(1)(c).

When the officer asked for the defendant’s driver’s license, the defendant admitted he did not have one. The officer then placed the defendant under arrest. During a search incident to an arrest, the officer found approximately 24 grams of cocaine base, and a loaded pistol. The United States Attorney’s Office charged the defendant with being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, but the district court denied his motion. The defendant pled guilty to both offenses and was sentenced to 188 months in prison. He appealed the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress.

The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals held that MCL 257.709(1)(c) was unconstitutionally vague. In analyzing the statute, the Court stated as follows:

“Going forward, however, reliance on MICH. COMP. LAWS 257.709(1) (c) to justify similar stops will not suffice. Michigan has a constitutional duty to regulate dangling ornaments in a way that more clearly conveys the vehicular safety purpose of the statute and provides better guidance to the law enforcement officials that enforce it. Otherwise, we risk authorizing “a standardless sweep [that] allows policemen, prosecutors, and juries to pursue their personal predilections” in enforcing this law.”

It should be noted that the defendant’s conviction was affirmed on other grounds (i.e. good faith exception to the exclusionary rule applied in this situation).

United States v. Davis, No. 07-1964, released December 19, 2008.

Note: On December 31, 2008, the court withdrew its decision in this case. While no reason was given by the court for the withdrawal, the most likely reason is that the decision violated a federal law requiring the courts to give proper notice to states when they determine that a law is unconstitutional. It is anticipated that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals will render a revised opinion to its original opinion.

People v. Mullen

Officer Frank Shuler saw defendant’s car stop at a red traffic light, pause for a few seconds, and then proceed through the red light. The officer effectuated a traffic stop, and when he approached the driver’s side window, he smelled alcohol, and noticed the defendant’s eyes were bloodshot and watery. The officer requested the defendant to perform field sobriety tests, which the defendant failed.

The officer then conducted a preliminary breath test (PBT). He testified at the preliminary examination that he checked defendant’s mouth before placing him in the back of the patrol car, waited 15 minutes, and then administered the test.

Officer Shuler further testified that he checked defendant’s mouth, and found it to be empty, but he subsequently admitted that, when he began to read defendant his PBT rights, he noticed that defendant had a little piece of paper in his mouth. Defendant’s PBT result was 0.15.

The officer did not disclose in his affidavit that the defendant had paper in his mouth less than 15 minutes before he conducted the PBT.

Based on the affidavit, the magistrate issued a search warrant for a blood sample. The blood test revealed that defendant had a blood alcohol content of 0.11. Defendant was charged, as a third offender, with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated.

The Circuit Court found that the officer recklessly omitted information that the defendant had paper in his mouth less than 15 minutes before the administration of the PBT.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the omission by the Officer of the fact that the defendant had paper in his mouth was not material, because defendant presented insufficient evidence that the presence of paper in his mouth would significantly call into question the accuracy of the PBT result. The court further concluded that the remaining information in the search warrant, even when the improperly omitted information is removed, is sufficient to form probable cause to issue a search warrant for the defendant’s blood. “When reviewing a search warrant affidavit, we must read it in a “common sense and realistic manner, not a crabbed or hypertechinal manner.”

The court found that the circuit court erred in determining that a reasonable magistrate would not have found probable cause to issue a redacted search warrant.

The court reversed and remanded the case to the circuit court.

People v. Mullen, case no. 281202, released December 23, 2008.