Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v DAMON BEUSCHLEIN, Defendant-Appellant.

FOR PUBLICATION May 11, 2001 9:15 a.m. No. 222317 Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 99-000764-FH Updated Copy July 6, 2001

Before: Saad, P.J., and Griffin and R. B. Burns*, JJ. GRIFFIN, J. Defendant appeals by leave granted an order denying his motion to suppress evidence discovered in a search of his home without a warrant. We affirm. In doing so, we hold that the entry and search without a warrant were reasonable under both the exigent circumstances and emergency aid warrant exceptions. I Defendant is charged with possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv), possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, and domestic assault, MCL 750.81(2). In the trial court, defendant moved to suppress evidence of cocaine and a firearm1 found in his home by police responding to a 911 call regarding domestic violence at defendant's address. The only witness to testify at the evidentiary hearing that was held regarding defendant's motion was Officer John Dubois. Officer Dubois testified that he was dispatched in response to an "open 9-1-1 call," in which the caller failed to hang up. According to the dispatch, there was a Although defendant is charged with felony-firearm, no reference was made to the discovery of a gun at the suppression hearing.
______________________________________
1

* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1-

domestic incident in progress, possibly involving guns and knives. When Officer Dubois arrived with his partner, Officer Noble, he went to the front door of defendant's mobile home and identified himself as a police officer. He knocked on the door, but no one answered. He then attempted to gain entry into the house, but the door was locked. He explained that he could hear "wrestling or moving around, a lot of shuffling around" inside the house. Approximately one or two minutes after Officer Dubois' arrival, a woman he identified as "Ms. Collier" answered the door. Officer Dubois ordered her to lie on the floor, and he and Officer Noble entered the home with their guns drawn. The officers spotted defendant in the back bedroom of the mobile home and ordered him to come out and lie on the hallway floor. Officer Dubois testified that he handcuffed defendant "for our safety and everybody's safety in the home," because at that point he still did not know how many people were in the house. The drugs were discovered "after everything started settling down." Officer Dubois testified that both powder and crack cocaine were discovered "in plain view" on the kitchen floor, front room, hallway, and on a tray in the bedroom. Significantly, Officer Dubois testified that although there was no immediate indication that Ms. Collier was injured when she answered the door, he entered the home because he believed, on the basis of the 911 open call, that "there was an obvious problem there that--that people's lives could be in jeopardy or in trouble" and that he believed there was "danger . . . inside the home." When he entered the residence, he "had no idea if they were injured or not." He also opined that, in the context of a 911 domestic violence call involving weapons, he and his partner were putting themselves at risk. Dubois testified that he did not know there was cocaine in defendant's home before entering and had no reason to believe that evidence was being destroyed or that a suspect would escape. On the basis of the above evidence, the trial court found there were exigent circumstances justifying police entry into defendant's home. The trial court ruled that Officer Dubois "believed that [the 911 call] justified entry and exigent circumstances existed and I think they--they did in his mind at the time, sufficient to permit the--the entry." The court further found that the evidence was in plain view and therefore lawfully seized. Accordingly, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. Defendant now appeals from this evidentiary ruling. II We review de novo a trial court's ultimate decision on a motion to suppress. People v Echavarria, 233 Mich App 356, 366; 592 NW2d 737 (1999); People v Marsack, 231 Mich App 364, 372; 586 NW2d 234 (1998). However, the trial court's underlying findings of fact are reviewed for clear error. Echavarria, supra at 366; People v Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382; 571 NW2d 528 (1997).

-2-

Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions guarantee the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV, and Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V DAMON BEUSCHLEIN.pdf

Michigan Law