Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v ERWIN C. THOMAS, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED September 6, 1996

No. 176026 LC No. 92-114273

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v EZELL MOORE, JR., Defendant-Appellant. ___________________________________________ Before: Young, P.J., and Corrigan and M.J. Callahan,* JJ. PER CURIAM. In this consolidated appeal, defendants appeal by right their convictions after a joint jury trial. Defendant Thomas appeals his conviction of possession with intent to deliver between 50 and 225 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(iii), and sentence to a ten- to twenty-year term of imprisonment. Defendant Moore appeals his conviction of possession with intent to deliver less than fifty grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7413(2); MSA 14.15(7413)(2), and sentence to a two- to forty-year term of imprisonment. We affirm. I. STOP AND FRISK No. 176944 LC No. 92-114272

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

First, both defendants argue that the trial court should have suppressed the cocaine and money seized during their encounter with police. We disagree. Defendant Thomas concedes that the initial stop and frisk by the police was proper, but contends that the officers exceeded the scope of a permissible search when they pulled down his pants to reveal a large rock of cocaine because it was not immediately apparent that the hard object was contraband. Defendant Moore argues that even the initial stop and frisk was unlawful because the police had no reason to suspect defendants' involvement in a felony. A trial court's decision to suppress evidence will not be disturbed unless the ruling was clearly erroneous. People v Chambers, 195 Mich App 118, 121; 489 NW2d 168 (1992). A decision is clearly erroneous if, although there is evidence to support it, this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V EZELL MOORE JR.pdf

Michigan Law