Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan 48909 ____________________________________________________________________________________________ _
C hief Justice

Opinion

Justices

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Clifford W. Taylor Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Maura D. Cor rigan

FILED JULY 30, 2001


THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant/
Cross-Appellee,
v MICHAEL ROBERT CUSTER,
Defendant-Appellee/
Cross-Appellant.
No. 117390


BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH
MARKMAN, J.
After arresting defendant's companion for possessing
marijuana, a police officer conducted a patdown search of
defendant. The officer removed what he believed to be blotter
acid from defendant's pocket and placed it on the roof of the
vehicle. When the officer finished searching defendant, he


retrieved the object from the roof of the vehicle and observed
what appeared to be three photographs facing down. them over to examine the fronts of them. He turned


The photographs


depicted defendant's companion posed in a house containing
large quantities of marijuana. The police went to defendant's
house and observed furnishings similar to those in the


photographs.

They obtained a search warrant for defendant's


house and seized marijuana therein.
Defendant was charged with several drug-related offenses.
The district court dismissed the charges on the ground that
the patdown search of defendant had been illegal. The circuit
court affirmed the district court's decision. The Court of


Appeals affirmed the circuit court's decision on the ground
that, even though the patdown search of defendant had been
legal, the police officer should not have turned the


photographs over to examine the fronts of them.

We granted


leave to consider whether it was proper for the police officer
to: (1) briefly detain defendant, (2) patdown defendant, (3)
seize the photographs from defendant, and (4) turn the


photographs over to examine the fronts of them.

We conclude


that it was. Accordingly, we would affirm the decision of the
Court of Appeals that the brief detention of defendant, the
patdown search of defendant, and the initial seizure of the
photographs from defendant were proper, and we would reverse


2


the decision of the Court of Appeals that the police officer's
turning over and examining the photographs was improper.
I. FACTS
AND

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


Two police officers were dispatched to a residence in Bay
City to investigate a possible trespass. When they arrived at
the location, the officers observed a parked vehicle occupied
by Billy Holder and defendant. One of the officers approached
Holder, the driver of the vehicle, and asked him to get out of
the vehicle. Because the officer believed that Holder was


intoxicated, the officer advised Holder that he could not
drive, and thus his vehicle would have to be towed at his own
expense. When the officer asked Holder to demonstrate that he
had enough money to pay for the towing, Holder removed


approximately $500, mostly in ten and twenty dollar bills,
from his pants pocket, along with a plastic baggie that
contained marijuana. him in the patrol car. The officer arrested Holder and placed
Once Holder was placed in the patrol


car, Holder yelled to defendant, "don't tell them a f------
thing." The officer then asked defendant to step out of the


vehicle, and conducted a patdown search of defendant. At this
point, the officer anticipated finding weapons and drugs on
defendant. During the patdown, the officer felt what he


believed to be a two-by-three-inch card of blotter acid in
defendant's front pants pocket. The officer's belief was


3


based on his knowledge that blotter acid is often contained on
sheets of cardboard. The object was actually three Polaroid


photographs that showed Holder posed with large quantities of
marijuana in the living room of defendant's house. The


officer removed the photographs from defendant's pocket and
placed them on the roof of Holder's vehicle face down. It was


only after finishing the patdown of defendant moments later,
that the officer picked the photographs up and turned them
over to examine their fronts.
After the photographs were seized from defendant by the
police, a Bay City detective contacted a Mount Pleasant
detective and provided him with three addresses, including
defendant's contained address, furnishings The to determine similar to if any of the houses
in the
into


those

found

photographs.

Mount

Pleasant

detective

peered

defendant's house through the front window using a flashlight.
His observation was of furnishings to similar a to those in the
for


photographs

used

obtain

search

warrant

defendant's house, from which marijuana was seized.
Defendant was charged with delivery and manufacture of 5
to 45 kilograms of marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii),


maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(d), and conspiring to
deliver 5 to 45 kilograms of marijuana, MCL 750.157a. The


district court suppressed the photographs taken from defendant


4


and the evidence obtained from the search warrant executed at
defendant's home on the basis that the patdown search of
defendant had been illegal. As a result of such suppression,


the district court dismissed the charges against defendant.
The circuit court then affirmed the decision of the district
court, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the
circuit court. 242 Mich App 59; 618 NW2d 75 (2000). However,


the Court of Appeals concluded that the patdown search of
defendant had been legal, but that the officer should not have
turned the photographs the over to look at their the fronts.
of


Additionally,

circuit

court

found

search

defendant's home to be improper, but the Court of Appeals
never reached that issue.1 This Court granted the


prosecutor's application for leave to appeal and defendant's
application for leave to cross-appeal. II. STANDARD
OF

463 Mich 907 (2000).


REVIEW


This Court reviews a trial court's factual findings in a
suppression hearing for clear error. People v Stevens (After


Remand), 460 Mich 626, 631; 597 NW2d 53 (2000); People v
Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 448; 339 NW2d 403 (1983). However,


"[a]pplication of constitutional standards by the trial court


We do not address whether the search of defendant's
home was proper because that issue is not properly before us.
We remand this matter to the Court of Appeals for their
consideration.
5


1


is not entitled to the same deference as factual findings."
People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 631, n 7; 505 NW2d 266 (1993).
The application of the exclusionary rule to a violation of the
Fourth Amendment is a question of law. Stevens, supra at 631.
Questions of law relevant to the suppression issue are


reviewed de novo. NW2d 219 (1998).

Id.; People v Sierb, 456 Mich 519, 522; 581

III. ANALYSIS A. DETENTION The first issue is whether the initial detention of
defendant was invalid under the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution the right and of Const 1963, to art be 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V MICHAEL ROBERT CUSTER.pdf

Michigan Law