Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v RYAN DANIEL ULFIG, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2011

No. 299708 Oakland Circuit Court LC No. 2009-228933-FH

Before: OWENS, P.J., and JANSEN and O'CONNELL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Defendant appeals as of right from his bench trial convictions of operating a vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor, third offense, MCL 257.625(1), (9), and driving with a suspended license, MCL 257.904(1). We affirm. Just before 1:00 a.m. on May 27, 2009, Officer Bender of the Novi Police Department spotted a silver van crossing an intersection in front of him. Bender had received a bulletin informing him to be on the lookout for suspicious vans because the police had information that vans had been used in several thefts of tires from apartment complexes in the area. Bender turned to follow the van. He testified that he could not read the license plate number on the van because the license plate light was not operating. Bender followed the van as it entered a gated apartment complex and initiated a traffic stop. Bender testified that he stopped the van to investigate the thefts in the area and because the license plate light was not working. Defendant was the driver of the van. Bender asked for his license and registration, and noticed that defendant's eyes were red and watery. Defendant admitted that his license had been suspended, and that he had consumed a few beers before driving home. Bender arrested defendant after defendant failed several field sobriety tests. A blood test revealed a blood alcohol level of .24, well above the legal limit of .08. MCL 257.625(1)(b). Defendant moved to suppress all evidenced gathered after Bender pulled him over on the ground that Bender lacked reasonable suspicion to stop defendant, and therefore violated defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. At the evidentiary hearing, Jennifer Kudanian-Judd, the owner of the van defendant was driving, testified that when she picked up the van several days after defendant's arrest, the license plate light was in working order. To her knowledge, there had never been a problem with the light. Defendant also introduced the in-car video from Bender's patrol car. Defendant argued that Kudanian-Judd's testimony and the video showed -1-

that the license plate light was working, and that Bender merely used the allegation that the light was not working as a pretext to stop the van to investigate the thefts. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court found defendant guilty of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, third offense, and driving with a suspended license. In People v Frohriep, 247 Mich App 692; 637 NW2d 562 (2001), this Court stated: We review a trial court's findings of fact for clear error, giving deference to the trial court's resolution of factual issues. People v Farrow, 461 Mich 202, 208

Download PEOPLE OF MI V RYAN DANIEL ULFIG.pdf

Michigan Law