Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SEAN PATRICK DONOVAN, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED November 28, 2006

No. 263466 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 05-003381

Before: Cooper, P.J., and Hoekstra and Smolenski, JJ. PER CURIAM. The prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for dismissal.1 We reverse and remand. On appeal, the prosecution argues that, because defendant did not place a limit on the scope of his consent, it was reasonable for the police to follow defendant into the laundry room where he was seen flushing cocaine down a sink. At the outset, we note that the officers who conducted the search both testified at the preliminary examination that defendant consented to their entry into the home and gave them permission to search for the third party for whom the police had an arrest warrant. Because we conclude that the scope of a consent to search for a person includes the authority to move about the home, we hold that the officer could reasonably follow defendant to the laundry room and seize the contraband discovered in plain sight. Generally, this Court reviews the trial court's factual findings on a motion to suppress evidence for clear error.2 People v Farrow, 461 Mich 202, 208-209; 600 NW2d 634 (1999). However, it appears the trial court based it decision on the parties' recitation of the facts taken

Defendant was charged, as a third habitual offender, MCL 769.11, with possession with intent to deliver between 50 and 449 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine/ecstasy, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i).
2

1

We note that although defendant did not technically file a motion to suppress the evidence, defendant's motion to quash the evidence is the functional equivalent of a motion to suppress the evidence. See People v Mordell, 55 Mich App 462, 469; 223 NW2d 10 (1974) (treating a motion to quash the evidence as a motion to suppress the evidence). Further, the trial court's order indicated that defendant's motion was a motion to quash the evidence.

-1-


from the preliminary transcript.3 "Therefore, the trial court was in no better position than this Court to assess the evidence, and there is no reason to give special deference to the trial court's `findings.'" People v Zahn, 234 Mich App 438, 445-446; 594 NW2d 120 (1999). This Court reviews de novo the trial court's conclusions of law and ultimate decision on a motion to suppress evidence. People v Garvin, 235 Mich App 90, 96-97; 597 NW2d 194 (1999). Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF MI V SEAN PATRICK DONOVAN.pdf

Michigan Law