Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ROMULUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v CHAD DARYL SCHAFER, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED September 7, 1999

No. 214372 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 98-804757 AR

Before: Collins, P.J., and Jansen and White, JJ. PER CURIAM. Following a jury trial, defendant was found guilty of assault and battery, MCL 750.81; MSA 28.276, and resisting and obstructing an officer in the discharge of his duty, MCL 750.479; MSA 28.747. The prosecution appeals by leave granted the circuit court order reversing defendant's convictions and remanding defendant's case to the district court. We reverse the circuit court order and remand to the trial court for sentencing. This case arises from a stop by Romulus police officers of a vehicle in which defendant was a passenger. The officers received a dispatch informing them that there was a fight on the front lawn of a home known for drug activity and that there was the possibility that guns were involved. The dispatch specified that subjects were in a van and another vehicle. Officer Huggins, the first officer to reach the scene, arrived within about three minutes of the dispatch. She observed two vehicles, a van and a Ford Tempo, leaving the scene at a rate of speed in excess of the posted speed limit, which was twenty-five miles per hour. Huggins prevented these vehicles from leaving by positioning her vehicle at the open end of the dead-end street. Both vehicles stopped. Huggins exited her vehicle, drew her weapon, took cover behind her vehicle, and instructed the occupants of the vehicles to remain inside and keep their hands where she could see them. Within another minute, two more officers arrived. One of these officers, Officer Czernik, approached the Tempo, which contained three passengers: the driver, defendant, who was the front seat passenger, and another male in the back seat. At the same time, Huggins approached the van, which contained two occupants. Shortly thereafter, two more officers arrived at the scene. Both Huggins and Czernick instructed the occupants of the vehicles to place their hands in plain view. There was conflicting testimony by police officers at trial with regard to whether the

-1

occupants complied with that request. There was also testimony that the driver of the Tempo was laughing at the officers, that she refused to comply with Officer Czernik's instruction to exit the vehicle, and that as he forcibly removed her, she resisted. After Officer Czernik secured the driver of the Tempo in the police vehicle, he ordered defendant out of the Tempo. Czernik testified that as defendant began to exit the vehicle, Czernik pulled him out, laid him on the ground, and placed him in handcuffs behind his back. He then placed defendant on the side of the road with passengers from the van. There was no testimony that defendant resisted the officers at this point. Another officer removed the backseat passenger from the Tempo. Once the Tempo was empty, Czernick searched it and found a plastic bag containing what was later confirmed to be marijuana, under the front passenger seat. Defendant was arrested based on the discovery of the marijuana. As Czernik walked defendant to a patrol car, defendant became combative and verbally abusive. This behavior continued on the way to the police station and after their arrival there. Defendant's behavior resulted in charges of resisting arrest and assault and battery, in addition to the charge of possession of marijuana. Defendant was convicted of assault and battery and resisting arrest, but was acquitted on the possession charge. He made a motion for a new trial, arguing that his arrest was illegal and his resistance, therefore, lawful. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, however, the circuit court reversed defendant's convictions and remanded to the district court for a new trial. The circuit court found that there did exist reasonable suspicion to support an investigatory stop. However, the court also found that the handcuffing of defendant constituted an arrest and that under the totality of the circumstances, that arrest was without probable cause. The court concluded that defendant's arrest was illegal and because a citizen has a right to resist an illegal arrest, defendant was entitled to a new trial. The prosecution argues on appeal to this Court that the circuit court erred in reversing defendant's convictions because the stop, detention, search of the Tempo, and arrest of defendant were lawful. This Court reviews a lower court's factual findings with regard to law enforcement's suspicion of criminal activity for clear error. People v Bloxson, 205 Mich App 236, 245; 517 NW2d 563 (1994). However, whether such suspicion was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment is a question of law subject to review de novo. Id. To the extent that a trial court's decision is based on an interpretation of the law, appellate review is de novo as well. People v Zahn, 234 Mich App 438, 445; 594 NW2d 120 (1999). In Michigan, a person's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by both the state and federal constitutions. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1,

Download PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ROMULUS V CHAD DARYL SCHAFER.pdf

Michigan Law