People of Michigan v. Charles William Wood
321 Mich. App. 415
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Trooper Morris stopped defendant for speeding (83 in a 70 mph zone) and observed about a dozen nitrous-oxide "whippet" canisters and empty pill bottles on the rear floorboard.
- Morris asked when defendant last "huffed"; defendant said four days earlier and acknowledged the harms. Morris asked to search the car; defendant refused.
- Morris ordered defendant out of the vehicle and searched it without a warrant; he found an empty bottle of codeine syrup (with the name removed), pill bottles with names removed, and six codeine pills in defendant's jacket.
- The circuit court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence; at a subsequent hearing defendant moved to dismiss and the court entered an order dismissing the charges.
- The prosecutor appealed. The majority held the appeal was not moot (distinguishing People v. Richmond) and affirmed the suppression ruling because the search and resulting arrest lacked probable cause; a concurring/dissenting judge would have reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Prosecutor's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal | Richmond requires dismissal because suppression led to dismissal of charges | Appeal is not moot because prosecutor did not voluntarily dismiss; dismissal was on defendant's motion | Not moot — Richmond distinguished because prosecution did not move to dismiss |
| Validity of warrantless vehicle search under automobile exception | Presence of whippets + defendant's admission of huffing provided probable cause to search for evidence of inhaling a chemical agent or controlled substances | Possession of nitrous canisters is legal; admission of past huffing without signs of current impairment does not supply probable cause to search | Search suppressed — no probable cause under automobile exception |
| Validity of arrest/inventory search | Arrest for huffing (a 93‑day misdemeanor) or inventory incident to arrest would justify search and inevitable discovery of pills | No probable cause to arrest for huffing (no impairment observed, offense relates to misuse not mere possession), so inventory exception doesn't apply | Arrest and inventory exception not justified; evidence suppressed |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Richmond, 486 Mich. 29, 782 N.W.2d 187 (prosecution's voluntary dismissal after suppression renders appeal moot)
- People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411, 605 N.W.2d 667 (odor or other sensory detection by a qualified officer can supply probable cause)
- People v. Mead (On Remand), 320 Mich.App. 613, 908 N.W.2d 555 (search incident to arrest not justified when arrest lacks probable cause; cannot bootstrap search and arrest)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (probable-cause standard for vehicle searches should be commonsense, totality-of-circumstances)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable cause requires probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not certainty)