People of Michigan v. Daniel Lee Gray, 331126

On April 25, 2015, deputies investigated suspicious pseudoephedrine purchases and went to a trailer on property owned by Terry Oesch where defendant Daniel Gray was staying intermittently.
Deputy Foster had a friend-of-the-court warrant for Gray, knocked, and asked to search the trailer for drugs; Gray disclaimed ownership/control and said Oesch would have to consent.
Gray was arrested on the warrant; Foster then asked Oesch for consent, and Oesch consented; officers found methamphetamine manufacturing materials and paraphernalia in the trailer.
Gray was convicted by a jury of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession, operating a meth lab, and operating a hazardous-waste lab; he was sentenced as a third habitual offender to concurrent prison terms.
Gray moved for a new trial claiming ineffective assistance because trial counsel did not move to suppress evidence from the warrantless search; the trial court denied relief as a suppression motion would have been futile given apparent/actual authority to consent.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) officers reasonably relied on Oesch’s consent in light of Gray’s disclaimers and (2) counsel’s failure to move to suppress was not ineffective because the motion would have been futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the warrantless search violated Gray’s Fourth Amendment rights because Gray had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the trailer	Police: Oesch’s consent was valid and officers reasonably relied on it given the circumstances	Gray: He was a temporary resident and could have refused consent; search therefore unlawful	Search was lawful because Gray expressly disclaimed authority and told Oesch to refuse; a reasonable officer could rely on Oesch’s consent
Whether defense counsel was ineffective for not moving to suppress the search evidence	Prosecution: Even if counsel did not move, suppression would have failed; counsel’s decision was reasonable	Gray: Failure to move to suppress foreclosed a meritorious Fourth Amendment challenge and was deficient performance	Counsel was not ineffective because a suppression motion would have been futile; no Strickland relief

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance standard for prejudice and deficient performance)
People v. Goforth, 222 Mich. App. 306 (decision on reasonableness of officer belief in consenting party’s authority)
People v. Gary, 150 Mich. App. 446 (when officers must make further inquiry into consenting party’s authority)
People v. Brown, 279 Mich. App. 116 (present occupant’s express objection invalidates consent)
Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (temporary dwellings implicate reasonable expectation of privacy)
People v. Sabin, 242 Mich. App. 656 (ineffective-assistance: failure to raise futile motion not reversible)
People v. Cartwright, 454 Mich. 550 (exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment)