People of Michigan v. Kevin Dunson
330238
| Mich. Ct. App. | Aug 10, 2017Background
- Defendant Kevin Dunson was convicted after a bench trial of carrying a concealed weapon (CCW), being a felon in possession of a firearm, and felony‑firearm (second offense). Sentence: five years’ probation for CCW and felon‑possession, and five years’ imprisonment for felony‑firearm.
- Police in a marked scout car encountered Dunson and a companion, stopped in front of them, and an officer shone a flashlight; the individuals ran and the officer chased on foot.
- During the flight, Dunson removed a gun from his jacket and threw it over a fence; the officer later ordered Dunson down from the fence and then recovered the gun.
- Dunson did not file a pretrial motion to suppress; on appeal he argued the evidence should have been suppressed because the foot chase was a warrantless seizure without reasonable suspicion that coerced abandonment.
- Trial counsel did not move to suppress; Dunson also argued ineffective assistance for that failure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge firearm | Prosecution: Dunson abandoned the gun and lacks standing | Dunson: unlawful seizure before abandonment nullified abandonment | Abandonment occurred before seizure; Dunson lacks standing to challenge the gun |
| Was the foot chase a seizure? | Prosecution: chase was not a seizure under Fourth Amendment | Dunson: police chase/stop amounted to a seizure requiring reasonable suspicion | Court: no show of authority; chase did not constitute a seizure until officer physically detained Dunson after he discarded the gun |
| Suppression warranted (reasonable suspicion) | Prosecution: unnecessary to reach because no seizure occurred | Dunson: officers lacked reasonable suspicion so seizure (if any) was unlawful | Court did not address reasonable suspicion because no seizure occurred before abandonment |
| Ineffective assistance for not moving to suppress | Prosecution: counsel not ineffective because suppression motion would be futile | Dunson: counsel unreasonably failed to move to suppress and was prejudicial | Court: claim fails; motion would have been meritless, so no ineffective assistance |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mamon, 435 Mich 1 (discusses abandonment and when a chase constitutes a seizure)
- People v. Shabaz, 424 Mich 42 (seizure includes brief detentions; flight after pursuit may be tainted by unlawful police conduct)
- People v. Lewis, 199 Mich App 556 (actual pursuit does not automatically equal a Fourth Amendment seizure absent application of force or submission to authority)
- People v. Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446 (overview of Fourth Amendment standing and expectation of privacy analysis)
- People v. Unger, 278 Mich App 210 (preservation rules for suppression motions)
- People v. Lopez, 305 Mich App 686 (standards and preservation for ineffective-assistance claims)