People of Michigan v. Larry Gerald Mead
320 Mich. App. 613
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On May 29, 2014, Officer Burkart stopped a vehicle driven by Rachel Taylor for an expired license plate; Larry Mead was a front-seat passenger holding a backpack.
- Taylor consented to a search of the vehicle; Officer Burkart removed and opened an unlocked backpack from the passenger compartment and found methamphetamine.
- Mead admitted the backpack belonged to him, moved to suppress, and was convicted of possessing methamphetamine; sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender.
- This Court previously affirmed on the ground that a passenger lacks standing to challenge a search of a vehicle under People v LaBelle.
- The Michigan Supreme Court vacated and remanded, directing the Court of Appeals to consider (1) whether LaBelle is distinguishable, (2) whether the officer reasonably believed the driver had common authority over the backpack (Illinois v. Rodriguez framework), and (3) any other justifications for the search.
- On remand the Court of Appeals concluded LaBelle applies, declined to extend Rodriguez to vehicle-container consent searches in Michigan, and found no alternative exception justified the search.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge search of container in passenger compartment | Police/State: Under LaBelle, a passenger lacks standing to contest a search of the vehicle and unlocked containers therein | Mead: As the backpack’s owner and passenger, he has standing to challenge the search | Held for State: LaBelle controls; passenger lacked standing to challenge search |
| Applicability of Rodriguez common-authority objective-belief test | State: Not necessary if LaBelle controls; officer reasonably believed driver consented to search | Mead: Officer lacked reasonable basis to believe driver had common authority over a personal backpack | Held for State: Rodriguez framework does not apply to warrantless container searches in vehicles under current Michigan law |
| Reasonableness of officer’s belief that driver had common authority | State: Officer obtained consent from driver; search of passenger compartment permits opening unlocked containers | Mead: Backpack’s location, ownership, and brief acquaintance with driver undermine any reasonable belief of common authority | Held for State: Court declined to apply Rodriguez; LaBelle governs instead |
| Other exceptions supporting search (inventory, incident to arrest, Terry/probable cause, inevitable discovery) | State: Primarily relied on consent and LaBelle; did not advance other bases on appeal | Mead: Search not incident to arrest, not an inventory search, no probable cause or exigency, not a Terry protective sweep | Held for Mead on these points: Court found no evidence in record supporting inventory, arrest-incident, Terry, probable-cause, or inevitable-discovery exceptions; but LaBelle standing ruling is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. LaBelle, 478 Mich. 891 (Mich. 2007) (passenger lacks standing to challenge search of vehicle passenger compartment and unlocked containers therein)
- Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 (1990) (consent valid if officer reasonably believes third party has common authority)
- United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974) (third party consent and common authority concept)
- People v. Giovannini, 271 Mich. App. 409 (2006) (binding effect of Supreme Court precedent on Court of Appeals)
- People v. Earl, 297 Mich. App. 104 (2012) (standing-related suppression principles)
- Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983) (vehicle passenger-compartment protective search/Terry principles)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (protective-stop standard of specific and articulable facts)
- Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
- Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (1987) (standards for inventory searches)
- Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (1990) (inventory searches must follow standardized procedures and not be a pretext)
- People v. Mahdi, 317 Mich. App. 446 (2016) (inevitable-discovery doctrine burden on prosecution)