People of Michigan v. Leslie Elijah Malone Jr
329989
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Malone was stopped for illegal window tint; initial stop undisputedly lawful.
- Officer Moore detained Malone and passenger beyond completion of the traffic stop to await a K-9 unit for a dog sniff.
- Officer Moore cited occupants’ low/quiet posture, shifting statements about destination, vehicle owned by a third party, a LEIN officer-safety caution and prior intelligence suggesting narcotics involvement, a very clean car with a laundry smell, and continued nervousness after a warning was announced.
- Trial court credited Moore’s testimony and body-cam video and found reasonable suspicion to extend the detention for about 20 minutes until the K-9 arrived.
- A panel majority reversed that finding; Judge Murray (dissenting) would have affirmed, arguing deference to the trial court and officer experience under the totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether detention beyond a traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment | The additional detention was supported by objective, articulable facts and officer experience that together gave reasonable suspicion to prolong the stop for a K-9 sniff | The extension was an unlawful seizure: the factors cited were individually innocuous and insufficient to establish reasonable suspicion | Majority: reversed trial court (no reasonable suspicion). Dissent (Murray): would affirm—totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion |
| Whether officer’s testimony articulated the inferences from observed facts | Officer explained that observations suggested they might be hiding contraband and cited officer-safety LEIN info and other specifics | Defense emphasized officer characterized his belief as a “hunch” and did not specify particularized inferences | Majority: found inadequate articulation. Dissent: testimony and facts were sufficiently specific when viewed together |
| Whether appellate courts may rely on video evidence over trial-court factfinding | Prosecutor argued deferential review to trial-court findings and to officer experience; warned against over-weighting appellate review of body-cam | Defense urged close review of the video and contested trial-court credibility findings | Dissent: appellate courts must defer to trial-court factfinding and should not over-interpret video absent clear error |
| Whether the K-9 entered the vehicle during exterior sniff raising warrant concerns | Prosecutor (in dissent) noted trial court didn’t make factual findings on this issue and remand needed | Defense argued dog entered vehicle during exterior sniff and suppressed evidence should follow | Dissent: remand required because trial court didn’t address the warrant/entry issue; majority did not decide due to resolution on reasonable suspicion |
Key Cases Cited
- Rodriguez v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 1609 (2015) (traffic-stop cannot be prolonged beyond mission absent reasonable suspicion)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigatory stops justified by reasonable suspicion under totality of circumstances)
- United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality-of-circumstances test; avoid divide-and-conquer analysis)
- People v. Williams, 472 Mich. 308 (Mich. 2005) (traffic-stop reasonableness includes evolving circumstances that may justify extension)
- People v. Oliver, 464 Mich. 184 (Mich. 2001) (innocent factors may collectively supply reasonable suspicion)
- United States v. Santos, 403 F.3d 1120 (10th Cir. 2005) (deference to trial-court factfinding despite video recordings)
- Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable-suspicion standard lower than preponderance)
- Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 (1979) (requirement that reasonable suspicion be based on objective facts)