932 N.W.2d 202
Mich. Ct. App.2019Background
- On Aug 30, 2016 Detroit officers in a marked car approached a parked Ford F-150; officer testified it was "in the middle of the street" and impeding traffic.
- While parked alongside the truck (windows partly down), Officer Billingslea smelled a strong odor of burned marijuana.
- Officers ordered defendant out, handcuffed him, searched the truck, found residue in a cup holder and a .45-caliber pistol on the floorboard.
- Trial court suppressed the firearm, finding the stop pretextual (video showed the truck not impeding traffic) and ruled there was not reasonable suspicion to approach.
- Court of Appeals reversed: held initial approach was consensual or lawful, the marijuana odor gave probable cause to search under the motor-vehicle exception, so suppression was erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers effectuated a Fourth Amendment seizure when they parked alongside the F-150 | Prosecution: approaching/parking alongside a lawfully parked vehicle is not a seizure; officers could lawfully approach and observe | Defendant: trial court found the parking-based stop a seizure (pretextual) because video showed no impeding; seizure lacked reasonable suspicion | Court: No seizure occurred upon driving/parking alongside; only ordering out was a seizure, but probable cause (marijuana odor) arose before that, so search lawful |
| Whether the odor of marijuana provided probable cause to search the vehicle without a warrant | Prosecution: trained officer’s detection of burned marijuana supplies probable cause under Kazmierczak and the vehicle exception | Defendant: post-MMMA statutory regime limits reliance on smell; MMMA protections undermine Kazmierczak | Court: MMMA did not protect use in a parked vehicle on a public street; Kazmierczak controls and odor supplied probable cause |
| Whether officers’ subjective motives (pretext) invalidate an otherwise objective Fourth Amendment justification | Prosecution: subjective intent irrelevant if objectively justified | Defendant: stop was pretextual; officer testimony contradicted by video, so evidence should be suppressed | Court: Subjective motivations immaterial; objective circumstances govern Fourth Amendment analysis; suppression improper |
| Whether suppression and dismissal below should be reversed and case remanded | Prosecution: suppression was incorrect so dismissal should be vacated | Defendant: trial court’s factual credibility findings support suppression | Court: Reversed suppression, vacated dismissal, remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (defines investigatory stop/seizure standard)
- Mendenhall v. United States, 446 U.S. 544 (test for seizure: would a reasonable person feel free to leave)
- Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (consensual encounters vs. seizures; objective test)
- Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491 (approach/encounter principles)
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (subjective officer intent irrelevant to Fourth Amendment analysis)
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (motor-vehicle exception: probable cause to search vehicle without warrant)
- People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411 (Michigan: odor of marijuana can establish probable cause)
- People v. Freeman, 413 Mich. 492 (search invalid where seizure occurred before reasonable suspicion arose)
- United States v. Carr, 674 F.3d 570 (6th Cir.: parking police vehicle alongside does not necessarily block egress; consensual encounter analysis)
- People v. Barbee, 325 Mich. App. 1 (officers pulling alongside a lawfully parked car did not implicate Fourth Amendment when no seizure occurred)