People of Michigan v. Vincent Junior Hudson
333727
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Defendant Vincent Hudson, a parolee, was convicted by jury of possession of less than 25 grams of cocaine and sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to 46–180 months; sentence enhanced under the repeat controlled substance offender statute.
- Police received an anonymous tip about a narcotics transaction; vehicle registration led officers to 712 Norwood, registered to Hudson.
- Detective Cathey contacted Hudson’s parole officer, Linda Manni, who confirmed a parole condition consenting to searches; Cathey and Manni agreed to search the residence.
- Officers entered after Detective Cathey testified the homeowner, Barbara Hudson, consented; they found crack cocaine, marijuana, two BB guns, and cash on Hudson’s person.
- Defendant moved to suppress evidence, arguing the warrantless search exceeded parole-search limits and homeowner did not validly consent; trial court credited officer testimony and denied suppression.
- Defendant also challenged scoring of Offense Variable (OV) 19 (interference with administration of justice) for 10 points based on lying to police; trial court scored OV 19 and defendant did not preserve the objection at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of warrantless search | Search lawful under parole-search exception and homeowner consent | Search invalid: parole condition limited to parole-revocation searches and homeowner did not consent | Court affirmed: officer testimony credited; parole condition and prior notice to homeowner justified search; consent alternative supported entry |
| Scope of parole-search condition | Parole condition authorized searches of person/property at any time | Condition limited to parole-revocation purposes, not general criminal investigations | Court held the officers and parole officer agreed the search was to check parole compliance; scope covered residence and person |
| Homeowner consent to search | Detective obtained Barbara Hudson’s consent to search entire house | Barbara testified officers entered without a warrant and she questioned need for one | Court credited detective’s testimony that Hudson consented; consent finding not clearly erroneous |
| OV 19 scoring (10 points) | OV 19 properly scored for conduct attempting to avoid detection (lying) | Scoring improper (unpreserved); argues error in assigning 10 points | Court affirmed: plain-error review failed—record supported inference defendant lied to deceive police and obstruct justice |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Maggitt, 319 Mich. App. 675 (review standard for suppression: factual findings for clear error; ultimate ruling de novo)
- People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411 (Fourth Amendment privacy protections)
- People v. Frohriep, 247 Mich. App. 692 (general rule: warrant required for searches)
- People v. Woods, 211 Mich. App. 314 (probation/parole special-needs exception to warrant requirement)
- Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868 (state probation system special needs can justify departures from warrant/probable cause)
- Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (parolee’s known consent to searches substantially diminishes privacy expectations)
- People v. Marsack, 231 Mich. App. 364 (consent exception: consent must be unequivocal, specific, freely given)
- People v. Jones, 297 Mich. App. 80 (preservation rules for sentencing-scoring claims)
- People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (plain-error standard for unpreserved appellate claims)
- People v. Hershey, 303 Mich. App. 330 (examples of conduct qualifying as interference under OV 19)
- People v. Sours, 315 Mich. App. 346 (OV 19 scored for attempts to avoid being caught)
- People v. Earl, 297 Mich. App. 104 (trial court may draw reasonable inferences from record when scoring OVs)
- People v. Yennior, 399 Mich. 892 (refusal to admit guilt not sole basis for OV scoring)