People v. Dillon
296 Mich. App. 506
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- district court bound defendant over on possession of less than 25 grams of heroin based on evidence from a traffic stop for violating MCL 257.709.
- circuit court suppressed the evidence, held MCL 257.709 void for vagueness, and dismissed the charges; the prosecution appealed by right.
- officer Beisel stopped defendant on reasonable suspicion that a dangling air freshener obstructed the driver's vision under MCL 257.709(1)(c).
- Beisel saw the air freshener hanging 2–3 inches below the rearview mirror and testified it obstructed view; stop was therefore justified.
- after the stop, Beisel observed an object thrown from the front passenger window and a syringe nearby, extending the detention to assess suspected drug paraphernalia.
- the court held MCL 257.709 not facially void for vagueness as applied, explained the terms dangling/suspended object are definite, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable suspicion for stop based on the dangling object | Beisel had reasonable suspicion to stop because the air freshener obstructed view. | The statute is vague and the stop is not supported by clear, definite terms. | Stop justified by reasonable suspicion; upheld. |
| Vagueness challenge to MCL 257.709 as applied | Statute provides fair notice and is not void for vagueness as applied. | Statute is void for vagueness under reasonable-notation concerns. | Statute not void for vagueness; not unconstitutional as applied. |
| Continuing detention after the initial stop | Detention could be extended due to evolving circumstances (drug paraphernalia observed). | Detention beyond initial stop was improper absent additional justification. | Continuation justified by observed paraphernalia. |
| Constitutionality remaining in light of 2010 amendment | Amendment changes post-stop; analysis should apply to amended text. | Amendment would not affect outcome. | Court refers to pre-amendment statute for the analysis; amendment would not change result. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (2009) (standards for reviewing suppression findings)
- People v Bloxson, 205 Mich App 236 (1994) (reasonable-suspicion standard and case-by-case analysis)
- United States v Arvizu, 534 US 266 (2002) (totality of the circumstances in reasonable-suspicion inquiries)
- People v Williams, 236 Mich App 610 (1999) (reasonableness and scope of traffic-stop detention)
- People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357 (2002) (suppressible if no reasonable suspicion)
- People v Hrlic, 277 Mich App 260 (2007) (vagueness analysis with fair notice and definite terms)
- Sands, 261 Mich App 158 (2004) (facial vagueness challenges require showing no valid circumstance)
- People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411 (2000) (statutory notice and interpretation in vagueness context)