People v. Dunbar
306 Mich. App. 562
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Oct. 12, 2012, deputies stopped defendant’s pickup at ~1:00 a.m.; during the stop they discovered drugs and a handgun and charged defendant.
- Officers testified they had no basis to suspect criminal activity and observed no unsafe driving or traffic violations other than a perceived problem reading one character of the rear license plate.
- The officers attributed the difficulty reading the plate to a trailer towing ball/hitch obstructing part of the plate; they estimated two possible plate numbers.
- Photos and officers’ testimony showed the plate was well lit and otherwise in good condition; the prosecution conceded there was no other basis for the stop.
- Defendant moved to suppress the contraband as fruit of an unlawful Fourth Amendment stop under MCL 257.225(2); the trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court granted leave to appeal. The lead opinion reverses the denial and suppresses the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officers had reasonable basis to stop vehicle under MCL 257.225(2) (obstructed license plate) | Officers (prosecution) argued hitch/towing ball partially obscured plate, giving reasonable suspicion to stop | Defendant argued plate was maintained and legible; mere presence of towing equipment did not violate statute, so stop was unlawful | Reversed: no reasonable basis — plate was legible, no violation of MCL 257.225(2); stop violated Fourth Amendment |
| Whether evidence seized after the stop must be suppressed | Prosecution contended the stop was lawful so evidence admissible | Defendant contended stop unlawful; evidence fruit of Fourth Amendment violation | Held: evidence suppressed as product of unlawful stop |
| Statutory construction of MCL 257.225(2): scope and vagueness | Prosecution read statute broadly to include external obstructions that partially obscure plate | Defendant and concurrence argued statute should be read to apply to materials affixed to or covering the plate itself to avoid overbreadth/vagueness | Lead opinion: applied statute to facts and found no violation; concurrence would narrowly construe statute to avoid vagueness |
| Standard of appellate review for suppression ruling | N/A (prosecution sought deference to trial court credibility findings) | Defendant sought de novo review of legal ruling | Court reviewed de novo (legal conclusions) and found no basis to sustain the stop; credited trial court only where applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (U.S. 1996) (traffic-stop reasonableness tied to probable cause for traffic violation)
- People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich. 411 (Mich. 2000) (stops subject to Fourth Amendment reasonableness)
- People v. Davis, 250 Mich. App. 357 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002) (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- People v. Chapo, 283 Mich. App. 360 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (officer may stop for witnessed civil infractions)
- People v. Hrlic, 277 Mich. App. 260 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) (vagueness concerns in statutory construction)
- People v. McGraw, 484 Mich. 120 (Mich. 2009) (statutory provisions construed in light of subject matter)
- People v. Harris, 495 Mich. 120 (Mich. 2014) (presumption to construe statutes as constitutional when possible)
- Virginia v. Moore, 553 U.S. 164 (U.S. 2008) (lawfulness of searches/seizures depends on reasonableness)