People v. Mahdi
317 Mich. App. 446
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Police executed a warrant at 45 Lantern Lane after an informant purchased drugs there; Detective Main suspected Gary Mahdi and observed him near a Buick and entering 44 Cherry Hill (his mother’s apartment).
- Officers secured occupants at 45 Lantern Lane and found drugs/paraphernalia (bagged heroin, cocaine, scales, baggies) and a Sam’s Club bag containing individually packaged heroin and cocaine.
- At 44 Cherry Hill officers arrested Mahdi, spoke with his mother Emma Howard, and she consented to a limited search of her apartment for hidden drugs.
- During the consent search officers seized a cell phone, a wallet (with $971, receipts, cards in Mahdi’s name), and a keychain (keys matching 44 Cherry Hill, 45 Lantern Lane, and the Buick; an AutoZone rewards card).
- Detective Main later searched the seized phone, read and responded to text messages that referenced drug sales and “G/Gary.” The prosecution used the seized items and phone texts to connect Mahdi to drugs seized at 45 Lantern Lane and the Buick.
- Mahdi moved to suppress the wallet, keys, and phone; the trial court denied the motion and admitted the evidence. Mahdi was convicted; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge search of 44 Cherry Hill | N/A (argued search valid) | Mahdi argued he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his mother’s apartment | Mahdi had standing based on residency, mail, and personal effects found at the apartment |
| Validity/scope of Howard’s consent to search | Consent authorized search of the apartment and seizure of incriminating items | Consent was limited to looking for drugs; seizure of phone, wallet, keys exceeded scope | Consent covered a search for drugs but did not authorize seizure of those items; seizure exceeded the consent scope |
| Plain-view / seizure justification | Items were incriminating and therefore properly seized in plain view | Items were not obviously incriminating without further investigation | Plain-view did not apply because the incriminating character was not immediately apparent; further investigation was required |
| Admission of phone text messages and derived evidence | Even if phone seized, texts were admissible and tied Mahdi to drug sales; harmless error | Phone seizure and search violated Fourth Amendment; texts and linked items are fruits of poisonous tree | Seizure and warrantless search of phone, wallet, keys unconstitutional; texts are fruit of poisonous tree; admission was not harmless; new trial required |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) (generally requires a warrant to search digital contents of cell phones)
- United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probation search condition can permit searches on reasonable suspicion)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (fruit of the poisonous tree and attenuation analysis)
- People v. Champion, 452 Mich. 92 (1996) (plain-view seizure requires items be obviously incriminating/probable cause without further search)
- People v. Anderson (After Remand), 446 Mich. 392 (1994) (harmless-error standard for constitutional error)
- People v. Gingrich, 307 Mich. App. 656 (2014) (standard of review for suppression rulings)