People v. Jones
678 N.W.2d 627
Mich. Ct. App.
2004
Check Treatment

*1 App 424 v JONES PEOPLE 9, 2003, Lansing. at Decided Jan- Submitted December Docket No. 242871. uary 27, 2004, at 9:00 A.M. Wayne Jones, trial in the Circuit Court E. bound over for Calvin posses- charges in a vehicle and a concealed suppress marijuana, charges or the moved to dismiss the sion of evidence, arguing Amendment to be free of that his Fourth at and seizure was violated. It was established unreasonable search patrol preliminary that a officer on routine examination the automobile, driving an had not had observed the defendant violation, had decided to do a traffic but observed plate number. The check had automobile’s license check of the registered outstanding warrants for the owner indicated two stopped the automobile to determine automobile. The officer had registered the owner. The defendant whether the defendant was provided showing him to be the had documentation person had named in the warrants. The officer owner and the step and whether the the defendant to out of the automobile asked weapon. informed the officer had a The defendant had defendant strapped gun leg. had uncov- to his A search of the automobile of a Cynthia Gray Hathaway, J., marijuana. court, dismissed ered stop investigatory charges, ruling unconstitutional. The the the appealed. prosecution Appeals held: The Court of only implicated when the interests are 1. Fourth Amendment privacy. person’s expectation government infringes a reasonable person a a does not have reasonable displayed plate required by openly on a vehicle. A law to be suspicionless of a license is not a search. check stop, investigatory which is limited to a brief and nonintru- 2. An detention, a Fourth Amendment seizure. In order sive constitutes stop, have an traffic officer must to effectuate a valid occupant suspicion and that vehicle or an articulable reasonable Here, officer had a to seizure for a violation of law. that the defendant was reasonable driving of evidence to the he was in the absence of the automobile contrary. v Jones proper Having determining 3. that made automobile, was the defendant him on the warrants. The arrested after the lawful search of the defendant his automobile arrest was valid. *2 charges. remanded for reinstatement of the

Reversed and P.J., concurring, agreement legally with the stated Fitzgerald, opinion majority, a concern sound of but voiced that the ran- plates dom checks on license will have unintended result of being subject stops lawful drivers to unwarranted traffic and searches. — — Computer

1. Searches and Seizures Automobile License Plates Police Checks.

A have a motorist does not reasonable in an plate; probable automobile’s license officer does not need perform computer cause or articulable check of an if no automobile’s license number even traffic violation is Const, (US IV). observed Am — Investigatory — 2. Searches and Seizures Automobile Plates License Stops. police officer, upon learning A from a check of an automo- registered bile’s license number that the owner is wanted on warrant, may suspect, outstanding reasonably an in the absence of contrary, evidence to the that is the the driver may investigatory stop initiate an to determine whether that is

the case. Cox, Attorney General, Michael A. Thomas L. Casey, General, E. Duggan, Solicitor Michael Pros- ecuting Attorney, Timothy Baughman, A. Chief of Research, W Training, Appeals, and Jason Wil- liams, Attorney, Assistant for the Prosecuting people.

Raymond R. on appeal. Burkett defendant Before: and White, and Neff JJ. Fitzgerald, prosecutor appeals J. The as of from a Neff, circuit a finding court order dismissal after that an App 424 the Court no Finding was unconstitutional.1 This and remand. we reverse violation, constitutional pursu- argument without oral decided appeal 7.214(E). MCR ant to

i preliminary exami- at the as established The facts essentially uncontested. nation are its vehicle and defendant’s patrol observed routine required as was in view plate that observe The officer did not 257.225. law. MCL perform decided violation, but traffic The check showed plate number. the license for the reg- warrants were two that there stopped the vehicle. The officer istered owner was also the if the driver car to determine defendant, produced documenta- driver, owner. he was the that showing *3 in the person named and also the car warrants. step out of the car asked defendant

The officer stop. Defen- explain the reason so he could safety officer, purposes, for complied and the dant weapon. Defendant admitted had a asked if defendant left Defendant strapped leg. to his gun that he had a with ultimately charged arrested and was 750.227, pos- MCL in a concealed MCL marijuana, 333.7403(2)(d).2 session suppression remedy illegal proper and seizure is for an search The People Chambers, evidence, charges. v dismissal of the not However, 120; App 118, when the evidence is NW2d 168 crimes, only connecting dismissal is inevitable thing the defendant to the suppressed. Id. at 120-121. if the evidence is maryuana car was searched when defendant’s was discovered incident to his arrest. People v Jones Court

Defendant was bound over for trial pre- after the liminary examination. After brief hearing defen- dant’s motion to dismiss or to suppress evidence, the trial court held that the officer violated defen- dant’s under rights the Fourth Amendment of the United when a computer States Constitution he ran the license number and then effectu- ated an based investigatory stop on the information learned from the check.

ii The application exclusionary is a ques- rule of law that is de v Custer, reviewed novo. 326; 630 NW2d 870 (2001). Constitu- tional are issues also reviewed de novo on appeal. People Goodin,

392 (2003).

m question The threshold the police whether officer’s decision to run a check of defen- dant’s number the absence of traf- implicated fic violation defendant’s Fourth Amend- ment be free of unreasonable search and not, seizure. If the question becomes whether it was proper for the officer to an investigatory conduct based on the information he learned from the com- puter check that led to defendant’s arrest.

We hold as follows:

1. police may properly computer officer run a check of a number in view even if no observed and there is other violation is no traffic suggest that a crime has been or information to being probable is no is, cause That there committed. suspicion requirement a to run com- or articulable puter number in which there of a license check privacy. is no contrary, a 2. of evidence to the In the absence may reasonably suspect that a vehicle is officer registered owner. driven its gleaned a 3. Where information from provides for arrest further inves- check a basis the or tigation of the of the stop may investigatory an initiate if the is the determine driver In the the vehicle. course may request may act to rea- officer sonably identification safety. own

secure his proceeded (a) 4. in Because the officer investiga- (b) making running check, an the tory stop, (c) establishing the that defendant was for war- owner of vehicle whom two justified outstanding, rants were arresting the officer was conducting defendant and search of defen- dant and his car.

B “The Fourth Amendment of United States Con- counterpart Michigan and its in the Constitu- stitution persons guarantee be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. US § Const, IV; 11.” Am Const art Kazmierczak, 411, 417; only impli- are Fourth Amendment interests infringes person’s government cated rea- when *5 429 People v Jones privacy. People Smith, sonable v 420 1, 25; People Mich 360 NW2d 841 v (1984); Taylor, 253 App 399, 404; Mich 655 NW2d 291 (2002). person does not have a reasonable expectation of in a openly displayed license on a vehic

le,3 which, noted, required as is to be in view. consistently MCL 257.225. Other state courts have conclusion, suspi reached the same that a holding cionless check of number is not a search. See State, Wilkinson v 743 NE2d 1267, 1270 App, (Ind 2001); Lewis, Super State v 288 NJ 160, 163- 164; 671 A2d People 1126 v Ill (1996); Brand, App 71 3d 390 NE2d 65 (1979).

c An investigatory stop, which is limited to a brief detention, nonintrusive constitutes a Fourth Amendment seizure. People v Bloxson, 205 Mich App 236, 241, 249; 517 NW2d 563 (1994). “In order to stop, effectuate valid traffic officer must have an articulable and reasonable that a vehicle or one of its occupants is to seizure for a violation of law.” People v Williams, 236 Mich App 610, 612; 601 NW2d 138 The (1999). reasonable- ness of an officer’s suspicion is determined aon case- by-case in light totality basis of the facts and specific circumstances and reasonable inferences he is entitled to draw from the facts in light expe- of his not, strictly speaking, This is our Court’s first declaration of this rule. People Taormina, App 73, 80; v (1983). See 130 Mich 343 NW2d 236 How ever, rely factually on Taormina because we decline it distinguishable. Concurring Fitzgerald, (After Remand), v LoCicero rience. 501-502; NW2d498 suspicion that the driver was It was a reasonable in the absence of owner of the vehicle contrary.4 officer’s com- evidence to the puter number returned the vehicle license outstanding warrants that there were two information providing the vehicle for the owner of justification of the driver. People Champion, 92, 98; 549 NW2d 849 *6 (1996). proper investigatory

Having made a deter regis mining that defendant-driver was indeed the officer tered outstanding warrants. MCL arrested defendant on the validly 764.15(l)(e). Accordingly, the officer searched Yeoman, defendant5 and his car. 218 App 406; 554 NW2d 577 for reinstatement of the

Reversed and remanded charges against defendant. We do not retain jurisdiction.

White, J., concurred. majority opinion (concurring).

Fitzgerald, RJ. reluctantly legally I and, therefore, sound concur. My my is based on concern that random reluctance 4 instance, For if the owner was a male and the driver was a female, grounds the officer would not have reasonable to assume that the 640, Richter, 641-642; driver was the owner. See State v 145 NH 765 A2d Pike, (Minn, 1996); Village (2000); NW2d Lake State v 351; Lloyd, Ill 591 NE2d 524 in the Hills v 227 Ill 3d 169 Dec Panko, App 6, 9; Mills, (1992); (1990); State v 101 Or 788 P2d 1026 State v (Iowa App, 1990). noted, As defendant also admitted when the get asked him to out of the car. People v Jones Concurring Opinion by Fitzgerald, (Law Network) Enforcement Information checks LEIN plates will have the unintended result lawful drivers to unwarranted traffic stops and searches.