*1 174 Mich PEOPLE v LAMBERT 13, April 1988, Rapids. Docket No. 100239. Submitted at Grand 6, February Decided 1989. plea guilty Darius Earl Lambert was convicted on a of of break- ing entering unoccupied building, garage, with intent Court, Batzer, larceny, to commit Manistee Circuit James M. J. plea accepted Defendant’s was tendered and on the condition appeal that he be allowed to raise on issues related to the trial suppress court’s denial of motions to of evidence the items missing question inculpa- after the break-in in and evidence of tory by police following made statements defendant to the appealed. arrest. Defendant Appeals The Court of held: deputies 1. The initial contact with defendant made two of County stop the Manistee Sheriff was the result of an unlawful driving shortly of the van defendant was in the break-in question. deputies, admission, their own had decided to merely defendant to ask him if he had seen vehicles However, vicinity. approached by an individual public place may properly officer in a decline to answer the questions. Additionally, officer’s at the time reasonable, had no articulable that defen- Thus, dant had committed or was about to commit a crime. initial of defendant cannot be deemed to have been lawful. However, stopped, after defendant over and immediately recognized defendant as an individual on whom outstanding they placed arrest warrants were defendant in custody. custody, While in defendant admitted the break-in and van, yielded missing consented to a search of his which items Thus, stop may from the scene of the break-in. while the initial unlawful, recognition have been of an individ- properly subject provided ual to arrest with grounds on which to make a lawful arrest and the evidence properly obtained thereafter was admissible at trial and the References 2d, 33, 37, Am Jur Searches and Seizures 39. §§ Arrest; High- See the Index to Annotations under Automobiles and way Traffic; Search and Seizure. v Lambert Opinion Court suppress motion of defendant’s trial court’s denial proper. evidence was refusing suppress evidence 2. The court did not err trial inculpatory was ade- statements. Defendant of defendant’s rights, them. quately Miranda but he waived of his advised *2 Furthermore, voluntary. were statements defendant’s Affirmed. disagreement Sawyer, J., separately state his concurred majority’s the initial of defendant conclusion that with Sawyer deputies Judge hold that would was unlawful. reasonably suspected was involved in that defendant could have activity evasive actions of accelerat- from defendant’s criminal following deputies began ing away deputies after the from the coming immediately to a after him and of not Sawyer Judge lights on on their vehicle. turned the overhead appeal agreed without merit. other claim on is that defendant’s — — Subsequent Law- and Unlawful Arrests Searches Seizures — ful Arrests Evidence. person unlawfully stopped have or detained Where proper person is the then detained and discover grounds original subject on other than the of lawful arrest illegal stop, any the lawful obtained as a result of evidence arrest, exploitation of an evidence is not result which stop, illegal properly admissible at trial. initial Kelley, General, Louis J. Frank J. Attorney Swain, Caruso, and Dennis M. General, Solicitor Prosecuting Attorney, people. for Kromkowski, Marian appeal. for defendant on Sawyer Shepherd, P.J., K. I. Before: MacDonald,* JJ.
Shepherd, P.J. Defendant break- pled guilty building entering unoccupied an with ing and 750.110; MSA MCL larceny, intent commit plea upon His was conditioned guilty 28.305. appeal on issues related allowed raise motions pretrial denial of certain trial court’s * by assignment. sitting Appeals judge, on Court of Circuit 174 Opinion op the Court suppress evidence. Defendant was sentenced to 2V¿ years prison. appeals serve to 10 He as of right. question whether, This case raises the detaining improperly a citizen and then dis- covering making have a valid basis for police may arrest, make the lawful arrest properly obtain evidence that flows from such they may an arrest. We hold and, do so therefore, we affirm. approximately July
At 24, 1986, 5:30 a.m. on two County deputies, Manistee kowski and Sheriffs Dale Kowal-
Douglas responded Cermak, to a silent garage alarm from a located in rural Manistee County. arrived on the scene fifteen twenty minutes later and discovered that garage had been broken into and that one or more all-terrain vehicles have been removed. The looking left the scene north, and drove into the woods for evidence of the vehicles. At *3 approximately deputies 6:00 the saw a van a.m., traveling They south. decided to the van to any if determine the driver saw vehicles in the point, area. At that neither the driver nor the van suspected having was been involved in the deputies break-in and the admit that had no probable cause to believe that the van or its driver had been involved in crime. deputies pursue
As the made a u-turn to the van, the van accelerated. The accelerated pursue van, the but the van continued to accel- pull away point, erate and deputies from them. At that the
activated their overhead and the van to the side of the road. The approached Deputy the vehicle and Kowalkowski recognized the driver as defendant. Kowalkowski was aware that there were two or three outstand- ing bench warrants accordingly, placed defendant under arrest on for and, defendant’s arrest People v Lambert Opinion of the Court deputy truck a tow warrants. The summoned those apparently impound van, on the basis the no insur- there was it had been determined covering the van. ance patrol car, in the back of
While seated Deputy that he had said to Cermak defendant garage from and that items stolen into the broken garage van. At this in the back of the were Deputy point, of his Cermak advised defendant again rights, after which constitutional in involved the break-in that he had been stated and that he had garage door and cut a hole garage. then Defendant items from removed permission gave deputy van. A to search the fruits of the crime. the van revealed search of brought later, defendant had been Sometime police station, over to a he was turned again questioning, advised of for was detective again gave rights, an incul- and he constitutional patory statement. appeal, that the trial court defendant claims
On physical refusing suppress evidence erred initial the van on the basis from seized without of defendant probable and, there- or reasonable cause pursuant the search fore, found the evidence suppres- poisonous tree. At the were fruits of hearing to admit below, court ruled the trial sion the deputies’
physical actions evidence lawful. were ruling
Initially,
at a
court’s
note that a trial
hearing
suppression
unless
not be disturbed
will
Payton,
clearly
166 Mich
erroneous.
The narrow
428, 430; 421 NW2d
*4
reviewing
questions
the court’s
we must decide
stop of the
the initial
are whether
decision here
seized as
the evidence
and whether
van was lawful
stop
the fruit of
as
was inadmissible
a result
174 Mich
op
Opinion
the Court
poisonous
questions in
tree. We answer both
negative.
reviewing
stop, it
In
the lawfulness of the
important
to note that the record does not indicate
any
that defendant violated
stopped
immediately,
traffic laws or was
Although
purpose.
for this
he did not do so
defendant nevertheless
over
after the
activated
the side of
the overhead
road
lights
The evidence
of their vehicle.
things
officers
two
when
indicated
they
knew
(1)
defendant:
activated the
any
he had
wanted to ask defendant whether
them in their inves-
information that would assist
(2)
tigation
crime;
that defendant
of a recent
depu-
evasively
drove
while
"chased”
they signaled him to
ties before
ground
provide the
The first
did not
authority
stop defendant as a citizen has
with
no
proached by
ap-
questions
duty
when
and answer
police
public place.
officer
questions
may
to listen to the
at all
citizen
decline
go
way. People
Shabaz, 424 Mich
on his
v
(1985),
gtd 475 US
42, 56-57;
Here, flight there was evidence of stop- of objective made a u-turn with in to seek his assistance their ping the defendant no They suspi- of a recent crime. had investigation in that defendant was involved that crime cion drove there is no evidence that defendant and respond signal to to or failed unlawfully best, At Kowalkowski was able Deputy suspicions articulate his as follows: A. We turned around. He had gone past us to turned and we were the south. We around acceler- process catching up to the van. We were catching up ating quite rapidly and we were County, that in Manistee the van. He was still stretch get map out of road is. I would have guess mile and a half from but I would we were a point line or two miles at that county Bridge Mile then. were north of the Nine Q. you attempted to did this van do as What up to it. catch Well,
A. driving I was the car and it accelerated. up and I saw I wasn’t trying I was to catch Doug if him I turned and asked catching up to that the van was accelerat- he was—if he believed ing yes. and he said
Q. please. Continue Well, A. Cermak believed the van Deputy Road accelerating, He told me that. Madison too. well, county line but it doesn’t end at ends at— 174 Opinion op the Court line ends or where County where the Manistee n line road crosses that county believe it ends the pursu- goes east. The van we were intersection and ing county If it has turned east onto the line road. name, I it That is a dirt road don’t know what is. unimproved big it has several curves that is it. caught up turned the corner behind van We quarter of a mile down about get him our overhead road. We activated *6 get stop quarter to him a of a mile to a half mile to over, pulled immediately, he not ways the road a little but he continued on down and then he over. enough
Although flight factor, alone is not supra, p jüstify Terry Payton, 431. There import must other circumstances that make be ambiguous. flight Shabaz, of the defendant’s less supra, p 62. depu- certainly
Here, it for the was reasonable flight suspicious of defendant’s from ties to be they u-turn, even their vehicle after though made the lawfully did not ex- drove speed However, limit. this was ceed enough supply with articulable concluding activity grounds for that criminal only It is this reasonable belief that criminal afoot. activity justifies Terry. under is afoot Having totality of the circum- considered surrounding deputies’ sig- decision to stances stop, conclude that the trial nal defendant finding clearly erred in that the initial court of the defendant was lawful. require holding not, however, does reversal
Our
correctly
trial court
ruled to admit the
since the
not reverse a trial court
evidence and we will
wrong
result for the
when it reaches the correct
App
People Perryman,
516, 520;
v
89 Mich
reason.
280
(1979).
claims
579
When a defendant
NW2d
People v Lambert
Opinion of the Court
that physical evidence should be suppressed as a
result of an
person,
unlawful
seizure of his
appropriate
inquiry
whether
that evidence was
procured
exploitation
or,
of the
by
illegality
instead, by
distinguishable
means
sufficiently
be
Jones,
People
purged
taint. See
primary
223, 230-231;
(1975),
66 Mich App
NW2d
(1976),
grounds
modified on other
which makes sense to is whether it was reason- ably foreseeable when acted *7 by engaging illegal that in they the behavior might obtain they evidence of the kind obtained. Here, the stop produced unlawful defendant However, his vehicle. the evidence ob- physical tained resulted from the fact that one of the immediately recognized defendant as be- ing the of subject outstanding bench warrants. Defendant’s lawful arrest all the evidence obtained resulted from that identification. Under case, it not reason- the circumstances of this was for the to believe that ably foreseeable the they recognize would be able to the driver of being outstanding vehicle as the of bench subject at the time made the There warrants and, was no of the exploitation primary illegality 610 Opinion the of Court poisonous hence, "fruit the tree” doctrine the of inapplicable. from the authori- was We conclude police unlaw- ties cited above that where the have fully stopped then dis- or citizen and detained person proper the sub- detained is cover that grounds ject than the of on other a lawful arrest police original illegal stop, make any as a of arrest and lawful arrest evidence obtained result reason, this For admissible. uphold ruling trial that the evidence court’s was admissible. trial erred also that court
Defendant
claims
refusing
suppress
third state-
in
the second and
on the basis that defen-
ments made
defendant
properly
Miranda1
dant had not been
rights
read his
disagree.
prior to his
We
statements.2
acknowledges
prior
that
defendant
While
generally
second
third statements he was
rights, defen-
advised of his various constitutional
given
argues
warnings
that
at the first
dant
interrogation
(his
police)
were
statement
second
inadequate
specifically
he was not
advised
questions
any
stop answering
that
at
he could
through
interrogation.
point,
midway
De-
even
specifically
fendant admits that he was
advised
interrogation,
right
at
this
conducted
second
police
fact,
station. In
the written statement
question-
given
following
third
ing specifically
writing
informed him
questions.3
right
refuse to
further
answer
Arizona,
agreement deputy the to the van. to allow search surrounding light the In the of circumstances agree that statement, the trial court with adequately advised of his Miranda defendant was rights police to was the and that statement correctly voluntary. Accordingly, the trial court suppress the to of denied the motion statement. evidence above, that For the reasons stated we conclude arguments defendant’s are without merit. Affirmed. J.,
K. I. MacDonald, concurred. agree (concurring). I J. with the While Sawyer, disagree path majority’s conclusion, I with the reaching Specifically, they take in that conclusion. proper. Terry1 stop I believe the was intriguing presents question con- This case person cerning police authority to of the the they suspect automobile, the in an person not because crime, of but in order to involved in person if that has information determine investigation. may them which assist in a criminal interesting, question it is not neces- While this sary to this case believe resolve police authority, that, the even if the lacked initial in the case at the of defendant bar deputies proper. Accordingly, assume, I will deciding, lack the author- without pull purpose ity determining for of a motor vehicle over occupants have
if the vehicle investigation. to a criminal information relevant Thus, assumption, this initial under decision to deter- defendant’s van occupants if van had mine information entering, breaking such relative to the Terry Ohio, Ed 392 US 88 S 20 L 2d 889 Ct v Lambert by Sawyer, Concurrence J. seeing proper. road, another vehicle on the would im- be assumption, deputies’
While, under this ini- stop leading improper, tial decision defendant’s van was normally thus conclusion that tainted, of the evidence was I believe that seizure subsequent defendant’s actions created a reason- permit to make a able Terry stop. have While had malignant deciding constitutionally motive defendant, their around and follow turn vehicle *10 transgressed yet initial had not de- their fendant’s constitutional actions regardless rights. is, That lawfully motivation, the were and of their stop constitutionally permitted to their cruiser and begin opposite in the turn it around and to drive public important It is to direction on a road. note point yet had not at this turned that the signal on their overhead stop. defendant any took action to direct Before the officers stop van, defendant accelerated gave away from vehicle and the the lights, activating chase before their overhead thus indicating to defendant to his vehicle. stopping leading up
The of defen- events by Deputy Kowal- vehicle were described dant’s hearing suppression as follows: kowski at you you this Q. did do when encountered What van? going Well, A. van was south on Madison going from as we were scene. I told north Road Deputy let’s anything so Cermak we seen hadn’t van, see if the driver has seen vehicles in the area. County you you at the time Q. Were in Manistee first saw this van? Yes,
A. sir. you attempt to it? Q. Did App by Sawyer, J. Concurrence gone past us had around..He turned A. We we were around and turned the south. We were acceler- catching up to the van. We process of ating quite rapidly and we were catching up to County, that Manistee still in van. He was the stretch get map out is. I would have of road frpm a half a mile and guess we were I would but point miles at county line or two Bridge then. Mile north of the Nine were attempted to you this van do did Q. What it. up to catch driving the car Well, I was it accelerated. A. I I wasn’t up and saw to catch trying
I was Doug if asked I turned and catching up to him and accelerat- that the van was he believed he was—if yes. ing he said Continue, please. Q. the van was Well, believed Deputy Cermak A. Madison Road accelerating, told me that. too. He line well, county but end at it doesn’t ends at — or where County line ends Manistee
where believe crosses that county line road it ends pursu- we were goes east. van intersection If it has county line road. ing turned east onto road That is a dirt name, it is. I don’t know what big curves it has several unimproved and that is the van and behind the corner it. caught road. We activated turned We quarter of a mile down up about *11 get him to our overhead get mile to mile to a half quarter of a a over, immediately, pulled stop and he him to ways a little the road on down he continued but he over. and then attempting actions that defendant’s believe objective apparent for no deputies, to evade suspicion reasonable reason, gave is, deputies’ if the even over. That pull if its the van to determine original decision concerning information had occupants eva- subsequent defendant’s improper, crime was People v Lambert 623 by Sawyer, J. Concurrence prior deputies’ being sive actions able to plan originally effectuate the transformed what might illegal stop legal stop. have been into a put, Simply defendant’s actions created an inter- (or vening probable suspicion) cause reasonable stopping elevate the ally of defendant to constitution- permitted status.2 analyzed, however,
What remains to be is question permissibility Terry of a based upon solely countering defendant’s evasive action en- leading
a sheriff’s cruiser. The
case in
upon
places
great
area,
this
which defendant
reliance,
Shabaz,
42;
deal of
is
(1985),
(1986),
gtd
NW2d
cert
not, itself, case, in the of this circumstances support suspicion. Although a reasonable flight may uncontroverted that a be factor to be ascertaining considered in able is reason- whether there Terry stop, to warrant United Sharpe 675; 1568; States v L US 105 S Ct [470 (1985)]; Brignoni-Ponce Ed 2d 605 United States v (1975)], US 95 S 45 L Ct Ed 2d 607 [422 flight guilt alone is not a reliable indicator of import without other circumstances less to make its ambiguous. United States v Green US [216 analogous might go An situation be where an officer intends to patently illegal a search. enter the house and house enter without a warrant to conduct a However, house, upon arriving at the but before able suspect’s rights, suspect appears violate house, pulls gun at the front door of the and fires at the officer.The manages suspect officer then chases the to effectuate an arrest. While the stages prior back into the house where he have been in the initial officer action, constitutionally repugnant suspect’s of a conduct rights gave authority to the actual violation of his constitutional subsequent for the officer’s actions. *12 App 174 by Sawyer, J. Concurrence (1981)];People
App 329, v F2d 1148 DC Tebedo, 265 NW2d 81 Mich Supreme clearly stopped short of The Court concluding flight of rea- cannot be the basis suspicion Terry Rather, a to warrant sonable totality of must be consid- the the circumstances plain- supra Shabaz, Shabaz, 62. In two at ered. vehicle officers an unmarked clothes undercover high-crime the of Detroit observed defen- in a area bag paper carrying brown while dant a small along po- walking public street. The unmarked began moving defendant, toward the lice car bag time he the under his clothes. stuffed which The car passed the defendant and then came to a complete stop, point at which the defendant took running. apprehended then defen- The officers off bag, contained a dant and retrieved which Supreme Court concluded revolver. not did have reasonable officers Terry stop. warrant
Among considered the Shabaz factors had not identi- Court was fact that officers themselves to the defendant as officers fied and that defendant’s conduct was necessar- light inculpatory ily circumstances in the Supreme essence, In under which occurred. upon pointed that, the informa- based Court out officers, there could be tion available to explanation of the defendant’s conduct reasonable is, That with his innocence. was consistent which in the manner the defendant behaved same expect reasonably an innocent citizen to one could carrying property in if he was valuable behave high paper bag crime area and noticed in a brown strange two individ- that he observed in an vehicle. The uals unmarked merely pro- have, instance, could for been Shabaz Lambert by Sawyer, J. Concurrence *13 mugging tecting potential from a as far as himself police were aware. distinguishable at from The case bar important in in a number of situation Shabaz suggests nothing points. First, in the record pulled over con- the area in which defendant was although high-crime Second, it is area. stitutes not that responded appear entirely record, it clear from the would patrol they deputies were on road when and, therefore, it to the silent alarm fully they were in a marked can be assumed police they cruiser when defendant over.3 only Third, vehicle in the defendant’s van was Finally, in Shabaz were not area. aware that officers
any crime had committed and been patrol on the defendant aroused their were when suspicions; investigating bar, in the were case in a crime which had occurred shortly spotting defendant’s van. area before Thus, defendant while it is conceivable that the in Shabaz have been a cautious citizen wor- could mugged by the two ried that he was about to be unidentified individuals he saw
observing him, defendant since he was not in the case at bar had no such worries high-crime
in area and since his Simi- were identifiable as officers. followers traveling larly, in defendant the case at bar was and, therefore, vul- motor vehicle would be less a nerable to a criminal attack than the defendant Finally, Shabaz, I note that who was on foot. began soon as defendant he tive, to run from the officers as perspec- sighted is, defendant’s them. That from began run there was no at the time he to for him to believe that the officers were reason assumption deputies turned the fact that the This is buttressed during signal lights point the chase to on their overhead defendant the at one that, stop. safely it assumed had I believe that can be vehicle, no been in an unmarked there would have been lights to overhead turn on. 174 by Sawyer, J. Concurrence dep-
proceeding upon ordinary their business. merely turned their car around uties had began proceed in the same down road yet turned on direction as defendant and had not signal their overhead As far as defendant would could have turned
know, the they had re- around because go in the ceived a radio call to a location nearing opposite direction, the end because was proceed they wished to back of their shift or, matter, for that the sheriffs station they morning cup enjoy of coffee decided to had opposite in the direc- and a donut at a restaurant traveling. Since the tion from which had been significantly deputies ing not made threaten- had *14 depu- defendant, I conduct towards believe began flight could conclude that defendant his ties out of a sense of innocence. guilt than a sense of rather Simply put, unlike the officers Sha- could baz, I in the case at bar believe light reasonably suspicious, in the sur- become rounding circumstances, conduct of at defendant’s attempting soon as he to flee from the following them him. noticed depu- reasons, For the above I conclude that in the had a reasonable ties case bar involved in a crimi- that defendant was somehow nal enterprise Terry sufficient warrant deputies’ Accordingly, subsequent theory that the defendant’s per- van, done search of his with poisonous mission, fruit of the was tainted as the Thus, tree, the trial court cor- is without merit. suppress rectly motion to denied defendant’s evidence of the search. argument respect on to defendant’s other
With appeal, concerning admissibility of statements police, agree majority’s made to the with analysis of that issue.
I, too, would affirm.