*1
People Mayes
(AFTER REMAND)
PEOPLE v MAYES
16, 1993,
February
Lansing.
Docket No. 112076. Submitted
at
Decided
19, 1993, at 9:15 A.M.
October
Mayes pleaded
Court,
guilty
Wilford L.
in the Kalamazoo Circuit
Schaefer, J.,
Philip
carrying
weapon.
plea
D.
of
a concealed
The
exchange
prosecution’s
was offered in
for the
recommendation
probation.
probation
The defendant was sentenced to
appealed, arguing
plea
that he was entitled to withdraw his
on
the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court of
Appeals denied the defendant’s motion for remand
an
evidentiary hearing on the basis that
the motion was not
timely.
granting
appeal,
Supreme
In lieu of
leave to
Court
Appeals
denying
reversed the Court of
order
the motion to
Appeals
remand and remanded the case to the
Court
with
Appeal,
retaining jurisdic-
instructions that the Court of
while
tion,
evidentiary
remand the matter to the trial court for an
hearing concerning the claim of ineffective assistance of coun-
remand,
sel.
by impermissi- the defendant on the basis that it resulted from interrogation. ble custodial Because each of the asserted defen- nature, ses was tenuous in it cannot be said that trial counsel provide range to failed the defendant with advice within the competence demanded of defense counsel criminal cases accept proffered plea when he advised the defendant to bargain. The defendant received effective assistance of counsel. Affirmed. Corrigan, P.J., concurring, stated that the trial court was correct in its conclusion that the defendant failed to establish that he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Because of any jail defendant’s desire avoid time and the fact that charge on the dismissal basis of the asserted constitu- op Opinion the Court certain, advice anything trial counsel’s but
tional defenses serious bargain to be a plea be considered cannot take the of counsel. amounting assistance to ineffective mistake *2 Attorney Kelley, General, L. Thomas J. Frank Gregart, Prose- Casey, cuting Attorney, General, James J. Solicitor Murney, Assistant Dale S. and people. Prosecuting Attorney, for (by Appellate Coever- Jack Van Defender State ing), defendant. for the
AFTERREMAND Shepherd P.J., and Before: and Mc Corrigan, JJ. Donald, pleaded May 1988, 2, defendant On Per Curiam. weapon, carrying
guilty
MCL
a concealed
of
exchange
prose-
28.424, in
750.227; MSA
agreement
he receive
to recommend
cutor’s
probation.
years’
for his
a factual basis
As
two
28, 1988,
plea,
he
March
that on
defendant stated
put
had
that his sister
the car
inside
had
1988,
13,
On June
them to school.
to drive
used
probation.
years to two
was sentenced
arguing*
right,
appealed as of
Defendant
then
plea
guilty
on
his
withdraw
entitled to
that he was
the
be-
of counsel
ineffective assistance
basis
to raise two
had failed
trial counsel
cause his
meritorious
upon
Fifth
Fourth and
defenses based
grounds
his
he had entered
before
Amendment
denied,
plea.
guilty
22, 1989, this Court
June
On
untimely,
remand for
motion to
defendant’s
as
purpose
hearing
evidentiary
conducting
rela-
an
of coun-
ineffective assistance
claim of
tive to his
Supreme
24, 1989, our
However, on October
sel.
reversing
order
this Court’s
order
issued an
Court
People Mayes
Opinion of the Court
remanding this case to the circuit court for a
(1989).
hearing.1
i reviewing When a claim of ineffective assistance arising plea, guilty apply of counsel out of a courts Washington, in the test set forth Strickland v (1984), 668; 2052; 80 L US light S Ct Ed 2d 674 guidance set forth McMann v Rich- ardson, 759; 1441; 25 L US S Ct Ed 2d 763 Henderson, and Tollett v US S L Ct 36 Ed 2d 235 In re Oakland Co *3 App Prosecutor, 113, 120-122; 191 Mich 477 NW2d (1991). 455 To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must show that counsel’s performance that, was and deficient under an objective reasonableness, standard of counsel made an error so serious that counsel was not function- ing attorney guaranteed as an as under the Sixth Moreover, Amendment. the defendant must over- presumption challenged come the that action might strategy. be considered sound trial Addition- ally, deficiency prejudicial must be to the People App Tommolino, 14, defendant. v 187 Mich (1991). 17; 466 315 NW2d
To establish ineffective assistance of counsel in guilty plea, the context of a courts must determine plea voluntarily whether the defendant tendered a understandingly. supra, p Prosecutor, and Oakland question court, 120. The not is whether a retro- spect, right would consider counsel’s advice to be
1
(1973).
Ginther,
People v
390 Mich
184 Opinion of the Court wrong, within the but the advice was or attorneys competence range of of demanded p Id., cases. 122. criminal
ii
support
assistance
of his claim ineffective
counsel,
claims that his trial counsel
valid constitutional defenses
failed
raise two
the Fourth and Fifth Amendments
under
charge
weapon.
carrying
First,
a concealed
de-
there
no
maintains
that
was
fendant
a
to conduct a search without warrant
cause
in which the
was found.
automobile
guarantee
a
The Fourth Amendment
only
against
seizures,
all searches and
unreason
Sharpe,
675,
v
ones. United States
able
682;
(1985);People
Here, the
the search of
justified
*4
a
the automobile without
warrant was
exception,
United
under
automobile
see
States
798, 807-808;
2157;
Ross, 456 US
102 S Ct
72 L
v
(1982); People Anderson, 166
2d 572
v
Mich
and also
Ed
(1988),
App 455, 478-479;
Although agree argu- we with defendant that an ment could be made that the search of the car was improper probable cause, for lack of we are not prevailed convinced defendant would have on uphold If that issue. the the trial court had decided to validity of the search and admit the confis- gun cated and defendant’s confession into evi- against dence, the case defendant would have been very strong weighing Thus, indeed. relative jail probation, risks of time versus the offer of we are plead convinced that the ultimate advice to probation
guilty years’ in return for two ineffective constituted assistance of counsel. Oak- supra, p Prosecutor, 124. land proba- We will first consider whether there was ble cause for the search of the car where the determining proba- was found. whether there is cause to believe that or evidence is ble contraband specific place, located preme the United States Su- Gates, Court set forth in Illinois v 213, 238; 76 L Ed 2d "totality of the circumstances” standard: issuing magistrate simply The task of the whether, practical, make a common-sense decision
given forth in the affida- all the circumstances set *5 Opinion of the Court including "veracity” and "basis him, the vit before hearsay supplying knowledge” persons infor- of of probability contraband mation, or evidence that is a fair there particular in found a will be of a crime place. further remarked: in Gates The Court "he has affiant that of an A sworn statement suspect do. . . . will not believe” and does cause to magistrate provide with the must . . . An affidavit determining existence of basis for a substantial probable that statement .... An officer’s cause from reliable information received "[affiants have person that heroin is do believe” a credible inadequate. . home, . . is likewise stored in a gives conclusory that statement [T]his is a mere making virtually magistrate at all for no basis the a probable regarding judgment [H]is . . . cause. of the bare a mere ratification cannot be action conclusions Emphasis added.] [Id. 239. at of others. Blackman, 897 F2d 309, In United States (CA Eighth Circuit that we note 8, 1990), "totality Appeals of the Gates held that Court of circumstances” equally applicable was rationale determining probable conduct a search cause to pursuant to the a warrant an automobile without automobile exception.
Applying ad- to the facts Gates standard hearing evidentiary case, we this duced at the agree there a colora- that with defendant must probable argument cause to there was no ble the automobile without a search of conduct warrant. known to the information
Here, the extent of police the search was the time of officer at reported had informant student an unidentified brought handgun to school had that defendant Buick or inside a blue was and that Mayes op Opinion the Court concerning disclosed facts were No Oldsmobile. of knowl- or basis veracity, reliability, informant’s these Gates, While, under absence edge. se to the determination per not fatal factors is simply officer cause, here the facts from objective other any furnished with *6 in the could be found gun that a to infer which automobile. contention, the exis- prosecutor’s to the
Contrary to have be said cause cannot tence of that the officer police on the basis established been infor- the informant’s the of reliability confirmed investigation by independent an through mation Buick or that a blue Oldsmobile ascertaining registered to defen- parking lot was school dant’s mother. White, 325, 331-332; 110 S
In Alabama v
States
2412;
The Court’s is shown to an informant proposition because things, probably right right some he is be about Thus, alleged .... has other facts he about conclude in this case that it is not unreasonable to the by of independent corroboration predictions informer’s significant aspects of the imparted some degree reliability to the other the caller. allegations by made Gates, that, important it as think also We [tip] range of details anonymous contained "the and condi- relating just easily obtained facts not tip, time future existing of the but to at tions pre- parties ordinarily easily of third actions dicted.” the officers found a car . . . The fact that description in front matching the caller’s precisely op Opinion the Court building example of the former. is an it "predicted” that fact because Anyone could have existing at the time of presumably was a condition important was the caller’s What was the call. behavior, it dem- predict because ability to future special familiarity inside information —a onstrated [Emphasis respondent’s affairs. with added.] provided by case, In this the information range details, not contain a but informant did rather a the automobile The police brought allegedly had noted that defendant general description gun gave a to school and in which the could be found. by only the of the information that was corroborated description officer was the informant’s represents type car, of information de- which significance, termined in White to be of less be- existing only at cause it relates to the condition tip fails to demonstrate "inside the time of "special familiarity” or with defen- information” affairs. dant’s *7 probable that
We are also not convinced cause principal was established because an assistant furnished reliable information though had past. in Al- the undisputed pro- it is that the information principal by vided the assistant was obtained from principal informant, a student the assistant did bearing provide any objective facts on the not knowledge veracity, reliability, or basis of informant. "totality circumstances,”
In view of the
this
very
example
not
from
men-
case is
different
the
Gates,
tioned in
has received reliable information from a credible
where an officer’s belief that he
person that heroin is stored in a home is inade-
probable
quate
Accordingly,
to establish
cause.
pursued
argument
have
the
defense counsel could
justify
there was no
cause to
search of the automobile without a warrant.
Mayes
People
v
Opinion
the Court
forgo
plea agreement
hand,
to
On the other
pursue
issue would
this constitutional
and
the trial
unclear how
risks. It is
been without
have
probable cause issue
would have decided
court
totality
Gates,
of the circumstances.
under
authority
supra.
for a different
And,
is some
there
privacy
approach
approach
that balances
—an
of school offi
the need
of children with
interests
a search takes
such
to maintain order —when
cials
place
plurality
setting,
as here. See
in a school
Jersey
325,
T L O,
v
decision New
(1985); see also State
733;
tee. v (1988). NW2d during made custodial of an accused are inadmissible Statements interrogation unless the accused knowingly, intelligently voluntarily, and waived rights. Arizona, Miranda v Fifth Amendment his L 436, 444; 16 Ed 2d (1966). Warnings required must under Miranda be person custody given or otherwise when a is significant deprived any of action in of freedom. People Hill, 382, 384; 415 429 Mich manner. (1987). totality circum- The NW2d must examined to determine whether stances the be custody at the time of the defendant was interrogation. People Williams, question key 234, 237; 429 The NW2d reasonably the accused could have believed that he was not free to leave. Id. undisputed
Here, the facts adduced at the evi- dentiary hearing defendant, senior, indicate that a principal’s was summoned to the office at his greeted by police officer, school and was who weapons. Thereafter, him ad- frisked without rights, vising defendant of his Miranda the officer regarding questioned defendant whether he had brought gun pro- to school. After the was duced, defendant admitted that it was his. Al- though, police officer testified that defendant any time, was free to leave at there was no evi- message conveyed dence that to defen- this was support finding dant. These facts could reasonably that he believed was free supra, p Williams, 237. leave. hand, On the other no one ever told defendant permitted arrest, that he under he was principal’s being questioned. leave the office after The detention was brief and occurred in a school principal’s
office than rather at station *9 Mayes Opinion op the Court questioning squad noncus- Thus, was the car. or a "police domi- was todial, and the environment McCarty, 420; 104 Berkemer nated.” See 2d 317 3138; 82 L Ed S Ct Considering totality circumstances, the the argument was that defendant an make one could effectively However, not con- we are arrest. under ineffective counsel was that defense vinced failing argue should defendant’s confession to suppressed, it unclear because have been prevailed on would have defendant whether issue.
hi potential constitu- had two that defendant Given charge carrying a con- to the tional defenses weapon, question defendant is whether cealed plea guilty it his because entitled to withdraw was understandingly. voluntarily and not made was supra. Prosecutor, Oakland Narragan, hearing, defen- Mr. At the Ginther counsel, that he met with testified dant’s trial pre- day parents of the his on defendant and reviewing liminary report preliminary posed plea After examination. purpose them, he discussed
with pro- and informed them of exam agreement.
According mother, and his defendant to both plead defendant counsel instructed defense guilty Defense counsel he had no defenses. because claiming "spoke disputed contention, that he this regard "potential issues” with about to” defendant Further, admissions. and the the search both his "total focus” of that the counsel stated defense jail. avoid How- that defendant discussions ever, gave that he never counsel admitted defense any regarding legal opinion Opinion the Court it and that valid or should be raised defenses were opinion procure- personal "that was his own investigatory proce- weapon and the ment of the proper.” township Moreover, were we dures of the hearing, evidentiary that at defense coun- note sel curately stop acknowledged that he had characterized inac- parked car as a
the search of defendant’s prior moving in a written re- of a vehicle *10 sponse Attorney He to the Grievance Commission. response grievance com- also stated in his to the informant, more than one mission that there was though not reflected in the even this was report. appears
It defense counsel did not thor- oughly potential merits of the constitu- discuss family.3 tional issues with defendant and his De- glossed apparently fense counsel over the constitu- appear complex issues, tional which to us to be and, light However, in troublesome. of the tenuous nature of the constitutional that could defenses argued, have been fense counsel failed to we are not convinced that de-
provide defendant with range competence advice within the demanded attorneys in of defendant criminal cases so as to enable
to make an informed choice whether to plead guilty. Considering jail the risk of time and strength against if evidence defendant say admitted, we cannot that defense counsel acted incompetently ultimately advising defendant to plea bargain probation. take the ecutor, Oakland Pros- supra, pp 124-125. Defendant received effec- tive assistance of counsel.
Affirmed. acknowledged We note that even the trial court that "there is no (sic) question but what are Fourth and Fifth there Amendment issues undoubtedly any graduate, perhaps, that matter, law school or for that any first-year might identify . law student . . and [trial maybe didn’t verbalize all those considerations to the defen counsel] dant or his family.” People Mayes Corrigan, (concurring). I concur P.J. majority’s received conclusion sepa- I write of counsel. the effective assistance provide highlight rately facts and additional analysis. some alternative People Ginther, 436; Mich Pursuant hearing court conducted
NW2d on remand concerning claim of ineffec- defendant’s evaluating the After assistance of counsel. tive testimony witnesses, denied de- four court reviewing a claim of ineffec- motion. fendant’s highly apply assistance, deferential stan- tive we second-guessing con- so to avoid counsel’s dard as Further, un- we measure counsel’s behavior duct. der prevailing professional norms to determine all the circum- it was reasonable under whether stances. Tollett v Henderson, 1602; 36 2d In re Oakland Co L Ed Prosecutor, 477 NW2d (1991). Applying standards, the find- Tollett court’s ings proper. were presumption did not overcome the
Defendant range lawyer’s that his advice fell within *11 competence. testimony at Gin- reasonable The the County hearing ther revealed that the Kalamazoo engage prosecutor guilty in the form of does negotiation charge plea bargaining. as The known engage prosecutor does, however, in sentence bar- gaining. their offers the Prosecutors make best at any unaccepted preliminary examination; offer is progresses, immediately As case withdrawn. the generous. plea increasingly less the offers become preliminary examination the in Kala- At time of County, evaluate the mazoo defense counsel must filing to risk case and determine whether client’s trying the case or recom- motions and mend the most favorable is ever agreement
plea the client likely to receive. preliminary case, at the time of the this 202 Mich negotiations
examination, coun- after with defense prosecutor agreed probation sel, to recommend regarding incarceration, to remain silent possible offer that defendant could have ob- best pending weapons charge. The court tained on the sig- on remand stated that the offer would have people naled the court that the had no interest Realistically, jail sentence. defendant otherwise prospect jail faced the of a six-month term. The gang record before us shows that violence was on upswing Kalamazoo, and a defendant con- gang caught activity nected with who was with a gun premises typically on school would receive a jail Although term. six-month membership defendant denied gang, alleged
in a his motive for carrying protect to school was to himself gang harassing from a sentencing that had been him. A decide,
court could well on these and proofs, additional that a six-month sentence was in order. potential
Counsel talked with defendant about relating issues to the search and the defendant’s weapon. admission that he owned the seized Coun township’s investigative pro sel believed that weapon proper. cedures and seizure of. the were response question Defendant testified that in to his legality search, about the counsel had ad him vised that the search was legal.1 1The defendant testified that he discussed the merits of his search issue with counsel: you anything Did him ask about the search in inter- Q.
view with him. A. Yes. He said it was a valid search. you What did ask him? Q. said, illegal by A. I "Couldn’t that be considered an search police?” said, no, information, information, they He because had valid *12 property, and that since it was on school that the search was legal. Mayes testimony counsel’s defense court credited The avoiding primary interest was that the defendant’s presented case jail. that found The court any first- that issues Fifth Amendment and Fourth year Against might identify. those student law guaranteed weigh sentence issues, had to counsel probation incarceration. without hearing reasoning at of the court’s The tenor suggests strongly have found it would interrogation if legal noncustodial and search behalf. motions defendant’s filed had counsel have likelihood all Thus, would defendant appeal jail his before term a six-month served might have so, not Even he heard. have been could prevailed attorney competent appeal. defense A on although certainly he may his client counsel "good prevail ultimately issue,” the may on a jail very his entire have served well client could appeal heard. can be term before avoiding primary is in interest If the client’s may safely lawyer competent incarceration, guilty plead and be sentenced to the client counsel urge probation to file that client than rather to pretrial not at all outcome is where the motions representation run afoul of not does Such clear. Amendment. the Sixth whether, but considered court also
The circuit identify issues, the those failure for counsel’s adopt I in dismissal. have resulted case would reasoning. my view, the the court’s endorse likely obviously issues were constitutional have resulted being dismissed. in the case ISSUE I. MIRANDA subjected question The *13 181 202 Mich Concurrence warnings interrogation and Miranda2 to custodial required certainly free from doubt. The is were triggering duty Mi- to furnish mechanism for People warnings custody, not focus. v randa is (1987). duty Hill, The 382; 415 NW2d give warnings a defen- Miranda attaches when deprived custody of free- is in or otherwise dant dom of action significant way. any Miranda, in obligation general supra. does not extend to The surrounding questioning as to facts "on the scene” the crime. willing to find circum-
Courts are less custodial interrogation in or stances where occurs familiar surroundings. interrogation Thus, in a neutral suspect’s usually
home is
viewed as noncustodial.
States,
341;
Beckwith v United
425 US
96 S Ct
(1976).
recognized
1612; 48 L
Ed 2d
As
Court
Murphy,
420, 433;
in
465 US
104 S Ct
Minnesota
suspect
1136;
in
in the of the station house: convey suspect Custodial arrest is said to to the message that he no has choice but to submit to Many
the officer’swill and to confess. . . . psychologicalploys capitalize discussedin Miranda suspect’s unfamiliarity on the with the officersand [T]he the custodial . . . coercion inherent in environment. interrogation large in derives measure interrogator’s from an insinuations that the inter- rogation until a will continue confession is ob- tained. comparatively nonthreatening
The
character of
justify
holding
this detention would
custody.
defendant was not
See also Berkemer v
Arizona,
Miranda v
US
Moreover, the defendant principal’s permitted to leave the He was arrested. go was not Defendant his business. and about office deprived degree the to freedom of movement of his York v arrest. New a formal with associated Quarles, 550 duty L Ed 2d 2626; 81 649; 104 S Ct (1984). had a the officer It obvious that is not warnings. Miranda to furnish PARKING LOT THE HIGH SCHOOL II. SEARCH IN Amendment issue, the Fourth The more serious easy conclude, I cannot issue, however, to resolve. is not likely to have ob- was that defendant issue. and seizure on the search tained a dismissal A. STANDING may preliminary matter, well defendant As a standing object any of his to the search to lack mother’s weapon the seizure of car and present it was in the car when not therein. He was present passenger lacks who is not A searched. standing object car. to a later search to App 487; 247 NW2d Jackson, 71 Mich v 181 202 Mich (1976). ordinarily have does a nonowner Nor pleads challenge standing search, unless he to privacy expectation proves in the some and per unpublished opinion People Nelson, v vehicle. August Appeals, 13, decided of the Court of curiam (Docket 139042), grounds on other rev’d No. (1993). 626; 505 NW2d standing attempt might be to assert Defendant family my In car. the car cause searched prevail assertion. view, on this bare he could not expecta prove plead Instead, his own he must privacy The vehicle searched in the vehicle. tion of question, belonged day in to his mother. On defendant, his it but had loaned not she family repeatedly by used If a vehicle is sister. member, e.g., standing may See, established. be (Mo, 1980); Johnson, State v 598 SW2d State Morrill, Johnson, (1985); People 197 Conn 498 A2d 114 Ill 2d 499 NE2d Johnson, Illinois court concluded standing lacked because he could right prove of access to his continuous use of and family car. standing standards, issue is Under these *15 litigable. question certainly I whether defendant proof. generally, See, ed), could meet his burden of Lafave, (2d 11.3(E), pp § Search and Seizure 322-341.
B. SEARCH OF CAUSE FOR VEHICLE IN QUANTUM LOT
SCHOOL PARKING standing, Assuming has the search complicated question is further because defendant brought gun property. onto school The situation among exigent presented imaginable. certainly the most danger far exceeds The immediate anonymous presented types in- in most of People Mayes Further, the student who neither former cases. anonymous tip nor the was the source principal the criminal an informant from was they relevant, ordi- the extent are still milieu. To apply Aguilar-Spinelli3 nary not standards would anonymous principal stu- or to the either to People Powell, 201 Mich See dent informer. 516; (1993), cited therein. and cases 506 NW2d principal any event, the officer testified that percent past hundred track record had a one presence guns accuracy reporting in school. 2317; Gates, 213; 103 S Ct
In Illinois v
US
(1983),
Supreme
The
tips
setting appears
Boykin,
in In re
a school
anony
617;
Ill 2d
237 NE2d
where an
princi
student
informant
told the assistant
mous
pal
gun.
principal
that another student had a
The
police.
police
immediately contacted the
Two
offi
school,
student,
cers entered the
seized a
court decided that
searched the
person.
on his
The Illinois
concealed
required
were not
identity
to ascertain whether the informer’s
wait
principal had
unknown or
the assistant
anonymous
merely
to avoid fu
said that he was
ture problems:_
Texas,
108;
1509;
(1964);
Aguilar v
84 S Ct
Spinelli v
ger differs from that (See, People Taggart, NY2d cases. narcotics 335, 339; 581, [1967].) 1; 229 NE2d 283 NYS2d danger person appraise appropriate The was the school official required to maintain who is supervi safety and discipline and to act "for parents pupils in the absence of their sion of the 122, 1967, chap par guardians.” Ill Rev Stat and Ill 2d 34-84a. 619]. [39 favorably
Boykin
Chartrand,
cited
(1977),
App 645, 652,
3; 252
n
NW2d
originat-
this Court noted that
information
where
relayed
ing
high
to an
student and
from a
school
principal
then to the
falls
assistant
(and
gov-
the criminal milieu
is thus
outside
standards).
Aguilar-Spinelli
Applying
by
erned
"totality
test, I
conclude
of circumstances”
cannot
have
of the search issue would
that the resolution
led
case, if traditional
to dismissal of the
required quantum proof.
cause is the
setting,
may
However, in a school
searches
be
quantum
on a reduced
of cause. New
conducted
Jersey
325,
v T L O,
Supreme
United States
L Ed 2d 720
opinion, recognized
plurality
Court,
in a
governs
ac
standard
Fourth Amendment
different
tivity in the nation’s schools. The "school search”
exception
not been limited to searches of
has
persons or their lockers. Several
lower
students’
*17
People Mayes
by Corrigan, P.J.
Concurrence
the T L O rationale
to
courts have extended
searches of students’ cars
parking
e.g.,
See,
lots.
App 207;
Farrer, 57
searches must
probable
cause,
cause is not an irreduci
requirement
Instead,
the
of a valid search.
ble
plurality
com
concluded that
the fundamental
mand of the Fourth Amendment
is that searches
employed
reasonable. The Court
and seizures be
Municipal
adopted
Court,
in Camara v
the test
agencies. supra, p T L O, 341, n 7. Under acting principal, alone, L O, T the assistant plainly have searched defendant’s mother’s could acting police car. The exigent officer here seemed to be initiative, circumstances, not on his own However, the at the behest of school officials. but required quantum of cause for searches on school depending premises certainly not shift on should police identity searcher, if the did not the record reflects that initiate the search. The principal police just officer had and the assistant lunch hour would fifteen minutes before begin. school High School Because Kalamazoo Central many open campus policy, at lunch time has an 202 Mich high juniors can leave school and seniors campus. time, had would have At lunch weapon. princi- easy If the assistant access to pal act, failed their and the officer had security omissions could have threatened safety tempo- committed their the students Although rary into care. the intrusion the car was significant, balance, need to on search greater. question The search in in all likeli- even met Fourth hood Amendment’s command reasonableness. *18 any event, of this is not resolution issue
obviously Accordingly, favor. de- defendant’s fense counsel did not make a serious mistake advising prosecutor’s accept his client to excel- plea forgo challenges. lent offer and further affirming I concur in defendant’s conviction.