People v. Brcic

342 Mich.App. 271

994 N.W.2d 812

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven Russell BRCIC, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 359497

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 6, 2022, at Lansing.

Decided July 14, 2022, 9:10 a.m.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Melissa Goodrich, Prosecuting Attorney, and Amber L. Libby, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Alfred Feleppa for defendant.

Before: Gleicher, C.J., and Gadola and Yates, JJ.

Yates, J.

On July 14, 2020, a bizarre chain of events led defendant, Steven Brcic, to take refuge in the Indian River and refuse commands from law enforcement officers to get out of the water. In his wake, defendant left an overturned Chevy Tahoe sitting on its passenger's side in the middle of Prospect Street and three young witnesses who helped the police track down defendant. The officers, who used a boat to extract defendant from the river, observed that defendant exhibited the telltale signs of intoxication, so they obtained a search warrant for a blood draw. But the warrant simply authorized a "blood draw" at the "Cheboygan County Jail." Because the search warrant failed to identify the jail inmate whose blood should be drawn, the trial court declared the warrant defective and suppressed the fruits of the search, i.e., the blood taken from defendant. We granted the prosecution's application for leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, and we now affirm the trial court's order of suppression.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The salient facts are set forth in the affidavit of probable cause submitted in support of the application for a search warrant:

On Tuesday, July 14, 2020, at 2000 hrs., Ofc. Chamberlain and I (Ofc. Myerson) were dispatched to car accident [sic] on Prospect St., towards Columbus Beach. Upon arrival, I observed a silver Tahoe, on it's [sic] passenger side. I did not observe anyone around or near the vehicle. Three juveniles walked up to us on scene and said a male in his 30-40's wearing a green and tan baseball hat [was] driving a silver SUV westbound on Prospect St. The driver, later identified as Steven Russell Brcic, swerved toward the juveniles. They said he was the only occupant and he yelled, "asshole" as he swerved back into the lane. Seconds later they heard the crash. While on scene, Ofc. Chamberlain was notified by Paramedic Neil Hill that Brcic had just come out of the woods and was by the river. Ofc. Chamberlain ordered Brcic to stop, however Brcic jumped into the river and refused to exit. Brcic had large and fixed pupils, bloodshot and glassy eyes and spoke with very slurred speech. While following Brcic down the river, the juveniles positively identified Brcic. Deputies Simmons and Supernault obtained the CCSD patrol boat and eventually pulled Brcic out and he was handcuffed. Open and half full 24 ounce beer can was found inside the vehicle. Brcic refused to perform field sobriety tasks. Brcic had very poor balance and had a very strong odor of alcoholic based beverage coming from his breath and person.

Officer Janet Myerson indicated on the affidavit form that she had personally observed defendant and believed he had operated the vehicle "[w]hile under the influence of or impaired by alcoholic liquor." That conclusion was buttressed by a wealth of information, and defendant seems to recognize that the affidavit supplied probable cause to support Officer Myerson's assertion.

The affidavit prompted the issuance of a search warrant for a "blood sample," but the search warrant merely described "[t]he person, place or thing to be searched" as the "Cheboygan County Jail." Beyond that, the search warrant provided no guidance about whose blood should be drawn. In its entirety, the search warrant issued at 2:17 a.m. on July 15, 2020, stated that probable cause for a search existed but offered no specificity other than a directive to execute the warrant at the Cheboygan County Jail. The search warrant, reproduced below, readily reveals the flaw that led to suppression of the blood drawn from defendant:

?

In the wee hours of July 15, 2020, a law enforcement officer executed the search warrant and obtained two vials of blood from defendant. The "Return and Tabulation" section indicated that defendant received a copy of the affidavit, warrant, and tabulation. The Cheboygan County Prosecutor thereafter charged defendant with operating while intoxicated, third offense, MCL 257.625(1) and (9)(c) ; five separate offenses of assaulting, resisting, or obstructing a police officer, MCL 750.81d ; operating a vehicle with a suspended or revoked license, second offense, MCL 257.904(1) and (3)(b) ; failure to report an accident, MCL 257.622 ; and maintaining an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, MCL 257.624a, with a fourth-offense habitual offender notice, MCL 769.12. Defendant moved to suppress the blood-draw evidence, contending that the warrant failed to describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. In response, the prosecution argued that the warrant was proper when read in combination with the affidavit. In a written order, the trial court agreed with defendant and suppressed the blood-draw evidence. That prompted the prosecution to seek leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal, which we granted. People v Brcic , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 1, 2022 (Docket No. 359497). As a result, we must now decide whether the trial court properly suppressed the blood-draw evidence.

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS

The prosecution contends that the trial court erred by considering the validity of the search warrant in isolation, rather than in combination with the supporting affidavit, and by concluding that the warrant and affidavit failed to meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution. ¹ This Court reviews de novo questions of constitutional law and a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress evidence. People v. Joly , 336 Mich.App. 388, 395, 970 N.W.2d 426 (2021). The Fourth Amendment guarantees to the people the right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures[.]" U.S. Const., Am. IV. It further states that "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Id. Similarly, the Michigan Constitution of 1963 provides that "[t]he person, houses, papers, possessions, electronic data, and electronic communications of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures" and that "[n]o warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things or to access electronic data or electronic communications shall issue without describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation." Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11. Absent a compelling reason, Michigan courts must construe Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11 to provide the same protection as that secured by the Fourth Amendment. People v. Slaughter , 489 Mich. 302, 311, 803 N.W.2d 171 (2011).

"[T]he general rule is that officers must obtain a warrant for a search to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment." People v. Hughes , 506 Mich. 512, 525, 958 N.W.2d 98 (2020). The Fourth Amendment only allows search warrants "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const., Am. IV. "The purpose of the particularity requirement in the description of items to be seized is to provide reasonable guidance to the executing officers and to prevent their exercise of undirected discretion in determining what is subject to seizure." People v. Unger , 278 Mich.App. 210, 245, 749 N.W.2d 272 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted). A search warrant is sufficiently particular "if the description is such that the officer with a search warrant can with reasonable effort ascertain and identify" the people and property subject to the warrant. Steele v. United States , 267 U.S. 498, 503, 45 S.Ct. 414, 69 L.Ed. 757 (1925). Whether a search warrant satisfies the particularity requirement depends on the circumstances and the types of items involved. Id. ; Unger , 278 Mich.App. at 245, 749 N.W.2d 272. It is "well settled that a search may not stand on a general warrant." People v. Hellstrom , 264 Mich.App. 187, 192, 690 N.W.2d 293 (2004).

The search warrant at issue in this case was "plainly invalid." See Groh v. Ramirez , 540 U.S. 551, 557, 124 S.Ct. 1284, 157 L.Ed.2d 1068 (2004) (holding that the search warrant was "plainly invalid" because it failed to describe "the type of evidence sought") (quotation marks and citation omitted). The warrant did not identify defendant, and it ostensibly authorized a blood draw from any inmate at the Cheboygan County Jail. Indeed, the prosecution does not dispute that the search warrant, standing alone, did not satisfy the particularity requirement. Instead, the prosecution contends that the warrant incorporated by reference Officer Myerson's affidavit for a search warrant. The prosecution argues that the two documents together met the particularity requirement because the affidavit identified defendant and detailed the police investigation of his alleged criminal acts. But "[t]he fact that the application adequately described the ‘things to be seized’ does not save the warrant from its facial invalidity." Id. "The presence of a search warrant serves a high function," which "is not necessarily vindicated when some other document, somewhere, says something about the objects of the search[.]" Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Nonetheless, the prosecution correctly asserts that a facially invalid search warrant may be saved by incorporated documents. Id. at 557-558, 124 S Ct 1284. As the Groh Court acknowledged, most federal "Courts of Appeals have held that a court...