People v. Katzman

330 Mich.App. 128

946 N.W.2d 807

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.Mark Stanford KATZMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 345173

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted September 4, 2019, at Detroit.

Decided October 3, 2019, 9:00 a.m.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Jessica R. Cooper, Prosecuting Attorney, Thomas R. Grden, Appellate Division Chief, and Marilyn J. Day, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Rockind Law (by Noel Erinjeri) for defendant.

Before: Jansen, P.J., and Cameron and Tukel, JJ.

Jansen, P.J. Defendant, Mark Stanford Katzman, appeals as of right his June 7, 2018 bench-trial convictions of two counts of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv ). Defendant was sentenced on July 24, 2018, to three days in jail and one year of probation for each conviction. We affirm.

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This case arises from an undercover drug-trafficking investigation conducted by Farmington Hills Police Sergeant Eric Buckberry. Through a confidential informant, Sergeant Buckberry and other police officers were introduced to Jessica Engisch. On multiple occasions, the officers purchased fentanyl and cocaine from Engisch. During these transactions, Engisch told the officers that she could get drugs such as cocaine, marijuana, and heroin from defendant. Ultimately, the police officers executed a search warrant on Engisch's motel room. The officers found cocaine and seized Engisch's cell phone pursuant to the search warrant. The following day Sergeant Buckberry responded to a text message from defendant, as if he were Engisch, telling defendant that he could come to Engisch's motel room. When defendant arrived at Engisch's motel room, the police officers questioned him about his possible participation in a drug-trafficking incident.

Defendant admitted that he was at the motel to pick up his money from a cocaine sale the night before as well as from another sale a few weeks before. Defendant was arrested, transported to the Oakland County Jail, and charged with two counts of delivery of less than 50 grams of cocaine.

In the trial court, defendant moved to suppress his statements made to the police admitting that he had sold cocaine to Engisch. Defendant argued that the statements should be suppressed because they were illegally obtained in violation of U.S. Const., Ams. IV, V, and XIV and Const. 1963, art. 1, §§ 11 and 17. Defendant contended that although the search warrant allowed the police officers to search Engisch's cell phone, it did not allow them to use it to send a "fraudulent message" to defendant. Defendant further asserted that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the text-message exchange with Engisch and that the police trespassed on his personal effects by causing the text message to appear on his cell phone. The trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress, and this appeal followed.

II. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

Defendant's argument on appeal relates to the trial court's denial of his motion to suppress his statements to the police admitting that he sold cocaine. Defendant argues that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to suppress evidence because the search warrant only allowed the police officers to search the cell phone, not use it. We disagree. This Court reviews a trial court's ruling at a suppression hearing de novo. People v. Daoud , 462 Mich. 621, 629, 614 N.W.2d 152 (2000). This Court reviews the trial court's findings of fact for clear error. Id.

We consider the standing question first because it presents the threshold issue of whether defendant can even assert a violation of the Fourth Amendment. We hold that defendant lacks standing to invoke protection from an unreasonable search or seizure as to Engisch's cell phone under U.S. Const., Am. IV and Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11 and that the trial court therefore did not err when it determined that law enforcement's search and use of Engisch's cell phone was proper. We also conclude that even if defendant had standing, his claimed Fourth Amendment violation nevertheless would fail.

A. STANDING

The United States and Michigan Constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. Const., Am. IV ; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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." The corresponding provision of the Michigan Constitution provides, in part, "The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures." Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11. [ People v. Mahdi , 317 Mich. App. 446, 457, 894 N.W.2d 732 (2016).]

The United States and Michigan Constitutions are coextensive in this regard. People v. Slaughter , 489 Mich. 302, 311, 803 N.W.2d 171 (2011).

To invoke the Fourth Amendment's protections, a defendant bears the burden of establishing that he or she has standing¹ to do so. Mahdi , 317 Mich. App. at 459, 894 N.W.2d 732.

An individual "may challenge an alleged Fourth Amendment violation if she can show under the totality of the circumstances that she had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched and that her expectation of privacy was one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." People v. Mead , 503 Mich. 205, 214, 931 N.W.2d 557 (2019), citing People v. Smith , 420 Mich. 1, 28, 360 N.W.2d 841 (1984).² In this case, the only area searched was Engisch's cell phone, which was done through execution of a lawful search warrant. Defendant certainly had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the contents of his own cell phone. See Rakas 439 U.S. at 144 n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421 ("[O]ne who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of [the] right to exclude."). And courts have recognized that a cell phone is an "effect" for Fourth Amendment purposes. See United States v. Gardner , 887 F.3d 780, 784 (C.A. 6, 2018) (recognizing a cell phone as an "effect" protected by the Fourth Amendment); cf. United States v. Wurie , 728 F.3d 1, 14 (C.A. 1, 2013) (noting that "[t]oday, many Americans store their most personal ‘papers’ and ‘effects,’ U.S. Const. amend. IV, in electronic format on a cell phone, carried on the person"), aff'd sub nom. Riley v. California , 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014).

In this case, defendant's cell phone never was searched, and no information was seized from it. "The right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is personal, and the right cannot be invoked by a third party." Mahdi , 317 Mich. App. at 458-459, 894 N.W.2d 732 ; see also Rakas , 439 U.S. at 134, 99 S.Ct. 421 ("A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person's premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed."). Factors relevant to the determination of standing, as noted, include ownership, possession, control of the area searched or item seized, historical use of the item, and ability to regulate access. Mahdi , 317 Mich. App. at 458-459, 894 N.W.2d 732. Defendant, as a third party to the search, seizure, and subsequent use of Engisch's cell phone, cannot demonstrate and has not demonstrated any ownership, possession, control, historical use, or ability to regulate Engisch's cell phone. Once defendant sent the initial text message to Engisch's cell phone, he no longer had an expectation of privacy in the text-message exchange. See Katz v. United States , 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S. Ct. 507, 19 L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967) ("What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection."). As noted, defendant bears the burden of establishing standing in order to invoke the Fourth Amendment's protections. Mahdi , 317 Mich. App. at 459, 894 N.W.2d 732. Defendant has not met his burden. Defendant referred to State v. Hinton 179 Wash. 2d 862, 319 P.3d 9 (2014), in which the Washington Supreme Court determined that a police officer's use of a third party's cell phone to ultimately arrest another individual violated the Washington Constitution. However, Hinton lends no support to the standing issue. A Washington Supreme Court decision is not binding on this Court; it is, at most, persuasive authority. Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of America v. Peaker Servs., Inc. , 306 Mich. App. 178, 188, 855 N.W.2d 523 (2014). Hinton is not persuasive on this point because it is factually dissimilar in that the police officers in that case did not have a search warrant for the third party's cell phone. Hinton , 179 Wash. 2d at 865, 319 P.3d 9. Moreover, Hinton was decided under the Washington Constitution, which the court noted "is qualitatively different from the Fourth Amendment and provides greater protections." Id. at 868, 319 P.3d 9. By contrast, as already discussed, the Fourth Amendment and Article 1, § 11 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution are coextensive. Slaughter , 489 Mich. at 311, 803 N.W.2d 171.³

Therefore, defendant has failed to show that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched. As a result, defendant lacks standing to invoke the Fourth Amendment's protections, and his argument fails.

B. TRESPASS

Even if we were to find that defendant had standing to challenge the search, we nevertheless would reject his argument. Defendant argues that Sergeant Buckberry trespassed on his property by causing a text message to appear on his cell phone.

Defendant relies on the "trespass test" set out in United States v. Jones , 565...