People v. Mullins

1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SCOTT ALLEN MULLINS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 363996

Court of Appeals of Michigan

September 19, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Hillsdale Circuit Court LC No. 2021-454961-FH

Before: SWARTZLE, P.J., AND K.F. KELLY and YOUNG, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted at trial of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, MCL 333.7401(2)(b)(i), after methamphetamine was found in his vehicle during a traffic stop. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In February 2021, Trooper Stephen Beard saw defendant's vehicle at a gas station. Trooper Beard was aware that a driver of that type of vehicle had a warrant for his arrest. Trooper Beard identified defendant from a picture and, when defendant pulled out of the gas station, Trooper Beard followed him. Trooper Beard tried to check the license plate but it was obscured, so he pulled over defendant. Defendant showed Trooper Beard an expired driver's license, and he could not provide the car's registration or insurance information. Trooper Beard ultimately arrested defendant.

Trooper Beard was then going to have defendant's car towed to a secure lot, and, before it was towed, Trooper Beard and Sergeant Nathaniel Kraus did an inventory search of the car. They found two bags in the trunk that were later determined to contain methamphetamine.

Detective Trooper Specialist Nicholas Reaume completed an affidavit for a search warrant for defendant's phone, which was seized during his arrest. The affidavit requested to search all records on the phone:

that relate to violations of but not limited to possession with the intent to distribute methamphetamine, including:

a. List of telephone calls, call logs, phonebooks, and related identifying information;

b. Lists and content of text messages, message logs, e-mail communications and related identifying information;

c. Photographs and images of suspects, users, owners, and evidence of contraband;

d. Any information related to sources of firearms/ammunition (including names, addresses, phone numbers, or any other identifying information);

e. Evidence of use of the wireless telephone(s) and camera including logs, phonebooks, saved usernames and passwords, documents, and browsing history;

f. Evidence of user attribution, showing who used or owned the device at the time the things described in this warrant were created, edited, or deleted, such as logs, phonebooks, saved usernames and passwords, documents, and browsing history.

Detective Trooper Reaume explained that the facts establishing the search included his experience of over five years investigating crimes, including as part of a drug-task force. Detective Trooper Reaume explained that drug traffickers often used cell phones for drug sales and kept lists of customers and suppliers on the phones. The affidavit explained that, during a traffic stop of defendant, Trooper Beard found 49.8 grams of methamphetamine and the cell phone in defendant's car. Detective Trooper Reaume stated that the methamphetamine was found in "crushed granular texture, indicating it [was] prepared for distribution."

Investigating officers obtained the search warrant and searched defendant's phone. The officers subsequently obtained search warrants for defendant's social-media account and home.

Defendant was charged with possession with the intent to deliver methamphetamine. Defendant moved the trial court to suppress the evidence and dismiss the charges. Defendant argued that Trooper Beard's traffic stop was pretextual and that there was not probable cause to believe that defendant committed a traffic violation. In response, the prosecutor argued that Trooper Beard could stop defendant because he was driving with an obscured license plate, which was a civil infraction. After a hearing on the motion, the trial court denied defendant's motion.

The prosecutor moved to introduce evidence of defendant's drug-trafficking activity, under MRE 404(b), to show defendant's knowledge of the presence of the methamphetamine in the car. After defendant's arrest, Detective Trooper Reaume had observed several cars stop at defendant's home, and defendant would speak with the occupants, walk to an outbuilding, and return to the car. Further, officers had found messages between defendant and others describing drug sales. The trial court, after another hearing, granted the prosecutor's motion.

Defense counsel did not request any discovery. The prosecutor did not file a notice of intent to use any expert witnesses.

At trial, Detective Trooper Reaume testified about common drug practices on the basis of his experience doing undercover work. Further, Detective Trooper Reaume testified that the amount of methamphetamine that defendant possessed was the amount that a dealer would typically possess. Detective Trooper Reaume testified about conducting surveillance of defendant's home and observing activity that was indicative of selling drugs. This activity included "short stay traffic," with individuals going to defendant's home and having short exchanges with defendant before leaving. People typically went to defendant's home between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and the interactions lasted between 30 seconds and five minutes.

Detective Trooper Reaume further testified about searching defendant's phone and finding information that was indicative of drug trafficking. For example, an individual had contacted defendant via Facebook Messenger, stating that he was looking for a "basketball." In Detective Trooper Reaume's experience, this meant that the person was looking for an "eight ball," or oneeighth of an ounce of methamphetamine. Defendant responded to the message, indicating that the basketball would cost $120. Defendant was corresponding with four different individuals in a similar fashion, including with one message in which defendant stated that he sold methamphetamine for $40 a gram. Detective Trooper Reaume found the messages following the search warrant being issued for defendant's phone.

The jury found defendant guilty of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 to 20 years in prison.

Defendant moved for a new trial, challenging Detective Trooper Reaume's testimony and the admission of other-acts evidence. Defendant further argued that evidence found on defendant's phone should have been excluded and that he received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defendant then learned that the prosecutor did not disclose the affidavit for the search warrant for defendant's phone, and his new defense counsel argued at the motion hearing that the warrant lacked particularity to the facts of the case. Defendant argued, therefore, that the search warrant for the cell phone was invalid. The prosecutor argued that defendant had not requested discovery under MCR 6.201 and that his original defense counsel had been aware of the search warrants.

The trial court denied defendant's motion. The trial court found that there was no plain error in the admission of Detective Trooper Reaume's testimony and no error in admitting the other-acts evidence. Further, the trial court found that the seizure of the phone was proper and that the search warrant was valid. The trial court further found that even if the search warrant was not proper, the good-faith exception applied. Finally, the trial court determined that, because the search warrant for the phone was valid, the subsequent search warrants were valid. The trial court also found that defendant had not received ineffective assistance of counsel.

Defendant now appeals.

II. ANALYSIS

A. FOURTH AMENDMENT ISSUES

Defendant raises several Fourth Amendment issues related to the seizure of his cell phone and subsequent searches of defendant's phone and social media account. "This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion to suppress." People v Joly, 336 Mich.App. 388, 395; 970 N.W.2d 426 (2021). We review for clear error the trial court's factual findings, and de novo any underlying constitutional issues. Id. Clear error exists when this Court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake. People v Moorman, 331 Mich.App. 481, 485; 952 N.W.2d 597 (2020).

Defendant properly moved to suppress evidence resulting from the traffic stop, preserving his objection to the seizure of his phone. There is a question of whether defendant properly preserved the additional Fourth Amendment issues because defendant did not challenge the validity of the search warrants prior to trial. See People v Aldrich, 246 Mich.App. 101, 113; 631 N.W.2d 67 (2001). Defendant has argued, however, that he did not have access to the affidavits and, therefore, was not aware of the grounds for an objection prior to or at trial. Out of an abundance of caution, will review the Fourth Amendment issues as properly preserved.

"Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of the people to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures." Id. The Fourth Amendment to 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.

"Searches or seizures conducted without a warrant are per se unreasonable, subject to several well-delineated exceptions." Moorman, 331 Mich.App. at 485. "A search warrant may only be issued upon a showing of probable cause," which "exists if there is a substantial basis for inferring a...