People v. Turner

342 Mich.App. 581

995 N.W.2d 857

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Claudell TURNER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 357699

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted June 7, 2022, at Detroit.

Decided August 18, 2022, at 9:00 a.m.

Dana Nessel, Attorney General, Fadwa A. Hammoud, Solicitor General, Karen McDonald, Prosecuting Attorney, Marilyn Day, Chief, Appellate Division, and Danielle Walton, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

Paul Stablein, PLLC (by Paul J. Stablein ) for defendant.

Before: Markey, P.J., and Shapiro and Patel, JJ.

Patel, J. Defendant, Claudell Turner, was pulled over by two Oakland County Sheriff's deputies because the vehicle that he was driving matched the description provided by an anonymous source who claimed that he saw a person named "Michael Sullivan" with a black pistol, driving a gray Jeep Grand Cherokee. Six seconds after one of the deputies asked Turner for his identification, Turner was ordered out of the vehicle, handcuffed, and searched without any opportunity to produce his identification, which was in plain view on the center console of the vehicle. Turner argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized because there was no probable cause for his arrest and the search was unconstitutional.

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals from being subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures. The pat-down search of Turner did not reveal any weapons that would justify the search of his pockets, pants, and underwear. And there was no probable cause to arrest Turner based on the statements from an anonymous source who provided the name of a different person. We conclude that the search was unconstitutional, and the evidence seized must be suppressed. We reverse the trial court's order denying Turner's motion to suppress.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 4, 2020, an anonymous person reported to Oakland County Sheriff's Deputy Kevin Myers and Detective Hedrick that he saw a person named "Michael Sullivan" with a black pistol driving a newer, gray Jeep Grand Cherokee on the south side of Pontiac, Michigan. Sullivan was described as an African American male in his 30s with long dreadlocks. The anonymous tipster reported that Sullivan pulled out the black pistol "and was showing it while he was in his vehicle." The anonymous tipster did not report that Sullivan threatened him with the pistol. Neither Myers nor Hedrick had met the anonymous source before this encounter. Myers and Hedrick searched for Sullivan on the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN). Myers maintained that the LEIN inquiry confirmed the anonymous source's description of Sullivan and showed that Sullivan had a suspended driver's license and a warrant for his arrest related to a traffic offense.

Less than two hours later, Myers observed a newer, gray Jeep Grand Cherokee cross an intersection on the south side of Pontiac. Although Myers admitted that he was more than a full city block from the intersection at the time that he first observed the Jeep, he maintained that the Jeep "appeared to be going at a high rate of speed...." Myers initially claimed that he could see that the driver of the Jeep matched Sullivan's description when the Jeep crossed the intersection. But Myers admitted on cross-examination that he was too far from the intersection to identify the driver of the Jeep. ¹ Myers turned at the intersection, caught up to the Jeep, and initiated a traffic stop. ² The patrol vehicle's dashcam captured the events.

As Myers and Hedrick approached Turner's vehicle, Turner had his hands in the air. Myers ordered Turner to roll down his window. Turner complied with the command. Myers asked Turner if he had any identification. Approximately six seconds later, Myers opened the driver's side door and ordered Turner out of the vehicle before he could produce his identification. Turner stepped out of the vehicle. Myers started handcuffing Turner as he was exiting the Jeep. Hedrick requested consent to search Turner's vehicle, but Turner refused. In response to a series of questions by Hedrick, Turner provided his full name, confirmed that he had a valid driver's license, stated that his license was inside the vehicle on the center console, and confirmed that the vehicle was a rental. ³ While Turner was responding to Hedrick's questions, Myers performed a pat-down search, reached into Turner's left pocket, and withdrew some currency. Myers did not find any weapons in Turner's pockets. Turner offered to retrieve his identification from the vehicle, but the officers refused.

Rather than retrieve Turner's identification from the vehicle to confirm his identity, the officers took Turner behind their patrol vehicle and searched him further. ⁴ Myers felt "some type of hard like plastic" from the outside of Turner's pants with his right hand. With his left hand, Myers pulled the elastic waistband of Turner's pants away from Turner's body, looked inside of Turner's pants, and observed a black digital scale. While Myers and Hedrick were searching Turner, a third officer, Detective Brian Wilson, observed Turner's identification on top of the center console and retrieved it. Wilson approached the two officers with the identification as Myers was removing the scale from Turner's pants. Hedrick continued to search Turner. Wilson grabbed Turner's pants and underwear from the outside, shook them, and a clear, plastic baggie fell out of the bottom of his pant leg. ⁵

Turner was bound over for trial on one count of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of heroin, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv ), and one count of possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv ). Turner moved to suppress the evidence seized during the stop, arguing that the search was unconstitutional. The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The trial court concluded that the pat-down search was reasonable and did not exceed the scope of Terry v Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 88 S Ct 1868, 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), because Myers "observed a bulge in Defendant's pants and testified that he did not know if the object in the Defendant's pants was a weapon."

Turner filed an application for leave to appeal, which this Court denied. ⁶ Thereafter, Turner sought leave to appeal in our Supreme Court. In lieu of granting the application, our Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on leave granted. ⁷

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review de novo a trial court's ultimate decision on a motion to suppress, People v Moorman , 331 Mich App 481, 484, 952 N.W.2d 597 (2020), but we review for clear error any factual findings, People v Elliott , 494 Mich. 292, 300, 833 N.W.2d 284 (2013). A finding is clearly erroneous if, after an examination of the entire record, ⁸ the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.

People v Givans, 227 Mich App 113, 119, 575 N.W.2d 84 (1997). Underlying questions of law are reviewed de novo. People v Daoud, 462 Mich. 621, 629-630, 614 N.W.2d 152 (2000).

III. ANALYSIS

Turner argues that the officers’ search was unconstitutional because the pat-down of his outer clothing did not reveal a weapon and there was no probable cause to arrest him based on the statements from an anonymous source who provided the name of a different person. We agree.

A person's right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution. U.S. Const., Am. IV ; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11 ; People v Pagano, 507 Mich. 26, 31-32, 967 N.W.2d 590 (2021). A seizure occurs "when, in view of all the circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude that he or she was not free to leave." People v Kavanaugh , 320 Mich App 293, 300, 907 N.W.2d 845 (2017). "A traffic stop for a suspected violation of law is a ‘seizure’ of the occupants of the vehicle and therefore must be conducted in accordance with the Fourth Amendment." Heien v North Carolina , 574 U.S. 54, 60, 135 S Ct 530, 190 L Ed 2d 475 (2014). It is presumed that a warrantless search or seizure is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment unless one of the few specific exceptions are applicable. Illinois v Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236, 103 S Ct 2317, 76 L Ed 2d 527 (1983) ; People v Hughes , 506 Mich. 512, 524-525, 958 N.W.2d 98 (2020) ; People v Reed , 393 Mich. 342, 362, 224 N.W.2d 867 (1975).

One such exception is a Terry investigatory stop. Johnson v. VanderKooi , 509 Mich. 524, 539, 983 NW2d 779 (2022). A Terry stop allows an officer to conduct a brief, warrantless seizure when the officer has at least a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity based on articulable facts. Terry , 392 U.S. at 20-27, 88 S.Ct. 1868. A Terry stop can be justified by an anonymous tip if the tip is sufficiently corroborated. Florida v. J.L. , 529 U.S. 266, 270, 120 S Ct 1375, 146 L Ed 2d 254 (2000) ; Pagano , 507 Mich. at 33, 967 N.W.2d 590. But " Terry stops are limited in both scope and duration." Johnson, 509 Mich at 539, 983 N.W.2d 779. "The scope of the detention must be carefully tailored to its underlying justification." Florida v Royer , 460 U.S. 491, 500, 103 S Ct 1319, 75 L Ed 2d 229 (1983). During a Terry stop, an officer may "make reasonable inquiries aimed at confirming or dispelling his suspicions." Minnesota v Dickerson , 508 U.S. 366, 373, 113 S Ct 2130, 124 L.Ed 2d 334 (1993) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

If an officer has a reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, the officer may conduct a limited pat-down search for weapons during a Terry stop. Terry , 392 U.S. at 24, 88 S.Ct. 1868 ; People v Champion , 452 Mich. 92, 99, 549 N.W.2d 849 (1996). But " Terry strictly limits the permissible scope of a patdown search to that reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden...