PEOPLE v. CHAPMAN

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Docket No. 79478.

Attorney(S)

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Deputy Chief, Civil and Appeals, and Andrea L. Solak, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. Mark R. Hall, for defendant on appeal.

Judges

PER CURIAM.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, MCL 333.7403(2)(b); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(b). At the preliminary examination, the arresting officer testified that he stopped defendant's vehicle because the windshield was cracked, learned defendant was wanted on an outstanding traffic warrant and that his license had been suspended, placed defendant under arrest, and patted him down. During the patdown the officer discovered a vial at the left waistband-hip area of defendant's trousers. The officer seized the vial, found it to be a pill bottle bearing a prescription in defendant's name, opened the bottle because he could not see its contents, and discovered a controlled substance.

The magistrate concluded the officer should have obtained a warrant before opening the pill bottle, suppressed the evidence, and the charges were dismissed. The prosecutor appealed to the Recorder's Court of Detroit, which affirmed the magistrate. The prosecutor sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals (leave denied) and then sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court; the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted, 419 Mich. 903 (1984). The prosecution appealed in this Court by leave granted.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the arresting officer's opening of a prescription pill bottle discovered during a patdown without obtaining a warrant was a permissible search that could support admission of the contents (i.e., whether the officer could constitutionally open the bottle and seize its contents).
Whether the Recorder's Court erred by applying a mixture of federal and state law (as alleged by the prosecutor) in making its decision, and whether reliance on Michigan v Long controlled that question of law.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecutor's Arguments

The prosecutor argued that the magistrate applied federal law and that the Recorder's Court erred by considering a mixture of federal and state law.
The prosecutor relied on Michigan v Long to support the contention that the law applied by the magistrate/Recorder's Court was improper or controlling in a way that favored admissibility of the evidence.

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific arguments advanced by the defense beyond the magistrate's ultimate factual findings and ruling suppressing the evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Michigan v Long, 459 U.S. 904; 103 S Ct 3469; 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983)	Concerned the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court's review of a state decision (i.e., scope of U.S. Supreme Court review).	The Court held the prosecutor misplaced reliance on Long; Long did not hold that the law applied by a lower state court is binding on and controls the scope of review by a higher state court.
People v Dixon, 392 Mich. 691; 222 N.W.2d 749 (1974)	Holds that when a defendant is entitled to immediate bond under the interim bail statute, MCL 780.581; MSA 28.872(1), police officers do not have the right to conduct an inventory search incident to taking the defendant into custody; officers may search for weapons and may seize obvious contraband discovered during a search.	The Court concluded the Recorder's Court properly considered Dixon and applied its principles to determine the officer should not have opened the pill bottle because the pills were not obvious contraband.
People v Moore, 391 Mich. 426; 216 N.W.2d 770 (1974)	Supports the proposition that if an officer can see into a container without opening it and plainly observes contraband, the officer may seize it.	The Court cited Moore to explain that seizure would have been permissible had the officer been able to see the contraband without opening the bottle; that factual situation did not exist here.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the prosecutor's contention that the magistrate applied federal law and that the Recorder's Court erred by using a mixture of federal and state law, noting the prosecutor's reliance on Michigan v Long. The Court explained that the portion of Long relied upon concerned only the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to review state decisions and did not establish that the law applied by a lower state court is binding on a higher state court. Accordingly, the reliance on Long was misplaced.

The Court accepted the Recorder's Court's consideration of state authority, particularly People v Dixon, which it described as establishing that when a defendant is entitled to immediate bond under the interim bail statute police do not have the right to conduct an inventory search incident to custody; police may, however, search for weapons and seize obvious contraband encountered during a search. Applying that principle, the Court noted the pills were contained in a prescription-labeled pill bottle and that the officer could not see into the bottle without opening it. Because the contraband was not "obvious" without opening the container, the officer should not have opened the bottle absent a warrant. The Court further noted, citing People v Moore, that if the officer had been able to see into the bottle and plainly observed contraband without opening it, seizure would have been permissible; that was not the factual situation here.

Based on this application of state law to the established facts, the Court concluded the lower courts did not err in suppressing the evidence.

Holding and Implications

Affirmed.

Holding: The Court affirmed the lower courts' suppression of the evidence; the officer should not have opened the prescription pill bottle without a warrant because the contraband was not obvious from outside the container.

Implications: The direct consequence is that the suppression of the evidence and dismissal of the charges, as ordered by the lower court, was upheld. The opinion does not announce a new legal rule beyond applying existing Michigan precedents (Dixon and Moore) and rejects the prosecutor's reliance on Michigan v Long as controlling in this context; no broader new precedent was established by this opinion.

Show full summary ...

PEOPLE v CHAPMAN

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a controlled substance, MCL 333.7403(2)(b); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(b). The lower court suppressed the evidence and dismissed the charges. The prosecution now appeals by leave granted.

At the preliminary examination, the arresting officer testified that he stopped the defendant's vehicle because the windshield was cracked. The officer then learned that defendant was wanted on an outstanding traffic warrant and that his license had been suspended. The officer placed defendant under arrest and patted him down. During the search, the officer discovered a vial on the left waistband-hip area of defendant's trousers. The officer seized the vial which turned out to be a pill bottle with a prescription on it in defendant's name. The officer could not see into the vial, so he opened it up and discovered that it contained a controlled substance. Based on this testimony, the magistrate determined that the police officer should have obtained a warrant before opening the pill bottle and therefore suppressed the evidence. The prosecutor appealed to the Recorder's Court of Detroit, which affirmed the magistrate's determination. The prosecutor sought leave to appeal to this Court, but leave was denied. The prosecutor then sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted, 419 Mich. 903 (1984).

On appeal, the prosecutor argues that, since the magistrate applied federal law, the Recorder's Court erred in considering a mixture of federal and state law. Even assuming that the prosecutor is correct in asserting that the magistrate based her decision on federal law and that the Recorder's Court based its decision on a mixture of federal and state law, the prosecution misplaces its reliance on Michigan v Long, 459 U.S. 904; 103 S Ct 3469; 77 L Ed 2d 1201 (1983). The portion of Long, supra, that the prosecution relies on was solely concerned with the jurisdiction of the United States Supreme Court's review of a state decision. In Long, the U.S. Supreme Court did not hold that the law applied by a lower state court is binding upon and controls the scope of review by a higher state court. The Recorder's Court therefore properly considered People v Dixon, 392 Mich. 691; 222 N.W.2d 749 (1974). In Dixon, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant is entitled to immediate bond under the interim bail statute, MCL 780.581; MSA 28.872(1), police officers do not have the right to conduct an inventory search pursuant to taking the defendant into custody. The officer may however search for a weapon and, if the officer uncovers obvious contraband during the search, he may seize it. The pills in the instant case were in a bottle labeled with a prescription. The officer could not see into the pill bottle to determine whether it contained contraband. This was not obvious contraband and the officer should not have searched into the bottle. If the officer could have seen into the pill bottle without opening it and noticed that the bottle contained contraband, the officer could seize it. People v Moore, 391 Mich. 426; 216 N.W.2d 770 (1974). This was not the situation in the instant case. The lower courts did not err.

Affirmed.