People v. Massey

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Massey

546 N.W.2d 711, 215 Mich. App. 639

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 1996

DocketDocket 179352

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 546 N.W.2d 711 (People v. Massey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Massey, 546 N.W.2d 711, 215 Mich. App. 639 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinions

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.

Defendant was a front-seat passenger in an automobile stopped by police in the City of Detroit for exceeding the speed limit. The two officers from the patrol car approached the vehicle from the front. Officer Dwayne Jackson approached the passenger side of the car and recognized defendant as a man he had known for several years as a schoolmate of his brother. While [641]*641at the vehicle and speaking with defendant, Officer Jackson noticed a bulge in defendant’s jacket pocket in the area of his waist; For his protection and the protection of his fellow officer, the defendant was asked by Officer Jackson to step from the car for a patdown search for weapons. Defendant complied with the officer’s request, got out of the vehicle and submitted to the patdown search.

As the officer proceeded with the patdown search, he placed his fingers around the bulge and immediately realized it was not a weapon. The officer thought it might be narcotics. At a hearing regarding the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, the officer testified: "When I touched it, I had some idea what it was.” The officer then removed the object creating the bulge from defendant’s pocket and, upon inspection, found it to be a. brown paper bag that was open. Inside was a clear plastic bag containing narcotics.

Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver over 225 but less than 650 grams of cocaine. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); MSA 14.15(7401) (2)(a)(ii). Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence, alleging the evidence was obtained by an illegal and unconstitutional search. The trial court denied the motion, and this Court granted leave to appeal.

We review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439; 339 NW2d 403 (1983). "Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich 289, 303; 505 NW2d 528 (1993); People v Burrell, supra. It does not appear to us that the officer’s search of the contents of defendant’s jacket pocket was justified under the limited scope of the "pilain feel” excep[642]*642tion to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A review of the testimony at the hearing regarding the motion to suppress the evidence establishes a lawful stop of the vehicle in which defendant was riding as a passenger. The observation of defendant and the other passengers in the vehicle by Officer Jackson, while the driver was being interviewed regarding the civil infraction of exceeding the speed limit, was appropriate. Officer Jackson’s observation of the bulge in defendant’s jacket pocket at the waist justified a patdown search. Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968).

However, when Officer Jackson conducted the patdown search of defendant, he quickly learned that the object creating the bulge in the pocket was not a weapon; he became suspicious that the object was narcotics. To confirm his suspicion, he removed the object from the pocket and found it to be a brown paper bag, open at the top. He looked in the bag and saw a clear plastic bag that contained a substance that he believed to be a narcotic. The contents of the bags were seized and defendant was arrested.

Defendant claims that the patdown search didn’t make the identity of the object causing the lump immediately apparent to the officer, though he had some idea what it was. When he knew it wasn’t a weapon and when he had only some idea of what it was, his continued search was no longer constitutional. The seizure of the brown paper bag was illegal and its contents must be suppressed as evidence against defendant. Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 US 366; 113 S Ct 2130; 124 L Ed 2d 334 (1993); People v Champion, 205 Mich App 623; 518 NW2d 518 (1994).

Reversed.

[643]*643J. R. Giddings, J., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Michael J. Kelly, P.J.

Defendant was a front-seat passenger in an automobile stopped by police in the City of Detroit for exceeding the speed limit. The two officers from the patrol car approached the vehicle from the front. Officer Dwayne Jackson approached the passenger side of the car and recognized defendant as a man he had known for several years as a schoolmate of his brother. While [641]*641at the vehicle and speaking with defendant, Officer Jackson noticed a bulge in defendant’s jacket pocket in the area of his waist; For his protection and the protection of his fellow officer, the defendant was asked by Officer Jackson to step from the car for a patdown search for weapons. Defendant complied with the officer’s request, got out of the vehicle and submitted to the patdown search.

As the officer proceeded with the patdown search, he placed his fingers around the bulge and immediately realized it was not a weapon. The officer thought it might be narcotics. At a hearing regarding the defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence, the officer testified: "When I touched it, I had some idea what it was.” The officer then removed the object creating the bulge from defendant’s pocket and, upon inspection, found it to be a. brown paper bag that was open. Inside was a clear plastic bag containing narcotics.

Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver over 225 but less than 650 grams of cocaine. MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii); MSA 14.15(7401) (2)(a)(ii). Before trial, defendant moved to suppress the evidence, alleging the evidence was obtained by an illegal and unconstitutional search. The trial court denied the motion, and this Court granted leave to appeal.

We review a trial court’s decision regarding a motion to suppress evidence under the clearly erroneous standard. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439; 339 NW2d 403 (1983). "Clear error exists when the reviewing court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Kurylczyk, 443 Mich 289, 303; 505 NW2d 528 (1993); People v Burrell, supra. It does not appear to us that the officer’s search of the contents of defendant’s jacket pocket was justified under the limited scope of the "pilain feel” excep[642]*642tion to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

A review of the testimony at the hearing regarding the motion to suppress the evidence establishes a lawful stop of the vehicle in which defendant was riding as a passenger. The observation of defendant and the other passengers in the vehicle by Officer Jackson, while the driver was being interviewed regarding the civil infraction of exceeding the speed limit, was appropriate. Officer Jackson’s observation of the bulge in defendant’s jacket pocket at the waist justified a patdown search. Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968).

However, when Officer Jackson conducted the patdown search of defendant, he quickly learned that the object creating the bulge in the pocket was not a weapon; he became suspicious that the object was narcotics. To confirm his suspicion, he removed the object from the pocket and found it to be a brown paper bag, open at the top. He looked in the bag and saw a clear plastic bag that contained a substance that he believed to be a narcotic. The contents of the bags were seized and defendant was arrested.

Defendant claims that the patdown search didn’t make the identity of the object causing the lump immediately apparent to the officer, though he had some idea what it was. When he knew it wasn’t a weapon and when he had only some idea of what it was, his continued search was no longer constitutional. The seizure of the brown paper bag was illegal and its contents must be suppressed as evidence against defendant. Minnesota v Dickerson, 508 US 366; 113 S Ct 2130; 124 L Ed 2d 334 (1993); People v Champion, 205 Mich App 623; 518 NW2d 518 (1994).

Reversed.

[643]*643J. R. Giddings, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 N.W.2d 711, 215 Mich. App. 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-massey-michctapp-1996.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack