By Ed Jacques, LEJ Editor

In the case of People of the State of Michigan vs. Michael William Mungo, a prosecutor appealed a circuit court order granting a defendant's motion to suppress evidence and to quash the Information. The Washtenaw Circuit Court had suppressed evidence of a gun found as a result of a search of the defendant's car following a routine traffic stop and arrest of the passenger in the defendant's car. Defendant, who was operating his car when it was stopped by law enforcement, was charged with unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon pursuant to MCL 750.227. The issue presented in the case is whether a police officer may permissibly search a car incident to a passenger's arrest where prior to the search there is no probable cause to believe that the car contained contraband or to believe the driver and owner of the car had engaged in any unlawful activity.

 Washtenaw County Sheriff's Deputy Ryan Stuck lawfully initiated a traffic stop of a car driven by Michael Mungo, the defendant. Mark Dixon was the sole passenger in the car. Upon request, the defendant produced the vehicle registration and proof of insurance. Deputy Stuck also requested the occupants' driver's licenses and ran a LEIN check on both Dixon and Mungo. Deputy Stuck found that Dixon had two outstanding warrants issued for failing to appear in court to answer traffic violations. Deputy Stuck arrested Dixon, then requested dispatch to send another officer to assist him, securing Dixon in the back of his squad car. Deputy Stuck also directed the defendant to step out of his car, where Deputy Stuck conducted a pat-down search. Thereafter, Deputy Stuck searched Mungo's car, finding the unloaded gun in a case underneath the driver seat and ammunition in the glove box. Deputy Stuck asked the defendant to produce a permit to carry the concealed weapon. However, Mungo produced only a permit to purchase a firearm. Defendant's LEIN check did not reveal that he was issued a concealed weapon permit. Deputy Stuck arrested Mungo for unlawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

In the circuit court, defendant moved to quash the Information and to suppress evidence of the gun. The prosecutor relied on New York v Belton, 453 US 454; 101 S Ct 2860; 69 L Ed 2d 768 (1981), arguing that the arrest of any person in a car justifies a search of the passenger compartment of that car. The prosecutor argued that the search that led to the discovery of the gun was constitutionally permissible because Dixon, a passenger in Mungo's car, was lawfully arrested. Defendant relied on Missouri v Bradshaw, 99 SW3d 73 (Mo App, 2003) a case in which a divided panel of the Missouri Court of Appeals distinguished Belton and held that police officers cannot lawfully search a driver's vehicle pursuant to the arrest of a passenger, where the passenger was safely arrested and there was no reasonable suspicion that the driver possessed unlawful items.

The Washtenaw Circuit Court followed Bradshaw. The Court concluded that the defendant was not under arrest at the time Deputy Stuck searched his car. The Circuit Court further concluded that Mungo had a protected privacy interest in his car. The circuit court also held that there was no probable cause to arrest defendant, therefore, the search of his car was not constitutionally permissible. The appeal followed. In its analysis of the case the Court of Appeals judges reviewed many cases and points of law. The Court referred the inquiry made by Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist in People v Robinson, wherein he questioned the assumption that persons arrested for the offense of driving while their license suspended are less likely to pose a risk to law enforcement than are those arrested for other crimes. His opinion was: The danger to the police officer flows from the fact of the arrest and its attendant proximity, stress and uncertainty, and not from the grounds for arrest.

The court stated that interpretation of the Fourth Amendment recognizes an "automobile exception," establishing that one's reasonable expectation of privacy in a car is substantially reduced over the expectation of privacy one has in a dwelling or other personal property.

The court agreed that the need for a clear rule, readily understood by police officers and not dependant on different estimates of what items were or were not within reach of a arrestee at any particular moment, is established in New York v Belton and Thorton v United States. The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded: "The diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles, considered in conjunction with the need to have a bright line rule that can accurately and easily be implemented by law enforcement in the field and that promotes the safety of law enforcement officials and preserves evidence, lead us to conclude that the Fourth Amendment permits police officers to search the interior of an automobile incident to the lawful arrest of its passenger, regardless of whether officers have reason to believe the automobile contains contraband or the operator of the automobile engaged in illegal activity. We hold that such a search is a constitutionally permissible search incident to a lawful arrest. We reserve and remand for entry of an order denying defendant's motion to suppress the gun and for re-instatement of the charge".

This decision clarifies law enforcements rights.

Editors Note:

A vehicle search incident to an arrest does not extend to the trunk.