If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

January 28, 2020

v No. 348608

Wayne Circuit Court

TIMOTHY LARRANCE LEACH, LC No. 18-007699-01-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: BECKERING, P.J., and CAVANAGH and STEPHENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals as on leave granted1 the circuit court’s order denying his motion to 

quash the charges of tampering with evidence, MCL 750.483, and engaging as a security guard 

without a license, MCL 338.1053. Defendant was also bound over on charges of aggravated 

assault, MCL 750.81a, and willful neglect of duty as a public officer, but does not contest those 

charges. Defendant was charged with assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than 

murder, MCL 750.84, but the district court dismissed the charge at the preliminary examination. 

We affirm.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

This matter arises from an incident that occurred on March 11, 2018, at Ottava Via in 

Detroit. Defendant and his codefendant, Frederick Person,2 are both Detroit police officers. On 

March 11, 2018, defendant, Person, Gregory Pace, Kennan Jefferson, a man named Phernell, and 

a man named Tim, were hired by the owner of Ottava Via to provide “access control” to patrons, 

which generally involved checking IDs and distributing wristbands to patrons who were 21 years 

 1 People v Leach, 933 NW2d 284 (Mich, 2019).

2 Defendant and Person were codefendants at the preliminary examination. Person is not part of 

the instant appeal.
-2-

or older. However, the owner of the Ottava Via instructed Pace to turn away patrons who 

appeared to be too drunk to come inside.

Pace and Person were working the front-door entrance around 2:30 p.m. when defendant 

told Pace that “he might need help [inside] escorting a gentleman out of the bar.” When Pace 

walked inside Ottava Via, he saw Michael Karpovich, the victim, lying on the ground. 

Karpovich was unresponsive, and a pool of blood began to form around his body. The exact 

details of the altercation between defendant and Karpovich were not provided at the preliminary 

examination, but it appears that defendant struck Karpovich in such a way that Karpovich fell to 

the floor and was rendered unconscious. After medical personnel took Karpovich out on a 

stretcher, Pace returned to the front-door entrance to resume checking IDs and distributing 

wristbands.

Detroit Police Officer Marcus Harris II, and his partner, Officer Terry White, were 

dispatched to Ottava Via regarding an intoxicated person that required medical attention. When 

Officers Harris and White arrived at Ottava Via, medical personnel were already treating

Karpovich, who was now lying unconscious on a stretcher inside the ambulance. Officer Harris 

spoke with Person and Pace at the front-door entrance of Ottava Via. Person told Officer Harris, 

“[W]e threw . . . [Karpovich] out of the bar because he was highly intoxicated.” After speaking 

with Pace and Person, Officers Harris and White left Ottava Via and went to the hospital where 

Karpovich was taken.

The team of men working at Ottava Via on March 11, 2018, including defendant, started 

a group chat on their cellphones. On March 10, 2018, defendant sent the group chat a text 

message, stating: “Reminder Reminder!! Tomorrow March 11, 2018 Sunday from 11-7pm at 

1400 Michigan Ave, Ottava-Via. We will be the security team for their St. Patrick’s Day Parade 

and Party, they celebrate a week before the actual event. This time we will all be at the same 

spot. Thanks Team[.]” Text messages from the group chat discussed what the men would wear 

on March 11, 2018, and where the men could find parking spots. After the incident with 

Karpovich, Jefferson texted the group chat about needing a mop to clean up Karpovich’s blood.

Detroit Police Detective Sarah Markel performed cellphone extractions on the six 

cellphones belonging to the men working at Ottava Via on March 11, 2018, including the 

cellphones of defendant, Person, and Jefferson. Defendant’s and Person’s cellphone numbers 

were listed as members in the group chat. A total of 32 text messages were exchanged in the 

group chat between the men working at Ottava Via on March 11, 2018. However, when 

Detective Merkel analyzed defendant’s and Person’s cellphones, the text messages from the 

March 11, 2018 group chat were missing despite records showing that their cellphones were 

members and participants in the group chat. The group chat text messages were found on the 

four other cellphones that Detective Merkel analyzed. Detective Markel believed that the group 

chat text messages were missing from defendant’s and Person’s cellphones because they were 

deleted. Although Detective Markel testified that some of the text messages could be missing if 

defendant and Person never received them, that scenario seemed unlikely given that defendant 

and Person both sent text messages to the group chat.

At the preliminary examination, Jefferson testified that he did not believe that he 

provided security services because security, in his opinion, focused more on preventing theft or 
-3-

danger to patrons. Jefferson, who has a full-time job with a security company, defined their 

duties on March 11, 2018 as “access control.” Defendant did not have a license in the state of 

Michigan to engage as a security guard or hold a license to own a security-guard company.

The district court bound defendant over on charges of tampering with evidence, engaging 

as a security guard without a license, aggravated assault, and willful neglect of duty. In the 

circuit court, defendant filed a motion to quash the charges of engaging as a security guard 

without a license and tampering with evidence. The circuit court denied defendant’s motion, 

holding that, on the basis of the probable-cause standard, the district court did not abuse its 

discretion when it bound defendant over on charges of tampering with evidence and engaging as 

a security guard without a license. Defendant filed an interlocutory application for leave to 

appeal in this Court, which was denied. People v Leach, unpublished order of the Court of 

Appeals, entered May 30, 2019 (Docket No. 348608). Defendant then filed an application for 

leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. In lieu of granting defendant’s application for leave to 

appeal, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to this Court for consideration as on leave 

granted. People v Leach, 933 NW2d 284 (Mich, 2019).

II. MOTION TO QUASH 

Defendant argues that the district court abused its discretion by finding probable cause to 

believe that defendant tampered with evidence and engaged as a security guard without a license. 

We disagree.

This Court reviews a district court’s decision to bind over a defendant for an abuse of 

discretion. People v Fairey, 325 Mich App 645, 649; 928 NW2d 705 (2018). “An abuse of 

discretion occurs when the district court’s decision falls outside the range of principled 

outcomes.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). A trial court’s decision to deny a 

motion to quash is also reviewed for an abuse of discretion. People v Lemons, 299 Mich App 

541, 545; 830 NW2d 794 (2013). “However, to the extent that a lower court’s decision on a 

motion to quash the information is based on an interpretation of the law, appellate review of the 

interpretation is de novo.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

“The purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether probable cause exists 

to believe that a crime was committed and that the defendant committed it.” People v Lowery, 

274 Mich App 684, 685; 736 NW2d 586 (2007). The threshold for evidence sufficient to bind 

over a defendant is far lower than what is required to convict a defendant of the crime at trial. 

People v Greene, 255 Mich App 426, 443-444; 661 NW2d 616 (2003). Probable cause can be 

established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences arising from that evidence. Id. 

at 444. And probable cause is said to exist when there is a “quantum of evidence sufficient to 

cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief 

of the accused’s guilt.” People v Anderson, 501 Mich 175, 183; 912 NW2d 503 (2018), quoting 

People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 126; 659 NW2d 604 (2003). Generally, probable cause to bind

over a defendant can exist even if the district court has some reasonable doubt that the defendant 

committed the crime. Anderson, 501 Mich at 185-186, quoting Yost, 468 Mich at 133. That is 

so because the “gap between probable cause and guilt beyond reasonable doubt is broad,” which 

is why finding guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the factfinder’s responsibility. Yost, 468 Mich 

at 126.
-4-

A. ENGAGING AS AN UNLICENSED SECURITY GUARD

Defendant first challenges the district court’s decision to bind him over on the charge of 

engaging as a security officer without a license, arguing that the prosecution failed to proffer 

evidence that he was working as a private security guard or as a security business on March 11, 

2018.

Defendant was charged under MCL 338.1053, which provides in relevant part:

(1) Unless licensed under this act, a sole proprietorship, firm, company, 

partnership, limited liability company, or corporation shall not engage in the 

business of security alarm system contractor, private security guard, private 

security police, private college security force, patrol service, or an agency 

furnishing those services. A person, firm, company, partnership, limited liability 

company, or corporation shall not advertise its business to be that of security 

alarm system contractor, security alarm system agent, private security guard 

agency, or an agency furnishing those services without having first obtained from 

the department a license to do so for each office and branch office to be owned, 

conducted, managed, or maintained for the conduct of that business.

A “private security guard” is defined as “an individual or an employee of an employer who 

offers, for hire, to provide protection of property on the premises of another, and includes an 

employee of a private college security force.” MCL 338.1052(1)(g). And a “security business”

includes “a person engaged in offering, arranging, or providing” private security guard services. 

MCL 338.1052(1)(l)(ii).

The prosecution presented sufficient evidence from which the district court could 

conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief that defendant was engaged in providing private 

security guard services without a license. Defendant claims that there was no evidence that he 

acted as a security business, but a security business can be a single person engaging in private 

security guard services. MCL 338.1052(1)(l)(ii). The statute does not require an individual to 

“own” any business; rather, MCL 338.1052(1)(l) is focused on the services engaged in by a 

person. The fact that defendant does not have a business entity registered in his name is only 

relevant to the extent that it is evidence that defendant does not have a licensed private security 

business. And although Detroit Police Sergeant Todd Eby failed to bring his report to the 

preliminary examination, he testified that he searched the police department’s database as well as 

the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) website and could not find a private security 

guard license under defendant’s name.

The prosecution presented evidence that defendant and five other men were hired by the 

owner of Ottava Via to do more than check IDs and hand out wristbands to patrons trying to 

enter the bar. Pace testified that the owner of Ottava Via told him and Person to decline entry to 

patrons who appeared to be intoxicated, indicating that the duties of the six men involved more 

than just checking IDs and handing out wristbands. Moreover, defendant clearly felt that he had 

the authority to physically evict Karpovich because he was too drunk, suggesting that he was 
-5-

hired to protect Ottava Via from damage potentially inflicted by intoxicated patrons. In fact, 

defendant sent a reminder text message to the group chat, stating that the men would be the 

“security team” for Ottava Via on March 11, 2018. The prosecution presented evidence that 

defendant recruited the men to work at Ottava Via, was responsible for paying the men, and had 

some authority to relocate the men to different posts throughout the day. Pace also testified that 

defendant asked him for help to evict Karpovich. The prosecution presented evidence from 

which the district court could reasonably infer that defendant and the five men—who were all 

dressed alike in black—were hired to provide protection to Ottava Via on March 11, 2018, by 

ensuring that drunk patrons did not enter the bar and that drunk patrons were promptly removed 

from the premises. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it bound 

defendant over on the charge of engaging as a security guard without a license.

B. TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE 

Defendant argues that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to support the 

district court’s finding that there was probable cause that he tampered with evidence. We 

disagree.

Defendant was charged under MCL 750.483a(6)(a), which lists the possible punishments 

for a violation of MCL 750.483a(5). MCL 750.483a(5) states:

(5) A person shall not do any of the following:

(a) Knowingly and intentionally remove, alter, conceal, destroy, or otherwise 

tamper with evidence to be offered in a present or future official proceeding.

(b) Offer evidence at an official proceeding that he or she recklessly disregards as 

false.

MCL 750.483a(11)(a) broadly defines an “official proceeding” as “a proceeding heard before a 

legislative, judicial, administrative, or other governmental agency or official authorized to hear 

evidence under oath, including a referee, prosecuting attorney, hearing examiner, commissioner, 

notary, or other person taking testimony or deposition in that proceeding.” The prosecution 

charged defendant under MCL 750.483a(5)(a), alleging that defendant intentionally deleted the 

text messages in the March 11, 2018 group chat in an effort to prevent those text messages from 

being used against him in a future legal proceeding.

At the preliminary examination, the prosecution presented evidence that defendant and 

the five other men working at Ottava Via on March 11, 2018 were in a group chat. Defendant’s 

cellphone number was listed in the group chat. However, when Detective Merkel’s analyzed 

defendant’s cellphone, the text messages from the March 11, 2018 group chat were missing. Of 

the six cellphones that Detective Merkel analyzed, the group chat was found on only four 

cellphones. Text messages from the group chat were only missing from Person’s and 

defendant’s cellphones. According to Detective Markel, it was unlikely that the text messages 

were missing from defendant’s cellphone because of some cellular error because defendant sent 

text messages to the group chat. Thus, there was sufficient evidence to allow the district court to 

reasonably infer that defendant concealed, destroyed, or otherwise tampered with the text 

messages in the March 11, 2018 group chat by deleting the conversation from his cell phone.
-6-

Several text messages in the group chat specifically mentioned the unauthorized work 

performed by the team on March 11, 2018 at Ottava Via. In the group chat, the men agreed to 

wear black on March 11, 2018, while working. Defendant sent a text message to the group chat 

explicitly stating that the men would be the “security team” for Ottava Via. Defendant is a 

police officer and likely knew that he needed a license to provide private security services. The 

district court could conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief that defendant knew that the text 

messages in the group chat could be used as evidence that he was illegally providing security 

services to Ottava Via.

Defendant argues that there was no evidence that he knew that the text messages in the 

March 11, 2018 group chat would be used in a future criminal proceeding. Defendant claims 

that the text messages could have been deleted well before any investigation into the March 11, 

2018 incident began, and therefore, defendant could have deleted the text messages without 

knowing that they would be used in a future official proceeding. However, Karpovich was 

injured so badly from his altercation with defendant that he was left unconscious on the bar floor 

with a pool of blood around his body. Shortly after the ambulance arrived, two uniformed police 

officers were dispatched to Ottava Via and spoke with Pace and Person regarding the incident 

with Karpovich. An investigation into the incident with Karpovich began when Officers Harris 

and White were dispatched to Ottava Via, and text messages in the group chat were exchanged 

well after Officers Harris and White left Ottava Via. Given that defendant is a police officer and 

was the only person involved in the altercation with Karpovich, it is reasonable to believe that 

defendant was aware of a future official proceeding in which he would be involved. For that 

matter, any person involved in such a violent altercation in the manner that defendant was 

involved would reasonably suspect an investigation and possible legal proceeding resulting from 

the incident. Accordingly, the district court could conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief

that, when defendant deleted the March 11, 2018 text messages, he did so with the knowledge 

that the text messages could be used in a future legal proceeding.

Affirmed.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering

/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh

/s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens