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UNPUBLISHED

June 1, 2023

v No. 350096

Macomb Circuit Court

GEORGE GERALD RIDER, LC No. 2017-003420-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

AFTER REMAND

Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and O’BRIEN and REDFORD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This case returns to us after remand to the trial court. In our prior opinion,1 we determined 

that trial counsel for defendant George Rider did not provide effective assistance when he 

erroneously agreed that a warrant authorized the seizure of one of defendant’s cell phones. We 

remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the matter while retaining jurisdiction. After the hearing 

was held, the trial court determined that defendant is not entitled to a new trial because although 

no warrant authorized the seizure, the exigent-circumstances exception applied, and therefore 

defendant did not suffer any prejudice from counsel’s error. For the reasons stated in this opinion, 

we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises from the January 13, 2017 murder of Julii Johnson. Co-defendant Marcie 

Griffin initially was identified as a suspect because of the extreme hostility she exhibited toward 

Johnson and Johnson’s current boyfriend, James Lattner, who was Griffin’s ex-boyfriend. People 

v Rider, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 18, 2022 (Docket 

No. 350096), pp 3-4. Griffin’s cell phone records indicated that she had communicated with a 

 

1

Judge SAWYER was on the original panel, but Judge O’BRIEN has since substituted for him in 

light of his retirement.
-2-

phone number ending with 4616 the evening before the murder and in the morning after the 

shooting. Id. at 4. Being very interested in who was using the 4616 phone and what information 

that phone contained, the police obtained a warrant on January 27, 2017. As explained in our prior

opinion, that warrant only authorized the retrieval of records from the cell-phone service provider; 

it did not authorize the physical seizure of the phone itself. Id. at 7-8. During the lower court 

proceedings, defense counsel agreed that the January 27, 2017 warrant authorized the phone’s 

physical seizure when the police encountered defendant on February 4, 2017. We determined that 

this conclusion was plainly incorrect because the relied-upon warrant only authorized “data and 

records” from the cell-phone provider. Id. at 7-8. Because the seizure was accomplished without 

a valid warrant, we concluded that defense counsel did not provide effective assistance by taking 

the position that the warrant authorized the search. Id. at 9.

While there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, none was offered in the trial court 

because the prosecution had no reason to do so when no party was contesting the applicability of 

the January 27 warrant. Id. Consequently, we remanded for an evidentiary hearing, after which 

the trial court was to

decide (1) whether the warrantless seizure was nonetheless reasonable, i.e., did a 

recognized exception to the warrant requirement apply, (2) if no exception applies, 

whether the exclusionary rule bars the use of any evidence discovered during a 

search of the 4616 phone, and (3) to the extent that evidence was admitted at trial 

that should not have been admitted, whether there is a reasonable probability that 

the outcome of Rider’s trial would have been different had the evidence not been 

admitted. [Id. at 9-10.]

We subsequently granted the parties’ joint motion that the scope of the remand include all evidence 

seized on February 4, 2017, not just the 4616 phone. See People v Rider, unpublished order of the 

Court of Appeals, entered September 6, 2022 (Docket No. 350096).

On remand, the trial court conducted the evidentiary hearing. Only two witnesses testified: 

Sergeant Brandon Roy and now Lieutenant Charles Rushton, and their testimony was consistent 

with the evidence adduced at trial.

Roy was the intelligence officer in the investigation, whose role was to collect and analyze 

cell phone forensic data. He testified that after collecting Griffin’s phones, he determined that one 

of the phones had communicated with the 4616 phone both before and after the time of the murder. 

Roy then obtained a search warrant on January 27 to collect data and records from the service 

provider for the 4616 phone, which also included a request for GPS “pinging” data. From the cell 

phone records, Roy discovered that the 4616 phone had utilized a cell tower that was consistent 

with the location of the murder scene the evening before the shooting. Further, surveillance video 

showed the suspect vehicle fleeing the scene at 7:30 the morning of the shooting, and cell phone 

data showed that at 7:42 the 4616 phone was utilizing a cell tower that was about 12 minutes away 

from the scene. The 4616 phone was registered to a business, Midtown Entertainment Group, and 

the officers were unable to find the name of an individual associated with the phone number. The 

location of the 4616 phone was unknown at that time as it had ceased transmitting its location to 

the network, indicating the phone was turned off. 
-3-

On Saturday, February 4, 2017, the phone resumed pinging its location and it was 

determined that the phone was located on Greater Mack Avenue in St. Clair Shores. Rushton 

drove straight to the Greater Mack address and surveilled the area, along with a detective who was 

already there. At 10:20 a.m., Rushton saw an individual (later identified as defendant) drive away 

in a white Ford Explorer. Rushton followed the Explorer, while a detective remained surveilling

the Greater Mack address. Around the time the Explorer entered a car wash, pinging data 

confirmed that the phone was moving with the Explorer. 

Rushton stated that there were several factors that led to the decision to stop the vehicle as 

it exited the car wash and seize the 4616 phone. Rushton was concerned that there was a narrow 

window to collect the phone because it had already been disconnected from the network for a 

period of time and was scheduled to soon be disconnected from service. Stated differently, the 

officers were concernd that they could lose the pinging location data and also the vehicle they were 

following. Roy explained that it is difficult to follow a vehicle in traffic while not being detected. 

Rushton was also concerned about a potential high-speed pursuit if the vehicle were allowed to 

leave the car wash. 

Rushton had a marked police vehicle block the Explorer’s exit from the car wash. 

Defendant was ordered out of the vehicle and two phones were seized from defendant’s pockets 

after conducting a pat down. One of the phones was later determined to be the 4616 phone. 

Knowing he did not have a warrant to search the phones themselves, Rushton did not “go into” 

them. Additionally, a third cell phone was seen sitting on the Explorer’s passenger seat. When 

Rushton asked if he could take it, defendant refused. Rushton then decided to leave that phone in 

the vehicle and the vehicle was impounded. A search warrant was executed for the vehicle later 

and the third phone was recovered. Another warrant was issued that authorized a search of the 

contents of all three phones. 

After the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the parties filed supplemental briefs with 

the trial court and oral argument was held. The prosecutor argued that defendant could not 

establish any prejudice because the warrantless seizure was nonetheless legal under the exigentcircumstances exception. The prosecutor averred that the police in the instant case had ample 

probable cause and that there were exigent circumstances because they feared that, although the

pinging on the phone became “active” on February 4, there were no assurances that this would 

continue. Defense counsel argued that any exigency was of the police’s own making because they 

failed to obtain a warrant after learning of the address on Greater Mack and the identification of 

the white Explorer. Defense counsel stressed that it had been weeks since the murder, which 

obviates any exigency. In rebuttal, the prosecutor argued that the exigency existed before they 

stopped defendant’s vehicle, i.e., the exigent circumstances were that the police had been unable 

to locate the 4616 phone in the weeks since the murder or ascertain who the phone belonged to, 

and the phone was scheduled to be disconnected from service.

The trial court issued an opinion and order ruling that the exigent-circumstance exception 

to the warrant requirement applied. The court first found that probable cause existed to believe 

that the phones within the white Explorer contained evidence of the murder. The court also found 

that Roy and Rushton articulated “specific and objective facts” that demonstrated an imminent 

need to prevent the loss or destruction of the pertinent data on the phones. The court further 

determined that the police did not create the exigent circumstances. Accordingly, the court ruled 
-4-

that the warrantless seizure of the phones was reasonable because the exigent-circumstances 

exception applied. And because the seizure was reasonable, had defense counsel objected, the 

objection ultimately would have been overruled, thereby not having a reasonable probability of 

affecting the outcome of the trial. The court therefore denied defendant’s request for a new trial. 

II. ANALYSIS

The issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred by determining that defendant 

is not entitled to a new trial on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel.2

Defendants have the guaranteed right to the effective assistance of counsel. Strickland v 

Washington, 466 US 668, 686; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed 2d 674 (1984); People v Aceval, 282 Mich 

App 379, 386; 764 NW2d 285 (2009). To establish a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant 

must show that (1) counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under 

prevailing professional norms and (2) there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, 

the result of the proceedings would have been different. People v Trakhtenberg, 493 Mich 38, 51; 

826 NW2d 136 (2012).

“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the 

Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches 

and seizures.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417; 605 NW2d 667 (2000). “Whether a 

search or seizure is lawful depends on whether it is reasonable. Therefore, a search for purposes 

of the Fourth Amendment occurs when the government intrudes on an individual’s reasonable, or 

justifiable, expectation of privacy.” People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 457-458; 894 NW2d 732 

(2016) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “A warrantless search and seizure is per se 

unreasonable unless shown to fall within one of the various exceptions to the warrant requirement.” 

People v Roberts, 292 Mich App 492, 503; 808 NW2d 290 (2011) (quotation marks and citation 

omitted). It is the government that bears the burden of showing that a search was justified by a 

recognized exception. People v Chowdhury, 285 Mich App 509, 521; 775 NW2d 845 (2009).

Under the exigent-circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant 

requirement, police may seize property they have probable cause to believe contains contraband 

or evidence of a crime so long as they can “articulate specific and objective facts” that “reveal a 

necessity for immediate action” to prevent the immediate loss or destruction of the evidence. 

People v Blasius, 435 Mich 573, 593-594; 459 NW2d 906 (1990). “The rationale underlying the 

exigent circumstances exception is that when the police have the probable cause necessary to 

secure a warrant, but circumstances make it impossible for them to obtain the warrant in time, then 

 

2 Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel involve a mixed question of law and fact. People v 

LeBlanc, 465 Mich 575, 579; 640 NW2d 246 (2002). This Court reviews a trial court’s factual 

findings for clear error, and any constitutional determinations are reviewed de novo. People v 

Matuszak, 263 Mich App 42, 48; 687 NW2d 342 (2004). A finding is clearly erroneous when a 

reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. People v 

Mendez, 225 Mich App 381, 382; 571 NW2d 528 (1997). To the extent this issue also requires a 

review of whether defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were violated, that issue is reviewed de 

novo. People v Mahdi, 317 Mich App 446, 457; 894 NW2d 732 (2016).
-5-

it is ‘reasonable’ under the Fourth Amendment to conduct a search.” People v Clement, 107 Mich 

App 283, 292; 309 NW2d 236 (1981) (quotation marks and citation omitted). “The existence of 

exigent circumstances must be considered on a case-by-case basis.” Chowdhury, 285 Mich App 

at 526.

The first inquiry is whether there was a sufficient opportunity to obtain a warrant. See

Mincey v Arizona, 437 US 385, 394; 98 S Ct 2408; 57 L Ed 2d 290 (1978) (finding “no exigent 

circumstances” supporting a warrantless search because “[t]here was no indication that evidence 

would be lost, destroyed, or removed during the time required to obtain a search warrant.”). 

Although a search warrant requires probable cause, the warrant also “must particularly describe 

the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” People v Hellstrom, 264 Mich 

App 187, 192; 690 NW2d 293 (2004), citing US Const, Am IV, and Const 1963, art 1, § 11. But

the police had no idea who possessed the phone and had no idea where the phone was even located 

because it had been turned off and did not start revealing its location until the morning of 

February 4. Without being able to provide a particular location to search for the 4616 phone, it 

was impossible for the police to secure a valid search warrant for it. The first opportunity to obtain 

a search warrant for the seizure of the 4616 phone would have been after its whereabouts was 

discovered on the morning of February 4 when the phone began pinging again. Officers were

promptly dispatched to conduct surveillance at the ping location, and the Explorer left that location 

at 10:20 a.m. Even then, the police did not know who possessed the phone until after the Explorer 

was stopped and defendant was ascertained as the driver. Under these circumstances, we are 

satisfied that the officers did not have a sufficient opportunity to obtain a warrant.

As noted, the exigent circumstances exception requires probable cause. Blasius, 435 Mich 

at 593. “Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known to the police officers at 

the time of the search would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been 

committed and that evidence will be found in a particular place.” People v Beuschlein, 245 Mich 

App 744, 750; 630 NW2d 921 (2001). The police had probable cause to believe that the 4616 

phone, which was located inside the Explore, contained evidence related to the murder of Johnson. 

Griffin had communicated both before the murder and after the murder with the 4616 phone that 

was traced to that vehicle. Plus, the 4616 phone was located near the crime scene the evening 

before the shooting, and it was located about 12 minutes away from the crime scene about 12 

minutes after the shooting. That information, coupled with the fact that Griffin’s phone appeared 

to have been reset around noon on the day of the shooting, strongly suggests that whoever Griffin

was communicating with was involved with the murder.

Defendant argues that there was not probable cause to seize the other phones in the vehicle. 

We disagree. Once the police determined that the 4616 phone was inside the moving Explorer, 

they had probable cause to seize any other communication devices inside that vehicle because it is

reasonable to believe that because the possessor of the 4616 phone was involved with the murder, 

then his other communication devices could contain evidence as well. Accordingly, the police had 

probable cause justifying the seizure of the other phones.

Next, the trial court determined that there were specific and objective facts that supported 

the officers’ conclusion that immediate action was necessary to prevent the loss or destruction of 

the 4616 phone. The officers were primarily concerned that they had no other viable way to seize 

the phone and that a failure to seize it, once discovered on February 4, could lead to the total failure 
-6-

in recovering the phone and any pertinent data on it. The facts the police relied on in claiming 

there were exigent circumstances included: (1) the phone had been silent for days, as if it had been 

turned off; (2) the phone only recently on February 4 reconnected to the network; (3) the phone 

was scheduled to be shut off by the service provider in a couple of days; (4) the possessor of the 

4616 phone was unknown; and (5) although they knew the phone was located in the Explorer, 

trailing a moving vehicle is difficult and can result in a dangerous high-speed chase. We agree 

with the trial court that the concerns of the police were valid. There was a high degree of urgency 

because the phone was essential to the police’s investigation of the murder, had not been giving a 

pinging location and was scheduled to be permanently deactivated. The ping could be lost at any 

time if the phone was turned off or the battery died. And while officers were trailing the vehicle, 

this was no sure bet either. Roy testified that trailing a vehicle without being detected is difficult. 

If the officers followed the Explorer too closely, it could have alerted defendant and led to either 

a deletion of the phone’s data or a high-speed chase. These specific and objective facts support 

the conclusion that there were exigent circumstances to seize the phone without a warrant. 

We disagree with defendant that the police created these exigent circumstances. See 

People v Trapp, 335 Mich App 141, 159; 966 NW2d 420 (2020) (“Police officials . . . are not free 

to create exigent circumstances to justify their warrantless intrusions . . . .”) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). No GPS ping data was received for the 4616 phone for about a week after the 

initial warrant was obtained, and the phone was scheduled to be shut off by the service provider. 

When Roy discovered that the phone was actively pinging on the morning of February 4, 2017, 

officers were quickly dispatched to the ping location for surveillance. Once the Explorer left that 

location and was confirmed to be carrying the 4616 phone, the officers reasonably decided to stop 

the vehicle at the car wash to avoid the risk that the pinging would cease and also the possibility 

that they would lose sight of the Explorer in traffic. These were the exigent circumstances that 

justified the initial seizure of the vehicle, and they were not created by the officers. Once the 

vehicle was stopped, it was reasonable for the officers to seize the cell phones to prevent the 

destruction of evidence while seeking a warrant. See Riley v California, 573 US 373, 388; 134 S 

Ct 2473; 189 L Ed 2d 430 (2014) (“Both [of the defendants] concede that officers could have 

seized and secured their cell phones to prevent destruction of evidence while seeking a warrant. 

That is a sensible concession.”), citing Illinois v McArthur, 531 US 326, 331-333; 121 S Ct 946; 

148 L Ed 2d 838 (2001).

In conclusion, the facts the police relied on objectively showed that there was an actual 

current danger of the officers losing the 4616 phone and the data therein. Based on the 

circumstances, the officer had probable cause to believe that all three phones contained evidence 

of the murder. Once the stop of vehicle was initiated, the officers acted reasonably by seizing the 

phones to prevent the destruction of evidence. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court’s 

determination that the exigent-circumstances exception was applicable and that because it was 
-7-

applicable,3defendant cannot show how the outcome of his trial could have been different had 

defense counsel objected to the seizure of the phones.

Affirmed.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro 

/s/ Colleen A. O’Brien 

/s/ James Robert Redford 

 

3 Given our conclusion, we need not address the applicability of the automobile exception.