Case Name: PEOPLE v. SIMMONS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2016-07-19
Citations: 316 Mich. App. 322
Docket Number: Docket No. 331116
Parties: PEOPLE v SIMMONS
Judges: Before: JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD and BOONSTRA, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 316
Pages: 322–328

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v SIMMONS
Docket No. 331116.
Submitted July 6, 2016, at Detroit.
Decided July 19, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.
Michael L. Simmons was charged in the Genesee Circuit Court with carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 760.227, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony, MCL 750.224Í, possession of ammunition by a person convicted of a felony, MCL 750.224f(6), receiving and concealing a stolen firearm, MCL 750.535b, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, MCL 257.904(3)(a), in connection with a traffic stop performed on a vehicle he was driving. The police officer stopped the vehicle because it did not have a metal registration plate attached at the rear. The vehicle did have a piece of paper on the left side of the rear window, but the officer could not read the paper either from his vehicle or when he was 3 to 4 feet away from the car as he approached the driver’s side on foot. The writing was very dim, which made the paper illegible, and the officer did not see any numbers or letters. The officer did not stop to verify whether the paper was a temporary tag. The officer approached defendant and requested his identification, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Defendant provided a state identification card, but not a driver’s license, and did not provide the registration. The officer performed a computer search and learned that defendant’s driver’s license was suspended. Defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended license and placed in the officer’s car. The officer received permission to search the car from its owner, who was a passenger in the vehicle, and found a firearm or firearms. The officer later determined that the paper was a valid temporary license plate. Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence, asserting he was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the United States and Michigan Constitutions, US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11, because the officer lacked a lawful basis for the traffic stop. The court, Richard B. Yuille, J., agreed and granted defendant’s motion, finding that the officer should have taken five seconds to verify the validity of the temporary paper plate in the rear window.
The Court of Appeals held:
The officer’s traffic stop was based on a reasonable suspicion that traffic laws were being violated. Under MCL 257.225 of the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq., a vehicle registration plate must be attached at the rear of the vehicle and must be clearly visible, clearly legible, and free from foreign materials that obscure or partially obscure the registration information. The officer testified that he could not see a plate before pulling the vehicle over and that he could not read the paper in the window from 3 to 4 feet away. Therefore, the plate was not in a clearly visible position or in a clearly legible condition. The officer did not have to take the time to determine whether the paper was a valid plate because even though valid, the plate was still in violation of MCL 257.225. The officer’s questions regarding defendant’s license and the vehicle’s registration were reasonable questions concerning the violation of the law, and defendant’s failure to provide a driver’s license justified the officer’s computer check. The officer had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that there was a violation of the law, and defendant was detained for a reasonable period in order to permit the officer to ask reasonable questions concerning the violation of the law and its context.
Reversed and remanded.
Bill Schuette, Attorney General, Aaron D. Lind-strom, Solicitor General, David S. Leyton, Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael A. Tesner, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Nicholas R. Robinson for defendant.
Before: JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD and BOONSTRA, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's opinion and order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
This case arises from a traffic stop of the vehicle defendant was driving during the evening hours of December 14, 2014. Officer Robert Cavett, a Flint Township police officer, pulled over the vehicle because it did not have a metal registration plate attached at the rear. When Officer Cavett pulled over the car, he saw that there was a piece of paper on the left side of the rear window, but he could not read the piece of paper. Officer Cavett looked at the paper again from approximately 3 to 4 feet away as he approached the driver's side of the vehicle, but he could not see any of the letters or numbers. The writing was very dim, which made the paper illegible. Officer Cavett did not stop to read the paper. He explained that he did not do so for safety reasons because there was a potential that the occupants of the car could harm him, get out of the car, or flee the scene. However, he admitted that he did not have a reason to fear for his safety at that time and that it would have taken approximately five seconds to verify the temporary license plate.
He approached the vehicle and asked defendant, who was driving the car, for his identification, registration, and proof of insurance. Defendant provided a state identification card, but not a driver's license. He also did not provide the registration. Officer Cavett performed a computer search with regard to defendant and learned that defendant's driver's license was suspended. Defendant was arrested for driving with a suspended license, and he was placed in Officer Cavett's patrol car. Officer Cavett subsequently searched the vehicle with the permission of the owner, who was a passenger in the car, and found a firearm or firearms. He later determined that the paper was a valid temporary license plate. From that traffic stop, defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony, MCL 750.224f, possession of ammunition by a person convicted of a felony, MCL 750.224f(6), receiving and concealing a stolen firearm, MCL 750.535b, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, and operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, MCL 257.904(3)(a).
Defendant moved to suppress the physical evidence, asserting he was subjected to an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the United States and Michigan Constitutions. He argued that the officer lacked a lawful basis for the traffic stop and that the court should suppress all evidence seized from the vehicle. The court heard defendant's motion to suppress evidence, and Officer Cavett testified regarding the traffic stop. The trial court entered an opinion and order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence, finding that Officer Cavett should have taken five seconds to verify the validity of the temporary paper plate in the rear window.
The prosecution argues that the court erred by granting defendant's motion to suppress because Officer Cavett's search and seizure of the vehicle defendant was driving was reasonable and lawful. We agree.
"This Court's review of a lower court's factual findings in a suppression hearing is limited to clear error, and those findings will be affirmed unless we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made." People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 362; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). The trial court's ultimate ruling on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo. People v Williams, 472 Mich 308, 313; 696 NW2d 636 (2005).
Both the United States and Michigan Constitutions protect against unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. "[T]he reasonableness of a search or seizure depends on 'whether the officer's action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.' " Williams, 472 Mich at 314, quoting Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 20; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968).
Under the Fourth Amendment, stopping a vehicle and detaining the occupants amounts to a seizure. People v Williams, 236 Mich App 610, 612 n 1; 601 NW2d 138 (1999). A traffic stop is justified if the officer has "an articulable and reasonable suspicion that a vehicle or one of its occupants is subject to seizure for a violation of law." Id. at 612. This includes a violation of a traffic law. See Davis, 250 Mich App at 363 ("Because Officer Hopkins had probable cause to believe defendant was in violation of three traffic laws, the stop was permissible."). For a traffic stop to be reasonably related in scope to the circumstances justifying the stop, the driver should be "detained only for the purpose of allowing an officer to ask reasonable questions concerning the violation of law and its context for a reasonable period." Williams, 472 Mich at 315. "The determination whether a traffic stop is reasonable must necessarily take into account the evolving circumstances with which the officer is faced." Id.
In this case, Officer Cavett's stop was based on a reasonable suspicion that traffic laws were being violated. Under the Michigan Vehicle Code, MCL 257.1 et seq., a vehicle registration plate should be attached to the rear of the vehicle. MCL 257.225(1). The plate must be in a clearly visible position, "in a clearly legible condition," and "shall be maintained free from foreign materials that obscure or partially obscure the regis tration information." MCL 257.225(2). A violation of MCL 257.225 amounts to a civil infraction. MCL 257.225(7). At the motion hearing, Officer Cavett testified that he could not see a plate before pulling over the vehicle. He could not read the paper in the window when he approached the vehicle from 3 or 4 feet away, and the writing on the paper was very "dim." Therefore, he was justified in pulling over the vehicle for a violation of MCL 257.225(2) because the plate was not in a clearly visible position or in a clearly legible condition. See People v Dunbar, 499 Mich 60, 70; 879 NW2d 229 (2016) (noting that there is a duty to maintain the license plate so that it can be read).
Defendant asserts that the search and seizure became unreasonable when Officer Cavett asked defendant for his license, registration, and insurance, rather than taking five seconds to examine the paper plate affixed to the rear window of the vehicle and determine its validity. Despite defendant's argument to the contrary, Officer Cavett's actions were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances of the stop. Even had Officer Cavett taken the time to examine the paper plate more closely to determine whether it appeared to be a valid temporary registration plate, the plate would still have been in violation of MCL 257.225(2). Officer Cavett could not read the plate from his car, nor could he make out the plate from 3 or 4 feet away in the dark. Thus, the temporary paper license plate was not in a clearly visible position or in a clearly legible condition. Officer Cavett's questions regarding defendant's license and registration were reasonable questions concerning the violation of the law. When defendant handed Officer Cavett a Michigan identification card rather than a driver's license and failed to provide registration, Officer Cavett had a justification for running a computer check. Furthermore, a computer check is a routine and generally accepted practice by the police during a traffic stop. See Davis, 250 Mich App at 366 (explaining that "a review of Michigan cases demonstrates a recognition that the running of [Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)] checks of vehicle drivers is a routine and accepted practice by the police in this state")- Therefore, Officer Cavett was permitted to ask questions related to defendant's identity and the vehicle registration. Accordingly, Officer Cavett had an articulable and reasonable suspicion that there was a violation of the law, and defendant was detained for a reasonable period in order to permit Officer Cavett to ask reasonable questions concerning the violation of the law and its context. See Williams, 472 Mich at 315; Williams, 236 Mich App at 612.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Jansen, P.J., and Fort Hood and Boonstra, JJ., concurred.
People v Simmons, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered February 18, 2016 (Docket No. 331116).