Court Opinion

ID: 9670376
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:19:38.170857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:04.143880
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). This case presents a close policy question which involves the integrity of our criminal justice system. The majority holds that defendant is not entitled to specific performance of a written, signed agreement not to prosecute which had been proposed by the police. According to the majority, the more appropriate remedy for defendant is the suppression or exclusion of the written agreement and the missing money which was returned by defendant. However, rather than providing a remedy for defendant, the majority has provided a remedy for the state, and in doing so rewards it for bad faith and the failure to abide by the terms of its agreement. Because this result damages the integrity of our *461criminal justice system, I must respectfully dissent.
In our criminal justice system the interests of the state are represented by the police and the prosecutor. The police conduct investigations, and should charges be brought, the prosecutor represents the state in all court proceedings. Throughout the process, from the time an individual becomes a suspect in an investigation until a defendant’s conviction and sentence become final, errors that somehow could affect the prosecution of a particular individual might be made by the police or the prosecutor.
In the present case, the police might not have had the authority to propose the agreement in question. However, any distinctions between the authority of the police and that of the prosecutor mean little to a layman negotiating with the government.1 What is important is not whether the police had the authority to make the promise, but whether the promise was in fact made.2 Here, the written, signed agreement proposed by the police is evidence of the promise. In reliance on this promise and with the advice of counsel, defendant performed his part of the agreement.
The precept that people should keep their promises should apply to the state no less than to individuals. When a promise is made by the state to an individual involved in our criminal justice system, the standards of substantive due process hold the state to a high duty of care in keeping its promise.3 Although the constitution may not specifically require specific performance of the agreement in this case, the principle of fundamental *462fairness does. It is fundamentally unfair for the state to create and then destroy a defendant’s expectations while reaping the benefit of its bargain.
If the police in this case made a mistake in promising defendant that he would not be prosecuted, the system should bear the consequences of that error. As noted by this Court in People v Reagan, 395 Mich 306, 319; 235 NW2d 581 (1975), "Law enforcement processes are committed to civilized courses of action. When mistakes of significant proportion are made, it is better that the consequences be suffered than that civilized standards be sacrificed.”4 The result reached by the majority not only sacrifices the standard of fundamental fairness in our judicial system but damages the integrity of our criminal justice system as well. Therefore, I would grant defendant’s request for specific performance and reinstate the district court order dismissing the charges against defendant.
Archer, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.

 See In re Doe, 410 F Supp 1163, 1166 (ED Mich, 1976).

 United States v Cook, 668 F2d 317, 320 (CA 7, 1982).

 See Westen & Westin, A constitutional law of remedies for broken plea bargains, 66 Cal L R 471, 524 (1978).

 As noted by the court in Doe, n 1 supra, p 1166, "The solution to agents who bargain away the government’s rights is tighter administrative control within the executive branch.” The majority opinion might lead the police to make promises they know are unenforceable to gain an individual’s cooperation in an investigation or prosecution. Therefore, increased control is even more necessary to protect the due process rights of such individuals.