Court Opinion

ID: 9579684
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:57:29.687868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:40.630324
License: Public Domain

*406Boyle, J.
(concurring). I join the opinion of the Court on the understanding that our decision today marks the complete demise of People v Fulcher (On Rehearing), 419 Mich 441; 355 NW2d 98 (1984). I write separately first to state the basis for that observation and, second, to observe that even if the defendant were not technically "operating” his vehicle in the presence of the officer, he would not be entitled to suppression of the evidence.
i
The majority states that the ouil statute "seeks to prevent . . . the collision of a vehicle being operated by a person under the influence of intoxicating liquor with other persons or property.” Ante at 404. While prevention of imminent collisions, one purpose of the statute, is more than sufficient to explain why this defendant was "operating” in the officer’s presence, it is clearly not the only purpose of the ouil statute. That statute is a prophylactic measure intended to prevent persons with impaired coordination, judgment, or sensation from being at the wheel of a car, regardless of the immediate risk of collision.
Even when there is no immediate risk of collision, an intoxicated driver’s loss of consciousness does not render him in compliance with the ouil statute. Loss of consciousness is not a defense to drunk driving; it is symptomatic of the very worst offenders. For that reason, it would be fair to say that an unconscious person behind the wheel of a vehicle is "operating” the vehicle within the meaning of the statute if he would be considered to be "operating” were he awake.1
*407Consequently, our decision today is inconsistent not only with the language,2 but the result of People v Fulcher.3 The defendant in that case was found with his automatic transmission in drive, his front wheels on the road, and his rear wheels in a ditch. Because that is also a "danger [that] the ouil statute seeks to prevent,” ante at 404, this Court’s decision that the defendant was not operat-. ing his vehicle at the time he was found is no longer viable.
ii
In addition, I agree with the amicus curiae that even if the defendant were not technically "operating” his vehicle in the presence of the officer, he would not be entitled to the remedy he is seeking —suppression of evidence.
It should be clear that the defendant’s arrest does not implicate the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule4 because there appears to be much more than probable cause to believe that defendant operated his vehicle while intoxicated.
*408Whether suppression is appropriate is a question of statutory interpretation and thus one of legislative intent. At issue here is MCL 764.15; MSA 28.874, which provides, in pertinent part:
A peace officer, without a warrant, may arrest a person in the following situations:
(a) When a . . . misdemeanor ... is committed in the peace officer’s presence.
(h) When the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person was, at the time of an accident, the driver of a vehicle involved in the accident and was operating the vehicle upon a public highway or other place open to the general public.
Although nothing in the statute alludes to exclusion of evidence, the Court of Appeals held that because the arresting officer did not have a warrant, the evidence must be suppressed if the Court finds that defendant was not committing a misdemeanor in the presence of the officer.
Even if the defendant did not commit a misdemeanor in the presence of the arresting officer, suppression is not an appropriate remedy. In People v Burdo, 56 Mich App 48, 52; 223 NW2d 358 (1974), the Court of Appeals held that it was not error to admit evidence of a Breathalyzer test even though the officer who arrested the defendant never saw him operate his vehicle:
Where, as here, the officer had probable cause to believe that the crime had been committed, and therefore had the constitutionally required basis to search and seize, there would appear to be no need to suppress such evidence, even though the arrest was statutorily illegal.
Burdo appears to have been the only published *409opinion to squarely address whether a defendant was entitled to suppression of evidence discovered after an officer made an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed outside his presence. In the eighteen years after Burdo was decided, the Legislature amended this statute four times, each time expanding officers’ authority to make misdemeanor arrests without warrants, without specifying that the remedy should be suppression or otherwise casting doubt on Burdo.
The Legislature’s apparent acquiescence5 in the result of Burdo is understandable in light of the statute’s history. Before this statute was enacted, a police officer had authority, under the common law, to make an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his presence only if it involved a breach of the peace. See, e.g., Davis v Burgess, 54 Mich 514; 20 NW 540 (1884); see, generally, People v Dixon, 392 Mich 691, 697; 222 NW2d 749 (1974). Thus, the original purpose of the statute, which eliminated the requirement of a breach of the peace, was to expand officers’ authority to arrest. This history does not suggest a legislative intent to require suppression.6
Not until 1992 did any published authority hold that suppression is appropriate where an officer makes an arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor. See People v Spencley, 197 Mich App 505, 508; 495 NW2d 824 (1992). The Spencley decision, however, failed to address Burdo. In addition, it *410relied on the Fourth Amendment "fruit of the poisonous tree” rule, even though the arrest of the defendant and the seizure of the evidence did not violate the Fourth Amendment. It is well established that this rule does not apply to nonconstitutional violations. See, e.g., Michigan v Tucker, 417 US 433; 94 S Ct 2357; 41 L Ed 2d 182 (1974); United States v Gonzalez-Sandoval, 894 F2d 1043, 1048 (CA 9, 1990).
Suppression is particularly inappropriate on the facts of the present case. These facts are far removed from what would be the archetype violation of the statute: a misdemeanor arrest without a warrant on the basis of reports from a non-law-enforcement witness. This officer, who could not be expected to master the intricacies of Michigan appellate case law, could have reasonably believed that a misdemeanor was being committed in her presence. As the United States Supreme Court explained in Michigan v Tucker, supra, 417 US 447, threats to suppress evidence cannot be expected to deter reasonable police conduct:
The deterrent purpose of the exclusionary rule necessarily assumes that the police have engaged in willful, or at the very least negligent, conduct which has deprived the -defendant of some right. By refusing to admit evidence gained as a result of such conduct, the courts hope to instill in those particular investigating officers, or in their future counterparts, a greater degree of care toward the rights of an accused. Where the official action was pursued in complete good faith, however, the deterrence rationale loses much of its force.
In cases where suppression serves no purpose, it is far too extreme a remedy:
Application of the rule thus deflects the truth-*411finding process and often frees the guilty. The disparity in particular cases between the error committed by the police officer and the windfall afforded a guilty defendant by application of the rule is contrary to the idea of proportionality that is essential to the concept of justice. Thus, although the rule is thought to deter unlawful police activity in part through the nurturing of respect for Fourth Amendment values, if applied indiscriminately it may well have the opposite effect of generating disrespect for the law and administration of justice. [Stone v Powell, 428 US 465, 490-491; 96 S Ct 3037; 49 L Ed 2d 1067 (1976).]
I would hold that suppression of evidence is not the legislatively intended remedy.7
Riley, J., concurred with Boyle, J.
Weaver, J., took no part in the decision of this case._

 Numerous states have held that a defendant may be in "actual physical control” of a stationary vehicle even though asleep or uncon*407soious when found by an officer. See, e.g., State v Schwalk, 430 NW2d 317 (ND, 1988); Milwaukee Co v Proegler, 95 Wis 2d 614; 291 NW2d 608 (App, 1980); State v Smelter, 36 Wash App 439; 674 P2d 690 (1984).

 See ante at 405.

 Our decision, however, is consistent with the result in People v Pomeroy. The question in that case was whether there was sufficient evidence to support defendant’s conviction. Although the defendant’s car was running, its lights were off and it was parked in front of the bar where the defendant testified that he had been drinking. Unlike the case before us, there was no evidence in Pomeroy that the defendant had driven anywhere while intoxicated.

 See 1 LaFave & Israel, Criminal Procedure, § 3.5(a), p 242 ("[i]t appears that the Fourth Amendment presents no barrier to abolition of the felony-misdemeanor distinction so as to permit warrantless arrests on probable cause in all cases”); see also People v Ward, 73 Mich App 555, 561, n 4; 252 NW2d 514 (1977) ("[t]he rule that probable cause is not sufficient to justify a warrantless misdemeanor arrest is a creation of statute, not of the Michigan or United States Constitutions”).

 I am cognizant of the difficulties in reaching sound conclusions from legislative inaction. See Chaney v Dep’t of Transportation, 447 Mich 145, 176, n 9; 523 NW2d 762 (1994) (Boyle, J., concurring). I draw further support for my conclusion from our Legislature’s history of removing unnecessary obstacles to ouil prosecutions. See People v Keskimaki, 446 Mich 240, 259-262; 521 NW2d 241 (1994) (Boyle, J., dissenting).

 The traditional remedy appears to have been a civil suit. See, e.g., Larson v Feeney, 196 Mich 1; 162 NW 275 (1917); Klein v Pollard, 149 Mich 200; 112 NW 717 (1907).

 Although I would not have expected the statute to state what is not a remedy in cases in which the grant of authority has been exceeded, the Legislature could clarify any possible confusion by amending the statute to allow for admission of evidence under these circumstances.