Court Opinion

ID: 9464718
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:40:45.959057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:46.758174
License: Public Domain

ENGEL, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. -The majority opinion recognizes that the Detroit traffic court issued the warrants upon the defendant’s failure to appear but nevertheless concludes that the warrants rested upon the underlying traffic offenses and were invalid because there had been no independent judicial determination of probable cause. Upon an examination of the record, I would hold, under the circumstances here, that the warrants were the equivalent of bench warrants issued for nonappearance and were valid.
At the time of the arrest in question, there were three outstanding warrants against Evans for traffic offenses. Two citations relied upon violations of the State of Michigan’s Motor Vehicle Code: failing to obey a stop sign in violation of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.611(1), and driving through private property to avoid a traffic control device, contrary to Mich.Comp. Laws § 257.611(2). The third ticket was issued for driving a taxicab with a passenger in the front seat, a violation, according to the ticket, of the Municipal Code of the City of Detroit.
The Michigan statutory scheme contains separate provisions for violations of the state’s vehicle code and for violations of misdemeanors generally or city ordinances cognizable by a justice of the peace or municipal judge. Thus, while Mich.Comp. Laws § 764.9e cited by the majority, covers procedures for appearance tickets in the latter category and would thus govern procedures for the violation of the municipal ordinance involved in the third traffic ticket, there are also separate and distinct provisions respecting procedures involving violations of the Michigan Vehicle Code which would govern the first two warrants. See Mich.Comp. Laws §§ 257.728-.729.
In my opinion a warrant which, in fact, was issued for failure to appear under Mich. Comp. Laws § 764.9e is not necessarily invalid because the statute authorizes warrants “based upon the complaint filed” and because it appears that the traffic court made no independent examination to determine probable cause pertaining to the underlying offense. However that may be, the validity of the arrest here did not depend solely upon the provisions for “appearance tickets” in Section 764.9e, since two earlier outstanding warrants involved traffic citations, not appearance tickets, and were subject to the procedures of Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.728 et seq.
Section 257.728 provides:
257.728 Arrest without warrant
Sec. 728. (a) Preparation of citation, inform offender copy; appearance before magistrate or probate court in lieu of citation. When a person is arrested without a warrant for a violation of this act [Michigan Vehicle Code] punishable as a misdemeanor, or of a provision of an ordinance substantially corresponding to a provision of this act, . . . the arresting officer shall prepare, as soon as possible and as completely as possible, an original and 3 copies of a written citation to appear in court containing the name and address of the person, the offense charged, and the time and place when and where the person shall appear in court. The officer shall inform the offender of the violation and shall give the third copy of the citation to the alleged offender. If the arrested person so demands, he shall be taken before a magistrate or probate court ... in lieu of being given the citation.
*357Unlike the procedure for appearance tickets, which authorizes warrants “based upon the complaint filed,” Section 257.729 simply stresses the nonappearance of the accused:
257.729 Failure to appear; new license not issued during default; fine and cost
Sec. 729. Upon failure of any person to appear before a magistrate [to enter a plea upon a traffic citation], the magistrate shall notify the secretary of state upon forms prescribed by him who shall not issue a new license to such person during his default to appear and answer such charge. In addition to any fine assessed for such charge when found guilty, the magistrate may also add to any fine and costs levied additional costs incurred in compelling the appearance of the accused which additional costs shall be returned to the general fund of the unit of government incurring such costs.
Moreover, Michigan has a separate set of court rules for those courts having jurisdiction over traffic offenses. D.C.R. 2003.5(a) indicates that the failure to appear triggers the issuance of a warrant:
2003.5 Procedure on Failure to Appear; Warrant; Notice.
(a) Residents. The court shall issue a warrant for the arrest of any defendant who is a resident of the State of Michigan and who fails to appear or answer a traffic citation or summons served upon him and upon which a “complaint was filed; said warrant to be issued within ten (10) days after the scheduled appearance date. In addition, the court shall follow the procedures outlined in [Mich.Comp. Laws § 257.321a].
That a warrant issued under such circumstances and pursuant to such laws would come within the general concepts of a bench warrant is fortified by the penalties authorized by the statute for disobedience to the command of the summons. Under Mich.Comp. Laws § 257.729, a violation of the duty to appear as required by the citation subjects the violator to certain penalties not unlike those which might attach for contempt of court, i. e., the imposition of additional costs. Furthermore, under Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.321a, failure to answer a traffic citation itself specifically constitutes a separate criminal offense punishable as a misdemeanor. Thirty days after the nonappearance of the accused, the court must mail him a notice informing him that “if he fails to appear within 10 days from such notice the secretary of state shall suspend his . license.” Section 257.321a. The suspension remains in effect until the accused makes his appearance. Id. Finally, the secretary shall not issue a new .license during the period of default. Section 257.729.
The fact that failure to appear plays such a central role in the statutory scheme, coupled with the testimony of Anthony Trupi-ano concerning procedures in Detroit traffic court, convinces me that at least two of the warrants in this case were bench warrants based solely upon Evans’ nonappearance and not upon the underlying traffic complaints.1
I do not believe that the Fourth Amendment is offended by the statutory scheme here or its employment in this particular case. Giordenello v. United States, 357 U.S. 480, 78 S.Ct. 1245, 2 L.Ed.2d 1503 (1958), is properly concerned with the power of police officers to issue their own self-serving warrants, to execute them, and thereby to deprive an individual of a significant aspect of his freedom without the intervention of an impersonal determination of probable cause. See also Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 91 S.Ct. 2022, 29 L.Ed.2d 564 (1971). That circumstance does not exist on the facts here. Michigan could have constitutionally empowered the arresting officer to arrest the defendant for a misdemeanor committed in his presence and to take him to the station house, without the previous issuance of a warrant or determination of probable cause. It seems a reasonable alternative to a custodial arrest to permit the *358issuance of a summons or a citation, as provided by the Michigan statutory scheme. The issuance of citations, therefore, advances rather than retards the constitutional protection of the accused by minimizing the infringements on his liberty. That being the case, I see nothing wrong with a notice to appear voluntarily in court to answer to charges of a violation of either a state law or local ordinance.
There is no suggestion that the complaints were invalid. They notified the defendant of the charge and informed him by personal service that he was to appear to respond to them. Thus, when he failed to appear, the court issued warrants to compel his appearance, and I do not think under the circumstances that the Fourth Amendment requires any individual judicial officer to inquire into the substance of the basic complaints for probable cause. It is enough that the complaints were made, that he was summoned to appear upon them, and that he failed to do so. It suffices that probable cause inquiries were made to determine whether he appeared to respond to the complaints — decisions which were fully within the knowledge of the clerk and the trial judge and thus compliant with Shadwick v. City of Tampa, 407 U.S. 345, 92 S.Ct. 2119, 32 L.Ed.2d 783 (1972). I would uphold Judge Kennedy’s decision to admit evidence derived from the warrants and would affirm the conviction.

. Contrary to the majority, I do not view People v. Belcher, 58 Mich. 325 (1885), and In re Reno, 321 Mich. 497, 32 N.W.2d 723 (1948), as fixing any formal requirements for the validity of bench warrants.