Court Opinion

ID: 9728668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:13:41.385219+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:50.781864
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. The majority relies on the reasoning of People v Dixon, 392 Mich 691; 222 NW2d 749 (1974), in determining that the drugs found in the defendant’s possession were the result of an unreasonable search. The purpose of the Dixon rule, however, was to enforce the misdemeanant’s right to *63post bond prior to incarceration. It did not address the question of the admissibility of evidence obtained pursuant to an on the scene search where a defendant, as here, was lawfully detained.
The United States Supreme Court has recently held a search incident to a custodial arrest for a traffic offense valid in United States v Robinson, 414 US 218; 94 S Ct 467; 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973), and Gustafson v Florida, 414 US 260; 94 S Ct 488; 38 L Ed 2d 456 (1973). The Michigan Supreme Court has followed the mandates of Robinson and Gustafson in People v Moore, 391 Mich 426; 216 NW2d 770 (1974).
Our Court has done likewise. In People v Kremko, 52 Mich App 565, 569-570; 218 NW2d 112 (1974), lv den 392 Mich 797 (1974), we said:
"At the time the defendants were personally searched they had been placed under arrest by officer Phillips. This gave the police officers the right to search the persons of the defendants and any evidence so obtained was lawfully taken and properly admitted at defendants’ trial. This search was reasonable and within the permissible limits of the Fourth Amendment. United States v Robinson, 414 US 218; 94 S Ct 467; 38 L Ed 2d 427 (1973); Gustafson v Florida, 414 US 260; 94 S Ct 488, 38 L Ed 2d 456 (1973).”
The majority also relies on People v Garcia, 81 Mich App 260; 265 NW2d 115 (1978). It should be noted that the decision in the Garcia case was not unanimous. I respectfully decline to follow the reasoning of the majority and would instead concur in the dissent written by Judge Gillis. The right to search incident to a lawful arrest is within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment and is a legitimate police enforcement technique.
I would reverse.