Court Opinion

ID: 9691167
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 20:15:01.175664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:12.009808
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I cannot agree that the search was justified on the basis of the exigent circumstances exception to the warrant requirement. *563This is consistent with the conclusion of the district judge, who had the opportunity to assess the credibility of the police witnesses, that the protective search was unconstitutional. Upon further review, the circuit judge held that the district judge did not abuse his discretion in finding that the search without a warrant was not legally justified. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a two-to-one unpublished per curiam opinion. My colleagues, however, upon this application by the prosecutor, wish to reverse those determinations by the lower courts and, so, substitute their view of the facts rather than defer to the discretion of the trial court, which, in my view, can hardly be said to have been abused.
As noted by the Court of Appeals, the police did not have any reason to believe that an additional suspect was located within defendant’s mobile home, nor did they have time constraint considerations if a suspect was later determined to be hiding inside. People v Blasius, 435 Mich 573; 459 NW2d 906 (1990). Thus, the search was not justified, the evidence inside the mobile home should be suppressed, and the related charges dismissed.
Nor do I believe that the search might be justified under the inevitable discovery doctrine because the police were not pursuing an alternate line of investigation before the entry into defendant’s mobile home. United States v Cherry, 759 F2d 1196, 1204 (CA 5, 1985).
For these reasons, I would affirm the Court of Appeals.
Kelly, J., took no part in the decision of this case.