Court Opinion

ID: 9679364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:50:43.656731+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:39:17.349270
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, J.
(concurring in reversal). I agree that the search of the trunk was improper for the reasons Justice Cavanagh sets forth. I write separately to reiterate my conviction that the warrant-less search of the interior of the car violated Const 1963, art 1, § 11.
The extension of Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), to the area around the arrest is certainly the province of the United States Supreme Court. Its conclusion that Am IV of the United States Constitution is not offended thereby is disturbing. When in Const 1963, art 1, § 11 the citizens of Michigan eschewed warrantless searches, they might have been confident that the United States Constitution forbade them. Our first opinion in this case no doubt should have made it clearer that whether or not the United States Constitution be later read to allow them, the Michigan Constitution does not.
Levin, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.