Court Opinion

ID: 9677637
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:56:30.217601+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:22:20.879169
License: Public Domain

*561Bronson, J.
(concurring). I concur in Judge Kelly’s opinion in this case. However, various aspects of the dissenting opinion compel me to express my own views on the search and seizure issue in some detail.
I

Did defendant have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the area searched?

The dissent obliquely finds that the defendant was living in the searched townhouse, he had no legal interest in the premises and, thus, no constitutional right to privacy in the attic where the evidence was seized. I believe that this position surpasses in its restrictive vision of what is meant by "an expectation of privacy in the premises searched” anything contemplated or intended by the United States Supreme Court holding in Rakas v Illinois, 439 US 128; 99 S Ct 421; 58 L Ed 2d 387 (1978), which did away with the far more functional rule of automatic standing propounded in Jones v United States, 362 US 257; 80 S Ct 725; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960).
The testimony of Jacalyn Whiting at the hearing on the suppression of evidence clearly reveals that the defendant had a "reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises” if this expression has any meaning at all. Ms. Whiting testified that she alone was the lessee of the townhouse. However, defendant had been living with her for three or four months. The pair would occasionally argue and on these occasions defendant might stay elsewhere. Ms. Whiting also stated that they were "goin’ together”. When asked by the prosecutor how many of the ten days preceding defendant’s arrest defendant had stayed in the townhouse, Ms. *562Whiting answered "ten days”. Defendant kept items of clothing on the premises. While he did not pay rent or provide funds to pay for the utilities, he did contribute money for groceries. Ms. Whiting further indicated that, "If he had the money, he helped”.
Given the foregoing, I think that the following excerpt from Rakas clearly reveals that the dissent’s analysis of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights in the searched premises is simply wrong:
"Here petitioners, who were passengers occupying a car which they neither owned nor leased, seek to analogize their position to that of the defendant in Jones v United States. In Jones, petitioner was present at the time of the search of an apartment which was owned by a friend. The friend had given Jones permission to use the apartment and a key to it, with which Jones had admitted himself on the day of the search. He had a suit and shirt at the apartment and had slept there 'maybe a night,’ but his home was elsewhere. At the time of the search, Jones was the only occupant of the apartment because the lessee was away for a period of several days. * * * Under these circumstances, this Court stated that while one wrongfully on the premises could not move to suppress evidence obtained as a result of searching them, 'anyone legitimately on premises where a search occurs may challenge its legality.’ * * * Petitioners argue that their occupancy of the automobile in question was comparable to that of Jones in the apartment and that they therefore have standing to contest the legality of the search — or as we have rephrased the inquiry, that they, like Jones, had their Fourth Amendment rights violated by the search.
"We do not question the conclusion in Jones that the defendant in that case suffered a violation of his personal Fourth Amendment rights if the search in question was unlawful.
"Nonetheless, we believe that the phrase 'legitimately *563on premises’ coined in Jones creates too broad a gauge for measurement of Fourth Amendment rights. For example, applied literally, this statement would permit a casual visitor who has never seen, or been permitted to visit, the basement of another’s house to object to a search of the basement if the visitor happened to be in the kitchen of the house at the time of the search. Likewise, a casual visitor who walks into a house one minute before a search of the house commences and leaves one minute after the search ends would be able to contest the legality of the search. The first visitor would have absolutely no interest or legitimate expectation of privacy in the basement, the second would have none in the house, and it advances no purpose served by the Fourth Amendment to permit either of them to object to the lawfulness of the search.
"We think that Jones on its facts merely stands for the unremarkable proposition that a person can have a legally sufficient interest in a place other than his own home so that the Fourth Amendment protects him from unreasonable governmental intrusion into that place. * * * In defining the scope of that interest, we adhere to the view expressed in Jones and echoed in later cases that arcane distinctions developed in property and tort law between guests, licensees, invitees, and the like, ought not to control. * * * But the Jones statement that a person need only be 'legitimately on premises’ in order to challenge the validity of the search of a dwelling place cannot be taken in its full sweep beyond the facts of that case.” 439 US 140-143 (footnotes and citations omitted).
Since, even after Rakas, the Supreme Court, continues to acknowledge that the petitioner in Jones, supra, an overnight guest, had sufficient interest in the premises to challenge the search, defendant here, a resident of the searched premises, but not a named lessee, also had a substantial Fourth Amendment interest, conferring upon him standing to challenge the search here.
The dissent finds significant the fact that Ms. *564Whiting, defendant’s girlfriend, had the legal right to remove the defendant from the premises. By this rationale, a youth who had obtained his majority but who continued to live with his parents in their house would have no legally protectable privacy right in his own home because his parents could legally force him to move. The youth may have lived with his parents for 19 years. Similarly, if one or more of a group of college students sharing a house had not actually signed the lease with the lessor, under the dissent each nonlessee would have no legally protectable expectation of privacy in his own living quarters. I further note that the petitioner in Katz v United States, 389 US 347; 88 S Ct 507; 19 L Ed 2d 576 (1967), was a mere licensee who neither lived in nor leased the public phone booth to which the FBI agents had attached electronic listening devices.
In Michigan, I have uncovered only three cases comparable to this one, other than the first Wagner case, 104 Mich App 169; 304 NW2d 517 (1981), applying Rakas. The decisions of both cases lend support to my view of what constitutes a reasonable expectation of privacy. In People v Mack, 100 Mich App 45; 298 NW2d 657 (1980), lv den 411 Mich 1000 (1981), an expectation of privacy was found on the following facts:
"At the evidentiary hearing, testimony revealed that the house belonged to defendant’s mother and was occupied by his cousin. Defendant was not present when the search took place, but he had been living there for approximately two weeks. Although defendant maintained another address where he received his mail, he had some of his clothing at his mother’s home and was free to come and go as he pleased.” Id., 47.
The instant case is not even as close as Mack. *565Here, defendant was on the premises at the time of the search and had been living there for a longer period of time than the defendant in Mack. As Judge Bashara’s dissent in Mack reveals, defendant there was not paying rent and claimed to be "just visiting”. Nonetheless, the majority found that defendant had sufficient interest to challenge the search.
In People v Nabers, 103 Mich App 354; 303 NW2d 205 (1981), rev’d in part on other grounds 411 Mich 1046 (1981), we found that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy where it was clear that he had free run of the premises, had clothing on the premises, and answered the door when the police came. The evidence in Nabers failed to show defendant’s specific relationship to the searched premises and at least some testimony indicated that he did not live there. All that was really established in Nabers was that the defendant was at least an overnight guest of the codefendant.
I find it interesting that the Supreme Court order partially reversing Nabers was based on the finding that there was probable cause to arrest defendant. This question would not have had to have been reached had the Supreme Court concluded on the record before it that defendant had no constitutionally protectable expectation of privacy in the premises.
In People v Van Auker, 111 Mich App 478; 314 NW2d 657 (1981), this Court held that the defendant had a "legitimate expectation of privacy” sufficient to confer standing where the record showed that he and his girlfriend had stayed at his girlfriend’s cousin’s apartment for a "couple of days” prior to the police intrusion. Certainly, if the facts of Van Auker show a legitimate expectation of privacy, the facts of this case also do.
*566I have examined every state case citing Rakas listed through the September, 1981, supplement to Shepard’s United States Citations. While most of these cases were not analogous to the instant case, the overwhelming majority of those that are analogous support my position.
In State v Allen, 612 P2d 199 (Mont, 1980), the Montana Supreme Court found that defendant, who lived with his girlfriend, had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises even though he personally had no contractual relationship with the lessor. Allen differs from this case in that the defendant there did pay rent.1 In Commonwealth v Wagner, 486 Pa 548; 406 A2d 1026 (1979), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the invaded sphere based on the following facts. Defendant was arrested in the home of his fiancée, Vellora Short. Defendant spent a lot of time, including nights and weekends, at the house. Miss Short’s sister said that defendant lived in the house. Defendant, himself, however, did not claim to live at the address at the time of his arrest, rather, he had given the police a post office box as his address. The opinion fails to mention whether defendant paid Short any rent. In Commonwealth v Evans, 488 Pa 38; 410 A2d 1213 (1979), the Court found that a mere overnight guest had sufficient interest in the premises to consent to the search. *567It held that defendant was more than a "casual visitor” who arrived on the scene just prior to the search. In Brady v State, 394 So 2d 1073 (Fla App, 1981), another overnight guest was found to have standing to challenge a search. Brady apparently was indigent. She was planning to stay for a few days in a male friend’s motel apartment and had her belongings with her. The court specifically noted that she was not paying rent while staying on the premises. In Commonwealth v Bertram, 596 SW2d 379 (Ky App, 1980), a remand was ordered to determine the defendant’s interest in the searched premises. In that case, a cabin on defendant’s father’s property was searched. Defendant lived with his father. The Court indicated that if the defendant had permission to use the cabin, he had a sufficient interest in the premises to contest the validity of the search. Again, the defendant’s status as rent payer was unclear.
In addition to the above cases dealing with privately maintained premises, a series of cases dealing with commercial premises also support my position that defendant here had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. In State v Williams, 168 NJ Super 359; 403 A2d 31 (1979), aff'd 84 NJ 217; 417 A2d 1046 (1980), the defendant was apprehended with lottery paraphernalia and revolvers in the basement storage room of a tavern. Defendant lived in an apartment above the bar and was the custodian of the entire building. Defendant kept his tools in the basement room and liquor was also stored there. The tavern was actually owned by a corporation of which the principal shareholder was defendant’s sister. Despite the fact that defendant did not own the tavern and his use of the storage room was not exclusive, a reasonable expectation of privacy was *568found to exist. In State v Hodges, 287 NW2d 413 (Minn, 1980), the court held that a sublessee’s failure to timely pay rent on commercial property did not preclude a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises. Nor was this expectation of privacy defeated by a clause in the sublease authorizing the sublessor to enter the premises for inspection. In People v Davis, 86 111 App 3d 557; 407 NE2d 1109 (1980), a decision from the state which brought us Rakas, the court determined that defendant had standing to contest a police entry of his employer’s premises. The court did not deem it decisive that defendant might have expected coworkers to enter the building and found that he had a reasonble expectation of privacy in the premises searched. In all of these commercial cases, the premises searched were more open to others than is true of the townhouse here. Despite the lack of exclusivity, however, the defendants were still deemed to have sufficient interests to challenge the searches.
I find only a few cases arguably supporting the dissent’s determination that defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises searched. In two Nevada cases involving one incident and one defendant the court found that the defendant’s mere presence in the apartment did not give him a legitimate expectation of privacy in the same. In these cases, however, the defendant apparently produced no evidence showing his connection to the apartment. Moreover, it appears that the court’s handling of the Rakas issue is mere dicta since the true owner consented to the search. See Hicks v State, 95 Nev 503; 596 P2d 505 (1979), Hicks v State, 96 Nev 82; 605 P2d 219 (1980). In State v Jones, 299 NC 298; 261 SE2d 860 (1980), the court found that the defendant had *569failed to meet his burden of proving that he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his parent’s garage. In Jones, the defendant lived elsewhere but used his parent’s garage as an auto workshop, as well as for storage of his tools there. The standing question is only briefly discussed in Jones and the court actually upheld the search warrant in that case as valid. I disagree with the Jones resolution of the standing issue. Nonetheless, it is easy to distinguish the use of a garage from actually living in a townhouse, as in this case. One enjoys the strongest expectations of privacy in one’s living quarters. Finally, in Lee v State, 419 NE2d 825 (Ind App, 1981), the court held that the defendant, who had been a guest in a house trailer for three days and was on the premises at the time of the search, had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the invaded sphere. The court found it significant that the defendant was one of four persons on the premises, had no key to the trailer, and kept no personal belongings there except the stolen items. For obvious reasons, Lee is not compelling authority. In any case, I also believe Lee is wrongly decided.
I also note the following series of decisions which, although factually different from the instant matter, suggest through what they emphasize that the courts which decided them would agree with my resolution of the standing issue in this case. Inter alia: McGee v State, 383 So 2d 881 (Ala Crim App, 1980), People v Little, 198 Colo 244; 598 P2d 140 (1979), People v Sumlin, 105 Misc 2d 134; 431 NYS2d 967 (1980), People v Buckley, 81 AD2d 511; 437 NYS2d 350 (1981), State v Sweatt, 427 A2d 940 (Me, 1981), State v Tidwell, 23 Wash App 506; 597 P2d 434 (1979), State v Christian, 26 Wash App 542; 613 P2d 1199 (1980), *570People v Thomas, 89 Ill App 3d 592; 411 NE2d 1076 (1980), Nolan v State, 588 SW2d 777 (Tenn Crim App, 1979), State v Bellah, 603 SW2d 707 (Mo App, 1980), Holt v State, 396 NE2d 887 (Ind, 1979), Waters v State, 415 NE2d 711 (Ind, 1981).
I continue to believe that Rakas, supra, is an ill-reasoned opinion. Merely because a person does not live in, or even stay at, the searched premises does not mean he has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises vis-á-vis the police. In most cases, the contrary would be true. Whenever the people living on the premises are conspiring to commit an illegal activity or at least know of contraband being stored within their home, it is safe to say that the possessor of the contraband or incriminating evidence legitimately believes it will be safe from unlawful intrusions by the police. The possessor of the incriminating items in actuality does have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the premises in respect to everybody but its occupants or joint occupants, as the case may be. See People v Chernowas, 111 Mich App 1; 314 NW2d 505 (1981). See, also, for similar holdings, State v Johnson, 301 NW2d 625 (ND, 1981), State v Morsman, 394 So 2d 408 (Fla, 1981), State v Daugherty, 94 Wash 2d 263; 616 P2d 649 (1980), Davis, supra.
The rule of Rakas actually serves as an incentive, encouraging police illegalities in certain situations. The police, knowing that a given suspect will not be allowed to challenge the legality of a search, are faced with no real deterrent in situations where they suspect an individual of storing incriminating evidence in another’s home. On this point, see People v Ward, 107 Mich App 38; 308 NW2d 664 (1981) (Judge M. F. Cavanagh, dissenting), the facts of which suggest that this very thing may well have happened. Consequently, I believe *571that the privacy and security of individuals against arbitrary invasions by governmental officials is involved in cases such as the one at bar.
II

Was there a valid consent search of the townhouse?

In my opinion, the dissenting opinion does precisely what Rakas, supra, 143, warns against, namely: importing "arcane distinctions developed in property and tort law between guests, licensees, invitees, and the like”. Defendant, despite the fact that he lived in the searched premises, was a mere "guest” in the dissent’s view because his name was not on the lease. Consequently, Mr. Hartranft, another "guest” had just as much right to consent to the search as the defendant. Assuming, arguendo, that in light of Rakas, supra, this "guest” analysis comports with current federal constitutional doctrine concerning Fourth Amendment law, I would still find it unacceptable as a means of resolving this case. I see a vast difference between a nonlessee "guest” living in the searched premises and an overnight guest. I believe that the average person would be extremely surprised and irked if an overnight guest invited various police officers or anybody else into his home without explicit authorization. However, I also believe that this same person would most likely not object if his children, who were staying at the house, invited somebody into the premises.
I agree with Judge Kelly’s opinion that People v Adams, 53 NY2d 1; 439 NYS2d 877; 422 NE2d 537 (1981), expresses the proper approach to resolving consent search issues similar to those *572posed here. It is my opinion that the police here abused their powers when they searched the premises on the "authority” of one whom they knew did not reside on the premises. This is particularly true given that the- defendant was not asked for permission to search and the police knew that he was at least a part-time resident of the townhouse. Moreover, I think that the dissent’s conclusion that Hartranft had the right to consent to the search flies in the face of existing Michigan precedent.2 See People v Overall, 7 Mich App 153; 151 NW2d 225 (1967), People v Flowers, 23 Mich App 523; 179 NW2d 56 (1970), lv den 384 Mich 780 (1970), People v Frank Smith, 43 Mich App 400; 204 NW2d 308 (1972), People v Mazzulla, 71 Mich App 418; 248 NW2d 567 (1976) (opinion of Judge R. M. Maher). See, also, Stoner v California, 376 US 483; 84 S Ct 889; 11 L Ed 2d 856 (1964).
Ill

Was the search justiñed because of exigent circumstances?

I also disagree with the dissent’s conclusion that exigent circumstances justified this search. I begin by noting that the prosecution has never argued "exigent circumstances” as a justification for the search. I suggest that this, in and of itself, could well be taken as saying something about how meritorious this claim is.
On the merits of the dissent’s finding, the follow*573ing is applicable. For a search to be justified based on the existence of exigent circumstances, there must be imminent danger of destruction or concealment of evidence. Vale v Louisiana, 399 US 30, 34-35; 90 S Ct 1969; 26 L Ed 2d 409, 413-414 (1970), People v Carter, 387 Mich 397, 410-411; 197 NW2d 57 (1972).
In this case, four officers were present at the scene, and both defendants were immobilized. There was no evidence that the officers believed that anybody involved with the crimes might escape, that incriminating items would be destroyed, or that the officers needed protection. It would have been very easy for the police to secure the premises and seek a search warrant before proceeding into the townhouse. It is difficult for me to imagine any search, which could not be justified by "exigent circumstances” if the dissent’s analysis of this self-created issue were correct.
Nor did the search become more reasonable because the police were looking for firearms. They were in no danger outside of the townhouse, with the defendant and Hartranft, the cofelons, safely controlled. The dissent’s attempt to make the seized guns an immediate threat to the public is not persuasive for this reason. Additionally, assuming that it makes any sense to cite the anti-exclusionary provision of Mich Const 1963, art 1, § 11, in a search and seizure case turning on federal constitutional law, the dissenting opinion notes that it would not have applied to this case anyway. Reliance on a state constitutional provision which conflicts with the federal constitution, where the provision would be inapplicable in any case, strikes me as an odd sort of justification for a search.
*574IV

Should defendant’s confessions have been suppressed as the fruit of an illegal search?

On this particular issue, I have nothing to add to Judge Kelly’s excellent analysis.
V

Does the erroneous decision to admit defendant’s confessions and the items seized at the townhouse require reversal?

In the first Wagner decision, this Court found that the errors arising from the improper admission of evidence at trial were harmless. I agonized over this question in the original Wagner case and, in my opinion, it represents the outer boundaries of error which can be deemed harmless. In the first Wagner case, additional evidence supporting the conviction was sufficient to render the error harmless. Judge Kelly’s opinion adequately summarizes just what this other evidence was.
I further conclude that our refusal to reverse this conviction and suppress the evidence in issue would affirmatively undermine the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. Although I do not believe in a "good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, since I believe that such an exception will ultimately destroy the vitality and protections afforded all the citizenry by the rule, this search could not even be justified on the "good faith” basis. The police knew that Hartranft did not reside at the townhouse and also knew that defendant did reside there at least part of the time. When the police failed to ask the defendant for permission to search, relying solely on Har*575tranft, they did not act in good faith. The dissenting opinion does not protect "the right to privacy” as it allows yet more people to "consent” to the waiver of the Fourth Amendment rights of others. The exclusionary rule may not be perfect, but I am convinced that only by retaining it and keeping it vital will all citizens, not just criminals, be secure from arbitrary governmental intrusions into their homes, persons and businesses. We hear a lot about the relatively few cases where the exclusionary rule results in a criminal conviction being overturned. I would rather that such cases exist than return to an era when there was no effective deterrent to illegal police searches. Without an effective deterrent, I am convinced that we would soon begin to hear about instances in which law-abiding citizens had their persons and homes invaded on the flimsiest of police suspicions.
I concur in reversing the defendant’s convictions.

I do not deem the payment of rent as especially important. The Rakas case explicitly denies an intention to determine Fourth Amendment rights based primarily on proprietary rights. In my view, if the payment of rent be deemed significant in the ordinary case, the Fourth Amendment is improperly construed. Such a construction establishes inequality. The poor, who cannot afford to pay rents and are living gratuitously with others, would have Fourth Amendment rights many times deflated in relation to the middle class and wealthy. In my summary of the cases, I mention whether the opinions show if the defendant paid rent because Judge Kelly deems it important.

I further note that to describe Hartranft as consenting to the search is not an entirely accurate assessment of the record. In fact, Lieutenant Timothy Ryan merely asked Hartranft whether he would be willing to retrieve the guns, and Hartranft answered in the affirmative. Thereafter, Ryan simply entered the premises with Hartranft and followed him to the weapons. Ryan admitted that he never asked Hartranft for permission to go with him.