Court Denies Motion to Suppress

Case: People v. Hastings (Unpublished Opinion, Michigan Court of Appeals)

Issues:

Motion to suppress; Search & seizure; U.S. Const. amend. IV; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11; People v. Kazmierczak; Florida v. Royer; People v. Oliver; People v. Shankle; People v. Horton; United States v. Fraguela-Casanova (MD PA); Whether the suspicion was reasonable; People v. Stevens; Waived issue; Hoffenblum v. Hoffenblum; Whether the duration of the seizure while obtaining the search warrant was unconstitutional; Segura v. United States; Ineffective assistance of counsel; Failure to move to suppress statements; People v. Matuszak; U.S. Const. amend. VI; Const. 1963, art. 1, § 20; People v. LeBlanc; Strickland v. Washington; People v. Trakhtenberg; Whether Miranda warnings were required; People v. Hill; Yarborough v. Alvarado; Motorist detained for an investigative stop; People v. Steele;People v. Burton; Other acts evidence; MRE 404(b)(1); People v. VanderVliet; People v. Smith; MRE 401; Whether the trial court misapplied the balancing test of MRE 403; People v. Murphy (On Remand); Presumption jurors follow their instructions; People v. Pinkney; MRE 404(b)(2); Harmless error; People v. Lukity; Risk that the jury was exposed to extraneous information; People v. Garay

Summary:

Holding that the trial court did not err by denying the motion to suppress, the court affirmed defendant’s conviction of possession of an instrument adapted and designed to open or break into a device designed to receive currency or coins with the intent to steal.He argued that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence on the basis that the initial investigatory stop lacked probable cause. The court held that the totality of the facts and circumstances supported the conclusion that the officer (G) had “reasonable suspicion that defendant had committed or was currently committing criminal activity related to parking meters when he initiated the investigatory stop.” According to G, “making a homemade key from a parking meter head would require 1½ to 2 hours of time with the meter head. Therefore, a perpetrator could not easily create the mold from a parking meter in a parking lot without being detected. In 2010 and 2016, parking meter heads were stolen in Traverse City. Later, change was stolen from other meters without any damage to the meters.” G arrested defendant in 2012 “for stealing change from parking meters with a homemade key” and he pleaded guilty to that offense. In 2016, he was “the suspect in several similar parking meter thefts in various counties in southern Michigan.” G could have reasonably suspected that he was the perpetrator in this case when he saw him “entering, late at night, the same lot that contained meters that had been discovered empty the previous night. Further, [G] testified that an officer surveilling defendant as a suspect in similar crimes in southern Michigan had informed [G] that he thought defendant was ‘heading north.’ [G] advised patrol officers to be on the lookout for defendant and his truck. On the same day [G] received this information, Traverse City parking meter collection workers discovered three lots with undamaged parking meters missing change. Early the next morning, defendant parked his truck near” the lot, and an officer later saw him carrying what looked to be a heavy bag to his truck. Affirmed.