Search & seizure; Inventory search; People v Toohey; Principle that an officer may arrest an individual without a warrant if a misdemeanor is committed in the officer’s presence; MCL 764.15(1)(a); The law of the case doctrine; People v Hermiz

The court held that the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress. He pled guilty to possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of fentanyl and possession with intent to distribute an imitation controlled substance arising out of a search and seizure of his vehicle during a traffic stop. On appeal, as a preliminary matter, the court rejected the prosecution’s argument that defendant’s current issue on appeal was the same as the one raised in a prior application for leave to appeal that was denied for lack of merit, and thus was barred by the law of the case doctrine. “Defendant did not advance an argument concerning whether the inventory search was pretextual, which is exclusively what defendant argues in this appeal. Thus, [his] current issue was not actually decided in the prior appeal, and the law of the case doctrine does not apply.” Turning to the merits, the court rejected defendant’s claim that the trial court erred when it determined the inventory search of his vehicle was not pretextual, and therefore not an unreasonable search and seizure. It found the impoundment and subsequent inventory of his vehicle were reasonable. “It is undisputed that defendant did not have his driver’s license on his person during the encounter, which is a misdemeanor.” In addition, he “could not provide proof of insurance for his vehicle, which is a civil infraction.” The officer also verified that his “vehicle was not insured, which is another misdemeanor.” As such, the officer “had sufficient cause to arrest defendant for his misdemeanor offenses.” It was also “undisputed that defendant’s vehicle had been stopped on the side of a public road, and because the vehicle was uninsured, the vehicle could not have been driven away by anyone.” And because he “was the only occupant of the vehicle, after his valid arrest there was no one else to attend to the vehicle. Thus, under these circumstances, [the officer] acted reasonably by impounding defendant’s vehicle so as to not leave it unattended in the middle of the night on the roadway.” Once it was reasonably impounded, the officer “was permitted to conduct an inventory search pursuant to standardized police procedure.” Thus, the inventory search “did not violate defendant’s right against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the discovered evidence was not obtained unlawfully. The trial court did not err when it determined that neither the impoundment of, nor the inventory search of, defendant’s vehicle was unconstitutional.” Affirmed.