Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence found during a pat-down search; People v Champion; Sufficient evidence for a resisting or obstructing a police officer conviction; People v Quinn; People v Moreno; Jail credit; MCL 769.11b

The court held that (1) the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion to suppress, (2) there was sufficient evidence to support his resisting or obstructing conviction, and (3) he was not entitled to further jail time credit. He was also convicted of possession of meth. During a pat-down search, a meth pipe was found in his pocket. The court noted that officers knew him from prior “encounters as a meth user and seller. Based on their extensive police experience, they knew that meth users and sellers tend to harbor paranoid tendencies and carry weapons. Further, [they] saw that defendant was holding a Leatherman tool that contained at least one knife and other sharp objects.” He defied their multiple requests “to place his hands on the car, and he instead reached into his pockets and moved in an agitated manner.” Based on this evidence, the trial court was correct that his “behavior escalated the traffic stop and that he posed a risk of harm” justifying the pat-down “search to protect the [officers] and others at the scene.” The trial court also determined the “seizure of the meth pipe was permissible based on the ‘plain feel’ exception to the warrant requirement[.]” The officer (H) here “knew that he felt a meth pipe in defendant’s pocket because it had a distinct size and shape. An officer may reach into a suspect’s clothing if the officer feels an object, ‘the identity of the object is immediately apparent’ to the officer, and ‘the officer has probable cause to believe that the object is contraband . . . .’” The court added that video footage from another officer’s “body camera showed that defendant told the officers that he had ‘a little bit of meth’ on him. For these reasons, [H] was justified in removing the pipe from defendant’s clothing.” As to the sufficiency of the evidence, “viewed in a light most favorable to the prosecutor, the evidence established that the officers’ actions were lawful.” The record showed that they “performed a valid traffic stop of the vehicle in which defendant was a passenger, that the police had valid reasons to order defendant to exit the car and to perform a pat down, and that [they] lawfully removed the meth pipe from [his] clothing. Therefore, [the] prosecution presented sufficient evidence that defendant resisted lawful police actions and commands.” Finally, he was not entitled to credit for a “period during which he was serving a sentence for another crime.” Affirmed.