PEOPLE OF MI V EDDIE JONES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
FOR PUBLICATION
January 8, 2002
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 232449
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
LC No. 00-000618-FH
EDDIE JONES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Updated Copy
March 15, 2002
Before: Wilder, P.J., and Griffin and Smolenski, JJ.
GRIFFIN, J.
Defendant appeals by delayed leave granted an order of the circuit court denying his
pretrial motion to suppress evidence, including controlled substances and weapons, seized by the
police during a search of the trunk of an automobile located on defendant's premises. We affirm.
I
Defendant is charged with possession with intent to deliver 50 grams or more but less
than 225 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), possession of a firearm during the
commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b, possession of less than twenty-five grams of a mixture
containing cocaine and heroin, MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v), and possession of marijuana, MCL
333.7403(2)(d).
The pertinent facts are not in dispute and are accurately set forth in the well-reasoned
written opinion of the circuit court:
On March 2, 1999, officers of the Kalamazoo Valley Enforcement Team
executed a search warrant at 1620 N. Rose in the City of Kalamazoo. The search
warrant described the place to be searched as:
"The premises commonly referred to as 1620 N. Rose, City of Kalamazoo,
County of Kalamazoo, State of Michigan. The premises is further described as
being a brown single story, single family residence with white trim. The premises
is also described as being the third structure north of Prouty St. on the east side of
N. Rose St. The numbers '1620' as affixed to the front of the structure just inside
the front porch which is enclosed. Also to be searched are any grounds, rooms,
-1-
closets, storage spaces and or appurtenant structures located on the premises and
in the control of the resident of 1620 N. Rose St."
The search warrant describes the property to be searched for and seized as:
"1. Any forms of marijuana, cocaine and/or controlled substances.
2. Any tools, equipment, records, notes, tabulations and U.S. currency
believed to be the evidence and proceeds in trafficking of controlled substances.
3. Any papers, bills, receipts showing residency or control of the above
premises.
4. Any and all firearms located in the aforementioned premises."
An evidentiary hearing was held in connection with the defendant's
motion challenging the search and seizure pursuant to the warrant. From the
testimony at the hearing the following facts are established.
The search occurred on March 2, 1999, in the evening hours commencing
at approximately 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. There were between six and eight officers
involved in the execution of the search warrant. During the course of the search
of the premises, there were two non-police personnel located within the home at
1620 N. Rose St. One of those persons was the defendant, Eddie Jones. A
substance believed to be a controlled substance was taken from the bedroom of
the defendant. The officers became aware of a 1985 Cadillac parked at the rear of
the home in what was described as the back yard or behind the house. The car
was parked on and partially off the driveway. The officers had not seen this
vehicle on previous trips to the home nor did they see it immediately upon entry
of the home to begin the execution of the search warrant. The officers became
aware of the fact that this particular vehicle was registered to an individual named
Calvin Lee Prude.
A set of keys was located within the house on a freezer chest. These keys
could start this vehicle. The vehicle was started and was operable. The officers
were uncertain as to whether or not there was a license plate on the vehicle when
they first observed it and if there was a plate, if it was a valid plate. If there was a
plate on the vehicle, during the course of a search of that vehicle the plate was
knocked off or removed from the vehicle. The key, which would start the vehicle,
would not open the trunk. There was an electronic switch within the interior of
the vehicle to open the trunk, however, that did not function properly. The rear
seat of the vehicle was pulled forward so that on the passenger side of the vehicle
one could observe a part of the trunk of the vehicle. There was a coat hanger
extending from the trunk into the passenger compartment of the car, which one
officer testified could be used as a method to open the trunk.
The officers had been searching the house for approximately one-half hour
when two of the officers were instructed [to] go search the vehicle. After walking
-2-
around the vehicle and observing it and discovering that the vehicle would start
and the tires were inflated, the officers attempted to open the trunk. When they
could not open the trunk with the key to the vehicle or the electronic switch in the
vehicle, they used tools including a pair of bolt cutters and what was described as
a ram. The trunk was opened and controlled substances and weapons were found
within the trunk of the vehicle.
* * *
The officers also testified that they believed that the automobile was
within the scope of the search authorized by the warrant and that due to their
training and experience, they knew that cars are often used as containers to
contain and/or conceal drugs. Since the search warrant authorized a search of
storage spaces, the officers thought that this vehicle was a storage space and
therefore within the scope of the search warrant.
Following the denial by the circuit court of defendant's motion to suppress the drugs and
firearms seized in the trunk of the vehicle, defendant appeals by leave granted.
II
Defendant raises only one issue on appeal: "Is defendant entitled to a suppression of the
evidence seized from a vehicle found at the residence searched by the police where that vehicle
is not specifically listed as a place to be searched in the affidavit and warrant?" We agree with
the circuit court and answer the question "no" because the automobile was located on the
premises expressly authorized to be searched pursuant to the warrant.
A
At the outset, we note that because defendant has not advanced "compelling reasons" for
greater protection, we treat the guarantees of the United States (US Const Ams IV and XIV) and
Michigan Constitutions (Const 1963, art 1, § 11) as coextensive. People v Levine, 461 Mich
172, 178-179; 600 NW2d 622 (1999); Sitz v Dept' of State Police, 443 Mich 744, 758-759; 506
NW2d 209 (1993).
Our standard of review is set forth in People v Marsack, 231 Mich App 364, 372; 586
NW2d 234 (1998):
In general, a trial court's findings at an evidentiary hearing are reviewed
for clear error. However, a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress the
evidence is reviewed under the de novo standard for all mixed questions of fact
and law, and for all pure questions of law.
Because the pertinent facts are not in dispute, we review de novo the trial court's legal ruling
denying defendant's motion to suppress. Id. See also People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 631, n 7;
-3-
505 NW2d 266 (1993), and People v Goforth, 222 Mich App 306, 310, n 4; 564 NW2d 526
(1997).
In support of their respective positions, the people rely on People v Hahn, 183 Mich App
465; 455 NW2d 310 (1989), while defendant argues People v Mackey, 121 Mich App 748; 329
NW2d 476 (1982). However, we conclude that neither Hahn nor Mackey is dispositive. In
Hahn, the search warrant "specifically authorized the search of the defendant's garage wherein
the [searched] car was located." Hahn, supra at 469. On the other hand, the warrant in Mackey
authorized the search of "[s]ection 1 in Bear Lake Township off County Road 600 . . . said
property being leased or rented by Robert Mackey," which we held was too general to authorize
the search of a shed located adjacent to, and within the curtilage of, defendant's dwelling house.
Mackey, supra at 757.
B
Although Michigan has not ruled on the precise issue raised by defendant, nearly all
jurisdictions that have decided the question have held a search warrant for "premises" authorizes
the search of all automobiles found on the premises. Much of the applicable authority on this
issue is chronicled in 2 LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (3d
ed), § 4.10(c), p 667, n 59. There, Professor LaFave concludes:
It has often been held that a search warrant authorizing the search of
certain premises covers automobiles found on those premises.59 The assumption
seems to be that a vehicle should be viewed in the same way as any other personal
effects found on the described premises.
59
E.g. United States v Singer, 970 F2d 1414 (5th Cir, 1992); United States v
Griffin, 827 F2d 1108 (7th Cir, 1987); United States v Asselin, 775 F2d 445 (1st
Cir, 1985); United States v Bulgatz, 693 F2d 728 (8th Cir, 1982) (even though
words "motor vehicle" crossed out on warrant application); In re One 1970 Ford
Van, 111 Ariz 522; 533 P2d 1157 (1975); People v Elliott, 77 Cal App 3d 673;
144 Cal Rptr 137 (1978); Joyner v State, 303 So 2d 60 (Fla App, 1974); Bellamy v
State, 134 Ga App 340; 214 SE2d 383 (1975); State v Sykes, 412 NW2d 578
(Iowa, 1987); McCissell v Commonwealth, 305 SW2d 756 (Ky, 1957); Massey v
Commonwealth, 305 SW2d 755 (Ky, 1957); State v Lewis, 270 NW2d 891 (Minn,
1978); State v Reid, 286 NC 323; 210 SE2d 422 (1974); State v Tewell, 9 Ohio
App 3d 330; 460 NE2d 285 (1983) (warrant said "and surrounding curtilage" and
car in driveway within curtilage); Leslie v State, 294 P2d 854 (Okl Crim App,
1956); Lindley v State, 294 P2d 851 (Okl Crim App, 1956); Long v State, 532
SW2d 591 (Tex Crim App, 1975).
Contra: United States v Cody, 390 F Supp 616 (ED Tenn, 1974); People v
Sciacca, 45 NY2d 122; 408 NYS2d 22; 379 NE2d 1153 (1978). [Id. at 667.]
-4-
The more recent cases cited in the above treatise begin their analysis with United States v
Ross, 456 US 798; 102 S Ct 2157; 72 L Ed 2d 572 (1982). In addressing a search without a
warrant of an automobile supported by probable cause, the United States Supreme Court held
that every part of the vehicle and its contents that could conceal the object of the search may be
searched as if a magistrate had authorized a search warrant for the vehicle. In Ross, the Supreme
Court analogized the search without a warrant of a vehicle to the search of premises authorized
by a search warrant:
A lawful search of fixed premises generally extends to the entire area in
which the object of the search may be found and is not limited by the possibility
that separate acts of entry or opening may be required to complete the search.
Thus, a warrant that authorizes an officer to search a home for illegal weapons
also provides authority to open closets, chests, drawers, and containers in which
the weapon might be found. . . . A warrant to search a vehicle would support a
search of every part of the vehicle that might contain the object of the search.
When a legitimate search is under way, and when its purpose and its limits have
been precisely defined, nice distinctions between closets, drawers, and containers,
in the case of a home, or between glove compartments, upholstered seats, trunks,
and wrapped packages, in the case of a vehicle, must give way to the interest in
the prompt and efficient completion of the task at hand. [Id. at 820-821.]
In United States v Percival, 756 F2d 600 (CA 7, 1985), the Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals applied the rationale of Ross, supra, to the present issue and held that a search warrant
for a described premises included within its scope authorization to search an automobile found
on the premises. In concluding that a Fourth Amendment violation did not occur, the court
concluded that a vehicle is personal property equivalent to a suitcase or handbag discovered on
the premises:
Percival argues that a vehicle should not be viewed in the same way as
other personal effects on the premises because a car has a lesser connection to the
premises than furniture, desks, cabinets, and other personal items. See 2 W
LaFave, Search and Seizure, § 4.10, at 158-59 (1978) (hereinafter cited as
"LaFave"). Although a car is less fixed than a closet or cabinet, however, it is no
less fixed than a suitcase or handbag found on the premises, both of which can
readily be searched under Ross if capable of containing the object of the search.
Professor LaFave asserts, and we agree, that the better practice would be to
include a description of the occupant's vehicle in the warrant when the warrant is
intended to extend to the car. LaFave, supra at 159. We do not believe, however,
that such a practice is mandated in every instance by the Fourth Amendment. We
therefore agree with other courts that have addressed this issue and hold that a
search warrant authorizing a search of particularly described premises may permit
the search of vehicles owned or controlled by the owner of, and found on, the
premises. See United States v Bulgatz, 693 F2d 728, 730, n 3 (8th Cir, 1982)
(warrant for search of house justifies search of car parked in garage attached to
house ), cert denied 459 US 1210; 103 S Ct 1203; 75 L Ed 2d 444 (1983); United
States v Freeman, 685 F2d 942, 955 (5th Cir, 1982) (warrant for search of
premises justifies search of jeep parked on premises); United States v Napoli, 530
-5-
F2d 1198, 1200 (5th Cir [1976]) (warrant for search of house justifies search of
camper parked in driveway), cert denied 429 US 920; 97 S Ct 316; 50 L Ed 2d
287 (1976); United States v Beall, 581 F Supp 1457, 1466 (D MD, 1984)
(warrant for search of auto body shop justifies search of U-Haul truck parked
within shop); see also LaFave, supra at 158, n 39 (collecting cases). Cf. United
States v Stanley, 597 F2d 866, 870 (4th Cir, 1979) (warrant for search of mobile
home does not justify search of car parked nearby when car is in common tenant
parking lot not annexed to the home or within general enclosure surrounding the
home.) [Id. at 612.]
We agree with the above analysis and the overwhelming weight of authority from other
jurisdictions on this issue. Accordingly, we hold that the search warrant issued in the present
case for the premises commonly referred to as 1620 N. Rose, City of Kalamazoo, included
within its authorization the search of the vehicle found on the premises. The lower court
correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress.
Affirmed.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-6-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
