STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant v MONTEZ ANTHONY BROOKS, Defendant-Appellee
UNPUBLISHED June 17, 1997
No. 190278 Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 95-4015 FH
Before: White, P.J, and MacKenzie and E. R. Post*, JJ. MEMORANDUM. This case is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E). In reviewing a trial court’s decision on a motion to suppress evidence as seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment and/or Const 1963, art 1, §11, the trial court’s findings of historical fact are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard, but all other questions, whether of law or mixed questions of law and fact, are required to be reviewed de novo to assure uniformity of application of the federal Constitution. Ornelas v United States, 517 US ___; 116 S Ct 1657; 134 L Ed 2d 911, 919-920 (1996). Here, the trial court’s findings of historical fact are not challenged as being clearly erroneous, and are accepted by this Court. Those findings include that defendant was validly stopped for a traffic infraction, validly placed in custodial arrest when it was learned that he was driving with a suspended license, and that a search of his person and vehicle incident to that arrest disclosed a small amount of marijuana and documents relating to an apartment at 1309 Huron in the City of Ann Arbor. On being taken to police headquarters and advised of his Miranda rights, defendant waived his right of silence and his right to counsel and when questioned by police denied being a resident of apartment number two at 1309 Huron, instead giving one residence as his official residence for parole purposes, and a second residence as one being shared with Taniesha Ford. Ms. Ford confirmed that defendant resided with her on Grove Street, while defendant’s parole address was on Monroe Street.
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1
Charlotte Hall came to police headquarters and confirmed that she was the lessee of apartment number two at 1309 Huron. Hall and defendant had lived there together but had moved out. Hall had attempted to cancel the lease but had been unable to do so. On these facts, consent to search the apartment was given by a person possessing adequate authority over the premises. The circuit court’s order granting defendant’s m otion to suppress is reversed. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Helene N. White /s/ Barbara B. MacKenzie /s/ Edward R. Post