PEOPLE OF MI V EUGENE CHARLES STEVENS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
EUGENE STEVENS,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 199175
Recorder’s Court
LC No. 94-009116
ON REMAND
Before: Doctoroff, P.J., and Markman and O’Connell, JJ.
O’CONNELL, J. (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
I agree with the majority opinion that the recent United States Supreme Court decision in
Richards v Wisconsin, ___ US ___; 117 S Ct 1416; 137 L Ed 2d 615 (1997) controls the outcome
of this case. However, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the prosecution has had an
opportunity to “articulate a reasonable justification for an unannounced entry” as required by the
Richards decision. Richards was decided almost two and one-half years after the trial court entered its
order granting the motion to dismiss for violation of the “knock and announce rule.” I would vacate the
decision of the trial court and remand this case for further proceedings pursuant to Richards, supra.1 If
the prosecutor can “articulate a reasonable justification for the entry” then the evidence should not be
suppressed. However, if the prosecutor is unable to comply with the Richards’ requirements then the
suppression order should be affirmed.
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
1
I concur with the majority opinion that this is not a “no knock” case. The police did, in fact, knock
and then waited eleven seconds prior to entry. The narrow issue appears to be the reasonableness of
the waiting period.
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.