PEOPLE OF MI V BRUCE H MCFAUL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 25, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 207405
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 96-144890 FH
BRUCE H. MCFAUL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Markey, P.J., and McDonald and Fitzgerald, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by right from his conviction by jury of carrying a concealed weapon, MCL
750.227; MSA 28.424, possession of a controlled substance under 25 grams, MCL
333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v), possession of a firearm during the commission of a
felony, MCL 750.227b; MSA 28.424(2), and operating a motor vehicle with expired license plates,
MCL 257.255(1); MSA 9.1955(1). We affirm.
Defendant’s sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying defendant’s motion
to suppress evidence which was obtained after defendant was stopped for a traffic violation. Defendant
claims here, as he did below, that the search and seizure conducted in this case was violative of his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by both the United States and Michigan
Constitutions. US Const, Am IV; Const, art 1, § 11. We disagree.
Generally, we conduct a de novo review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress the
evidence for all mixed questions of fact and law, and for all pure questions of law. Ornelas v United
States, 517 US 690; 116 S Ct 1657, 1663; 134 L Ed 2d 911, 920 (1996); People v Marsack, 231
Mich App 364, 372; 586 NW2d 234 (1998). However, the trial court’s findings of fact are reviewed
for clear error, with due weight being given to inferences drawn from those facts by the trial court and
by the local law enforcement officers. Ornelas, supra; People v Taylor, 454 Mich 580, 595; 564
NW2d 24 (1997).
The warrantless search of defendant’s car and of his person was valid as incident to a lawful
arrest. New York v Belton, 453 US 454; 101 S Ct 2860; 69 L Ed 2d 768 (1981); Chimel v
-1
California, 395 US 752, 763; 89 S Ct 2034; 23 L Ed 2d 685 (1969). Defendant’s car was lawfully
stopped for the misdemeanor offense of driving a motor vehicle with expired license plates. MCL
257.255(1); MSA 9.1955(1). See Whren v United States, 517 US 806, 810; 116 S Ct 1769, 1774;
135 L Ed 2d 89, 98 (1996); People v Dixon, 392 Mich 691, 699; 222 NW2d 749 (1974). It is
unclear whether the police effectuated defendant’s arrest based on this misdemeanor offense, whether
defendant was arrested based on their reasonable suspicion that defendant was making a “furtive
gesture” of reaching for a gun under his seat, or whether the police arrested defendant based on their
plain view of a pistol located under or near defendant’s seat in his car. Regardless, we hold that at the
time the police lawfully stopped defendant’s car, the police could have properly and, immediately
arrested defendant for driving the car with expired license plates. Id. Because the police had the right
to arrest defendant on this basis when they stopped his car, the subsequent searches were lawfully
conducted incident to an arrest. Belton, supra; Chimel, supra; People v Champion, 452 Mich 92,
115-116; 549 NW2d 849 (1996); People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15, 26; 485 NW2d 866 (1992);
People v Arterberry, 431 Mich 381, 384-385; 429 NW2d 574 (1988); People v Chapman, 425
Mich 245, 250-251; 387 NW2d 835 (1986).
The evidence seized during the search of defendant and the vehicle was properly obtained, and
the trial court did not err in failing to suppress it.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Gary R. McDonald
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
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.
