PEOPLE OF MI V WESLEY F ROBERTS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 4, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 230521
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-003972
WESLEY F. ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Doctoroff, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for possession of less than 25
grams of cocaine. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v). We affirm.
Police officers were conducting surveillance on a car that had been driven by a suspect in
an assault case. Defendant fit the description of the person being sought. When defendant drove
away in the car, he was stopped and arrested. An inventory search revealed a controlled
substance in an eyeglass case in the trunk of the car.
Defendant asserts that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and the search was
improper where he was not the person who was the target of the surveillance. Defendant failed
to raise these issues at trial. A constitutional right may be forfeited by a party’s failure to raise
the issue. People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 763; 597 NW2d 130 (1999). To avoid forfeiture
under the plain error rule three requirements must be met: 1) error must have occurred, 2) the
error was plain, i.e., clear and obvious, and 3) the plain error affected substantial rights. Id.
Reversal is warranted only when the plain, forfeited error resulted in the conviction of an
actually innocent defendant or when the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public
reputation of judicial proceedings. Id.
When police have probable cause to arrest one party and they reasonably mistake a
second party for the first party, then the arrest of the second party is valid. Hill v California, 401
US 797, 802; 91 S Ct 1106; 28 L Ed 2d 484 (1971). Under these circumstances, police are
entitled to make a search incident to the arrest. Id., 804. Police may conduct an inventory search
of a person in detention if the underlying arrest was valid, and the search was conducted in
accordance with standardized department procedures. People v Toohey, 438 Mich 265, 279; 475
NW2d 16 (1991). No separate justification is needed for the impoundment where the officers
acted in accordance with standard policy of the police department. Id., 288.
-1-
Affirmed.
/s/ E. Thomas Fitzgerald
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ Martin M. Doctoroff
-2-
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.