PEOPLE OF MI V KEITH WILLIAMS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
July 2, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 236085
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 01-005501
KEITH WILLIAMS,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Kelly, P.J. and Murphy and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, possession of
a gas ejecting device, MCL 750.224(1)(e), possession of a firearm by a felon, MCL 750.224f,
and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.227b. Finding that the
search warrant was defective, the trial court dismissed the charges. The prosecution appeals as
of right. We reverse.
I. Basic Facts and Procedural History
The affiant,1 a member of the Wayne County Sheriff’s Department with training in
narcotics identification and the customs and practices at “rave” parties,2 went to a black building
titled, “the Zoo,” in the City of Detroit. Law enforcement officials had previously received
complaints from the neighborhood about the activities going on at the building after hours.
When the affiant approached the building, he detected a strong odor of marijuana coming from a
car parked in front of the building that contained two people. The affiant and his partner were
then greeted at the alley entrance of the building by a man who told them there was a $20
admission, whereupon they were “patted down” before gaining entry. The man at the entrance
then told the affiant and his partner that no pagers or cellular phones were allowed in the
building. After taking their cellular phones back to their car, the affiant and his partner were
allowed to enter. Upon entering the building, there was a strong odor of marijuana, very loud
music, and many people were holding large balloons filled with nitrous oxide. The affiant and
1
The affiant’s name is unknown and his signature on the affidavit is illegible.
2
A rave party is a “culture party” where younger people get together to dance.
-1-
his partner observed, for approximately an hour, many people buying the balloons and inhaling
the nitrous oxide.
One month later, the affiant gave a sworn affidavit based on the foregoing observations.
The magistrate issued a warrant authorizing the search of the building and its curtilage. Four
days thereafter, the police executed the search warrant after officers conducted a surveillance of
the location and saw defendant “opening the shop” and greeting other workers as they arrived.
When the police executed the search warrant, defendant was in his vehicle, which
obstructed the front door to the building as well as the entrance into the parking lot. Eventually,
the defendant was pulled out of his car, placed on the ground and handcuffed. Thereafter, the
police observed a canister of pepper spray and a knife in defendant’s vehicle and also discovered
a pipe containing suspected marijuana residue. Additionally, in the back seat of defendant’s
vehicle, the police discovered a gun belt with handcuffs hanging from it and in the trunk, the
police discovered a black handgun case that was padlocked shut. Inside of the handgun case was
a 9mm blue steel semi-automatic. Next to the firearm was a magazine containing ammunition.
Defendant had an outstanding warrant from Wayne County and his driver’s license had been
suspended since 1998. Defendant was arrested and his vehicle was impounded.
Before trial, defendant moved for an evidentiary hearing to suppress evidence on the
grounds that the search warrant was improperly issued by the magistrate and improperly
executed by the officers. Specifically, defendant argued that the information contained in the
affidavit was stale because there was no indication of continuing activity. The prosecution
responded by arguing that defendant did not have standing to move to suppress the evidence
seized pursuant to the search warrant due to a lack of proprietary interest in the property.
Moreover, the prosecution argued that the information was not stale because the affiant stated
that the building would not be searched unless a rave party was taking place in the building. The
trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress based on the fact that the search warrant was
defective resulting in a dismissal of all charges against defendant.
II. Standard of Review
A trial court’s findings of fact following a suppression hearing will not be disturbed by an
appellate court unless the findings are clearly erroneous. People v Givans, 227 Mich App 113,
119; 575 NW2d 84 (1997). Factual findings are considered clearly erroneous if, upon review of
the record, there is a definite and firm conviction that a mistake was made. Id. The trial court’s
conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. People v Snider, 239 Mich App 393, 406; 608 NW2d
502 (2000).
III. Standing
The prosecution first argues that the trial court erred in determining that defendant had
standing to move to suppress the evidence. We agree in part and disagree in part.
Prior to ascertaining whether a search was proper under both the United States and
Michigan Constitutions, a defendant must have standing to challenge the search and bears the
burden of establishing standing. People v Powell, 235 Mich App 557, 561; 599 NW2d 499
(1999). A defendant has standing to properly challenge a search if, when viewing the totality of
-2-
the circumstances, the defendant had “a reasonable expectation of privacy in the place that was
searched.” Id. at 561. Various factors exist to determine whether a defendant has standing to
challenge the search. These factors include:
ownership, possession and/or control of the area searched or item seized;
historical use of the property or item; ability to regulate access; the totality of the
circumstances surrounding the search; the existence or nonexistence of a
subjective anticipation of privacy; and the objective reasonableness of the
expectation of privacy considering the specific facts of the case. Id. at 563.
A. The Vehicle
We agree with the trial court that defendant had standing to challenge the search by
moving to suppress the evidence found in the vehicle. Unreasonable searches and seizures are
forbidden under the United States and Michigan Constitutions. US Const Am IV; Const 1963,
art 1, § 11. “The test to determine whether a person has a protected privacy right under the
Fourth Amendment or art. 1, § 11 is whether the defendant had an expectation of privacy in the
object of the search and seizure and whether the expectation is one that society recognizes as
reasonable.” Id. at 560. Here, defendant was in his vehicle, which was blocking the entrance of
the building at the time the police executed the search warrant, so defendant had possession and
control of the vehicle. Furthermore, a check on the vehicle confirmed that defendant was the
owner. Generally, ownership and possession of a vehicle are adequate to establish an
expectation of privacy, and thus, are sufficient to confer standing to challenge a search. See
People v Armendarez, 188 Mich App 61, 71; 468 NW2d 893 (1991). When viewing the totality
of the circumstances, we conclude that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his
vehicle.
However, we find that the police legitimately searched defendant’s vehicle in accord with
a valid search warrant. The warrant included the search of the curtilage because the affiant also
observed illegal activity in front of the building where the rave party was held. Defendant’s car
was blocking the entrance to the building on the evening that police executed the search warrant.
An automobile found within the curtilage of property may be properly searched. People v Jones,
249 Mich App 131, 136; 640 NW2d 898 (2002). The rationale is that a vehicle is similar to
other personal effects, such as a suitcase or a handbag, found on the described premises. Id. at
138-139. Every part of the vehicle that may support the object of the search may be searched,
including a locked trunk. Id. at 138, quoting United States v Ross, 456 US 798; 102 S Ct 2157;
72 L Ed 2d 572 (1982).
Accordingly, we find that defendant had standing to challenge the search and we further
find that the search was proper.
B. The Building
However, when viewing the totality of the circumstances, we cannot reasonably
concluded that defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the building to be searched.
Defendant has not demonstrated that he had unencumbered access to the premises or that he
owned the building where the rave parties were held. Further, the building has no known
address. Defendant did not assert the he resided in the building or otherwise worked in the
-3-
building with any regularity or that he stored any personal effects in the building. Additionally,
defendant has not claimed that he has a key to the building. Moreover, defendant has not
claimed that he is leasing the building or paying utility bills. The only claim made by defendant
on appeal is that he took money at the door to allow access. Merely asserting some control over
an area or overseeing an operation in an area that is searched does not automatically confer
standing. United States v Padilla, 508 US 77, 80-82; 113 S Ct 1936; 123 L Ed 2d 635 (1993).
“[A] Fourth Amendment violation can be successfully urged only by those whose rights were
violated by the search itself, not by those who are aggrieved solely by the introduction of
damaging evidence.” Id. at 81-82.
Thus, when viewing the totality of the circumstances, defendant did not have standing to
move to suppress the evidence because defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the
building.
III. Stale Information
Finally, the prosecution argues that the trial court erred in determining that the search
warrant was based upon stale information. We agree.
A magistrate may issue a search warrant only when it is supported by probable cause.
MCL 780.651(1); People v Ulman, 244 Mich App 500, 509; 625 NW2d 429 (2001). Probable
cause exists when a reasonable person, after viewing the facts and circumstances as a whole,
would believe that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in the location to be
searched. Ulman, supra at 509. Staleness of a search warrant is one aspect in determining
whether probable cause exists to search the place described because it cannot be assumed that
evidence will remain there indefinitely. People v Russo, 439 Mich 584, 605; 487 NW2d 698
(1992).
Whether a search warrant is stale depends on the circumstances of each case:
Time as a factor in the determination of probable cause to search is weighed and
balanced in light of other variables in the equation, such as whether the crime is a
single instance or an ongoing pattern of protracted violations, whether the
inherent nature of a scheme suggests that it is probably continuing, and the nature
of the property sought, that is, whether it is likely to be promptly disposed of or
retained by the person committing the offense. Id. at 605-606.
We find that the information contained in the search warrant was not stale. The officers
had previously received complaints from the neighborhood about the activities going on at the
building after hours. One month before the search warrant was executed, the affiant and his
partner attended a rave party being held in the building and witnessed many illicit drug
transctions. This party was being held at approximately 3:00 a.m. on a weekend. The magistrate
issued a search warrant based on the affiant’s observations of illegal activities occurring at this
rave party.
One month is not enough time to make the information stale in this specific case. Aside
from the rave parties, the building otherwise appeared vacant. The affiant explained that these
rave parties are usually publicized through underground sources and word of mouth. Further, the
-4-
affiant explained that these parties are usually held during early morning hours on weekends.
Thus, due to the nature of these rave parties, it is very difficult to state with specificity exactly
when one is scheduled. The affiant stated that he would only conduct a search of the building
during a rave party, and thus, it was not unreasonable to execute the search warrant within four
weekends. Further, given the complaints by the neighbors, and the fact that the affiant actually
attended a rave party at the building previously, it appears that there was a pattern of criminal
activity that was occurring. The trial court erred in finding the information stale.
Reversed.
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-5-
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.
