PEOPLE OF MI V CHRISTOPHER LLOYD BRAZELLE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 234894
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 99-011505-01
CHRISTOPHER LLOYD BRAZELLE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: Owens, P.J., and Murphy and Cavanagh, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant appeals as of right his bench trial conviction for possession with intent to
deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv). We affirm. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On appeal, defendant asserts that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress.
This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings in a suppression hearing for clear error.
People v Custer, 465 Mich 319, 325; 630 NW2d 870 (2001). The application of the
exclusionary rule to a violation of the Fourth Amendment is a question of law, which is reviewed
de novo. Id., 326.
Probable cause for a search exists where a person of reasonable caution would conclude
that contraband or evidence of criminal conduct will be found in the place to be searched.
People v Darwich, 226 Mich App 635, 637; 575 NW2d 44 (1997). A brief on-the-scene
detention of an individual is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment if the officer can articulate
a reasonable suspicion for the detention. Custer, supra at 327.
The officers were legally present in a common area of the house under a valid search
warrant. The first officer saw defendant put a plastic object in his pocket. The officer had
reason to believe drugs were present in the house based on the search warrant that was issued.
Defendant’s act of attempting to conceal a plastic bag, which is commonly used for packaging
-1-
drugs, gave the officer probable cause to conduct a search. See People v Champion, 452 Mich
92, 99; 549 NW2d 849 (1996).
Affirmed.
/s/ Donald S. Owens
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
-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.
