PEOPLE OF MI V JASMINE DORSEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
November 25, 2008
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 280524
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 07-009874
JASMINE DORSEY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Sawyer and Smolenski, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The prosecutor appeals as of right from the trial court order granting defendant’s motion
to suppress evidence found in her purse during the execution of a search warrant. We affirm.
This appeal has been decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
This Court is limited in its review to the lower court record. MCR 7.210(A)(1). Because
the search warrant and affidavit in support of the search warrant were not part of the lower court
record, this Court may not consider these documents and is unaware of the object of the search
warrant. However, police testimony indicated that the “seller” described in the search warrant
was a male, which plainly did not describe defendant.
Upon entry into a private home while executing a search warrant, police officers found
defendant and two other women in the living room. While complying with the police order to
freeze, defendant dropped her purse at her feet. An officer found an undisclosed amount of
marijuana in the dining room while another officer searched defendant’s purse and found an
unloaded nine-millimeter gun. Testimony indicated that the police had no idea how long
defendant had been at the home. Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon,
MCL 750.227. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the gun and her
subsequent motion to dismiss the charge.
The prosecution first argues that cases prohibiting the search of a person merely present
on the premises where a search warrant is executed are distinguishable from the facts of this case
where a personal effect, the purse, was searched. See Ybarra v Illinois, 444 US 85, 90-93, 96;
100 S Ct 338; 62 L Ed 2d 238 (1979); People v Hawkins, 163 Mich App 196, 198; 413 NW2d
704 (1987); People v Burbank, 137 Mich App 266, 269-270; 358 NW2d 348 (1984) (the search
of a person found on premises subject to a search warrant must be supported by probable cause
-1-
particularized to that individual). The issue becomes whether defendant’s purse can be
considered an extension of her person.
In a similar case, but with relevant factual distinctions, involving the search of a purse
belonging to a defendant who was present in a home covered by a search warrant, People v
Coleman, 436 Mich 124; 461 NW2d 615 (1990), our Supreme Court found that the defendant’s
purse was not an extension of her person, and therefore was properly searched, because of
several factors that are not present here: (1) the purse was found in a private area of the home, (2)
the defendant was positioned in a place where it appeared she was concealing evidence, (3) the
defendant appeared to have more control over the premises than a casual visitor, (4) the purse
was several feet away from the defendant and not in her control, and (5) the facts showed that the
defendant had a special relationship to the person named in the warrant. Id. at 133-136. By
contrast, in this case: (1) the purse was found at defendant’s feet where she dropped it upon
being ordered to freeze by police; (2) defendant and the purse were in a common area of the
home, near the entry; (3) there was no evidence that defendant had any knowledge of the
marijuana found in the dining room; (4) there was no evidence suggesting that defendant had
more control over the premises than a casual visitor; and (5) there was no evidence that
defendant had a special relationship to the person or the home identified in the warrant. Because
the facts here are clearly distinguishable from the facts in Coleman, we conclude that defendant’s
purse was an extension of her person and therefore improperly searched under the holdings in
Ybarra, Hawkins, and Burbank, as well as Coleman.1
The prosecutor next argues that the search of the purse was permissible as a Terry frisk of
defendant’s person. Under the holding in Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, 27; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d
889 (1968), an officer may conduct a reasonable search of a person where the officer has reason
to believe he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual. However, the prosecution has
not presented any facts that would have justified a police officer’s suspicion that defendant was
armed and dangerous. She was merely present at a home that was the object of a search warrant.
See Ybarra, supra at 92-93. Defendant also was in a central location within the home with no
visible access to weapons, she had obeyed the police command to freeze, and the police had
control of her purse and could have held it until the completion of their search. See People v
Stewart, 166 Mich App 263; 420 NW2d 180 (1988).
The prosecutor has simply failed to create an evidentiary record that would persuade us
that the circumstances surrounding the execution of the search warrant constituted a dangerous
situation in which the police would be reasonably suspicious that anyone merely present in the
home would be armed and dangerous. Despite our genuine concerns regarding officer safety in
executing search warrants, Coleman, Ybarra, Terry, and the other cases cited herein mandate
1
We, therefore, do not consider the prosecution’s argument that the holding in Wyoming v
Houghton, 526 US 295; 119 S Ct 1297; 143 L Ed 2d 408 (1999), should be extended to the facts
of this case. We note, however, that because the search warrant was not made part of the lower
court record, we cannot consider the object of the search permitted by the warrant attached to the
prosecutor’s appellate brief.
-2-
suppression on the record provided. Therefore, we find that the trial court did not err in its
decision to suppress the evidence found in defendant’s purse.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-3-
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.
