The Michigan Supreme court ruled unanimously on Monday that a passenger in a car may challenge a police search of his personal property found in the vehicle. decision, People v. Mead, The Court wrote, "A passenger's personal property is not subsumed by the vehicle that carries it for Fourth Amendment purposes. A person can getAccording to the Court's opinion, Mead was a passenger in a vehicle that the police pulled over for an expired license plate. The officer observed Mead clutching a backpack on his lap in the passenger seat. Both Mead and the driver independently told the officer they had just met, and she was giving him a ride. The officer obtained the driver's consent to search her person and the car. The officer then asked Mead to get out of the car. Mead left his backpack on the passenger floorboard as he exited. The officer then searched the passenger side of the vehicle, including the backpack, and found methamphetamines, other drugs, and drug paraphinalia. Mead was arrested and charged with possession of methamphetamine. The officer testified that he believed the backpack belonged to Mead, but that he did not ask for his consent to its search. in a car without leaving his Fourth Amendment rights at the curb."
I really appreciate your time and thanks for being our prosecuting atty Mary A. Beebe your the girl power like our mi attorney general Dana Nessel.
The state is launching a new unit designed to investigate whether people in Michigan have been wrongfully convicted. Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel says the Conviction Integrity Unit plans to probe credible claims of innocence. She added the state has a duty to make sure people are guilty of crimes for which they have been convicted. Officials will work with county prosecutors, law enforcement, attorneys, and innocence clinic projects. The unit is modeled after one in Wayne County and will be led by Robyn Frankel, an attorney who has been an adjunct professor at Oakland University, University of Michigan and Detroit College of Law.Court of Appeals of Michigan. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMETRIUS TERRELL MAGGIT, Defendant-Appellee, No. 335651 Decided: May 30, 2017 Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ. In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant Demetrius Terrell Maggit's motion to suppress his statements and physical evidence obtained following his seizure and subsequent search by police.
Review Left On 04/29/2019
Amy Dickinson
(( My granddaughter hade to go to rehab for Alcohol use sunrise rehab Alpena mi whit guys and girls there so found her a boyfriend who shot her up whit Heroin and pills then she went to doing methamphetamine all hard then the alcohol at age 18 was 1st found whit now she age 28 got pulled over by man cop man handed her pulling her out saying get out of the car no without a warrant her baby was removed that way also!! )) Ps: I was thinking the sunrise was going to " HELP " her but no it made her in whit Addicted to the Needle using boyfriends that then meet other girl friends of hers so a network of Addicted to the Needle yes right at age 18 was not in rehab long then out whit a out of town guy she@!
You have 6 mouths after your out of court to take it to Court of Appeals of Michigan. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMETRIUS TERRELL MAGGIT, Defendant-Appellee, No. 335651 Decided: May 30, 2017 Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ. In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant Demetrius Terrell Maggit's motion to suppress his statements and physical evidence obtained following his seizure and subsequent search by police. We affirm the trial court's ruling. Given the differences between this case and Strieff and Reese, we hold that the attenuation doctrine does not operate to bar the exclusion of the evidence. Looking to the factors enunciated in Strieff and Reese, we note the first factor in this case favors suppression because by all accounts the time between the illegal detention and the discovery of the evidence was relatively short. See Strieff, __ US at __; 136 S Ct at 2062; 195 L Ed 2d at 408. The second factor is where this case begins to take a significantly different path from Strieff and Reese. From the evidence presented in this case, the discovery of the valid warrant for defendant's arrest was not an intervening act that “broke” the causal chain between the initial, unlawful detention and the discovery of the evidence. Indeed, FOOTNOTES 1. Although he did not note as much in his police report, the officer who initiated contact with defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he also believed he could stop defendant and Brown for what he suspected was a drug transaction in the parking lot. He testified that he had a “reasonable suspicion” of a narcotics sale at that point. 2. The prosecution made no effort to argue that a seizure did not occur at this time, nor did the prosecution argue that any such seizure ended when defendant fled from the first officer. Further, the prosecution made no argument based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in California v Hodari D, 499 US 621; 111 S Ct 1547; 113 L Ed 2d 690 (1991). Accordingly, we accept the prosecution's apparent concession of these matters and only decide the issues before us. 3. In addition, MCL 764.15(1)(a) provides statutory authorization for a police officer to make an arrest without a warrant for a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation committed in the officer's presence. 4. The issue before the trial court concerned whether probable cause existed for the officer who initiated contact to believe that defendant either violated the city ordinance or MCL 750.552, the criminal trespassing statute. Because the prosecution does not make an argument about the statute on appeal, we do not consider it in detail. However, for many of the reasons articulated below—mainly that defendant was on property that was open to the public and he was never told to leave before to his arrest—there was no probable cause to arrest for that offense, either. 5. This Court appreciates that fact that the police are attempting to eradicate illegal activities in the community; however, the issue before us is whether there was probable cause to arrest defendant under the presenting circumstances. All members of the community remain entitled to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Review Left On 04/29/2019
Jason Kramer
I really appreciate your time and thanks for being our prosecuting atty Mary A. Beebe. ((( find a lawyer to help you out and you have 6 mouths to file your case to be looked at by Michigan Court of Appeals then try Michigan Supreme Court or may be do remove it off . ))) RECORD EXPUNGEMENT Today is the day to begin the process of getting that criminal record expunged and move on with a fresh outlook on life. QUALIFYING Under Michigan law a person that has been convicted of a crime may apply to have one felony or two misdemeanor convictions expunged from their record. If you are able to answer "no" to all of the following seven questions may be eligible to have your adult criminal conviction set aside and made nonpublic. QUESTIONS TO ANSWER Do you have a federal conviction? Do you have a criminal conviction in another state? Were you convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment? Were you convicted of felony criminal sexual conduct (first, second, or third degree), or assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct? Is the conviction you want to have set aside a traffic offense? A traffic offense is a conviction for violating the Michigan Vehicle Code or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, which violation involves the operation of a vehicle. Has it been less than five years since the date of your conviction, or if you were imprisoned, has it been less than five years since you were released, discharged from parole or completed probation (whichever occurred last)?
Best Lawyer Reviews
I really appreciate your time and thanks for being our prosecuting atty Mary A. Beebe your the girl power like our mi attorney general Dana Nessel.
The state is launching a new unit designed to investigate whether people in Michigan have been wrongfully convicted.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel says the Conviction Integrity Unit plans to probe credible claims of innocence.
She added the state has a duty to make sure people are guilty of crimes for which they have been convicted.
Officials will work with county prosecutors, law enforcement, attorneys, and innocence clinic projects.
The unit is modeled after one in Wayne County and will be led by Robyn Frankel, an attorney who has been an adjunct professor at Oakland University, University of Michigan and Detroit College of Law.Court of Appeals of Michigan.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMETRIUS TERRELL MAGGIT, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 335651
Decided: May 30, 2017
Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ.
In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant Demetrius Terrell Maggit's motion to suppress his statements and physical evidence obtained following his seizure and subsequent search by police.
You have 6 mouths after your out of court to take it to Court of Appeals of Michigan.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DEMETRIUS TERRELL MAGGIT, Defendant-Appellee,
No. 335651
Decided: May 30, 2017
Before: BECKERING, P.J., and MARKEY and SHAPIRO, JJ.
In this interlocutory appeal, the prosecution appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant Demetrius Terrell Maggit's motion to suppress his statements and physical evidence obtained following his seizure and subsequent search by police. We affirm the trial court's ruling.
Given the differences between this case and Strieff and Reese, we hold that the attenuation doctrine does not operate to bar the exclusion of the evidence. Looking to the factors enunciated in Strieff and Reese, we note the first factor in this case favors suppression because by all accounts the time between the illegal detention and the discovery of the evidence was relatively short. See Strieff, __ US at __; 136 S Ct at 2062; 195 L Ed 2d at 408. The second factor is where this case begins to take a significantly different path from Strieff and Reese. From the evidence presented in this case, the discovery of the valid warrant for defendant's arrest was not an intervening act that “broke” the causal chain between the initial, unlawful detention and the discovery of the evidence. Indeed,
FOOTNOTES
1. Although he did not note as much in his police report, the officer who initiated contact with defendant testified at the suppression hearing that he also believed he could stop defendant and Brown for what he suspected was a drug transaction in the parking lot. He testified that he had a “reasonable suspicion” of a narcotics sale at that point.
2. The prosecution made no effort to argue that a seizure did not occur at this time, nor did the prosecution argue that any such seizure ended when defendant fled from the first officer. Further, the prosecution made no argument based on the United States Supreme Court's decision in California v Hodari D, 499 US 621; 111 S Ct 1547; 113 L Ed 2d 690 (1991). Accordingly, we accept the prosecution's apparent concession of these matters and only decide the issues before us.
3. In addition, MCL 764.15(1)(a) provides statutory authorization for a police officer to make an arrest without a warrant for a felony, misdemeanor, or ordinance violation committed in the officer's presence.
4. The issue before the trial court concerned whether probable cause existed for the officer who initiated contact to believe that defendant either violated the city ordinance or MCL 750.552, the criminal trespassing statute. Because the prosecution does not make an argument about the statute on appeal, we do not consider it in detail. However, for many of the reasons articulated below—mainly that defendant was on property that was open to the public and he was never told to leave before to his arrest—there was no probable cause to arrest for that offense, either.
5. This Court appreciates that fact that the police are attempting to eradicate illegal activities in the community; however, the issue before us is whether there was probable cause to arrest defendant under the presenting circumstances. All members of the community remain entitled to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.
((( find a lawyer to help you out and you have 6 mouths to file your case to be looked at by Michigan Court of Appeals then try Michigan Supreme Court or may be do remove it off . )))
RECORD EXPUNGEMENT
Today is the day to begin the process of getting that criminal record expunged and move on with a fresh outlook on life.
QUALIFYING
Under Michigan law a person that has been convicted of a crime may apply to have one felony or two misdemeanor convictions expunged from their record. If you are able to answer "no" to all of the following seven questions may be eligible to have your adult criminal conviction set aside and made nonpublic.
QUESTIONS TO ANSWER
Do you have a federal conviction?
Do you have a criminal conviction in another state?
Were you convicted of a felony or an attempt to commit a felony for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment?
Were you convicted of felony criminal sexual conduct (first, second, or third degree), or assault with intent to commit criminal sexual conduct?
Is the conviction you want to have set aside a traffic offense? A traffic offense is a conviction for violating the Michigan Vehicle Code or a local ordinance substantially corresponding to that act, which violation involves the operation of a vehicle.
Has it been less than five years since the date of your conviction, or if you were imprisoned, has it been less than five years since you were released, discharged from parole or completed probation (whichever occurred last)?