People v. Chandler Case: Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights

Court of Appeals of Michigan

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javarian CHANDLER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 368736

Decided: June 27, 2024
Before: Borrello, P.J., and Swartzle and Young, JJ.

Introduction

In the People v. Chandler case, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed an important issue related to search and seizure rights.

Background
Javarian Chandler found himself in legal trouble when he was on probation. As a condition of his probation, he had to comply with certain requirements, including submitting to searches of his person, property, and computer without the need for a search warrant. “Defendant’s Acknowledgment” section found on the SCAO, Form MC 243 (Sept 2022), p. 3:

But was this constitutional?

What Happened?

On May 17, 2023, Chandler was among the probationers and parolees on Officer Thomas’ compliance check list. This marked the first encounter between Officer Thomas and Chandler.

Officer Thomas and three Detroit Police officers visited the house listed on Chandler’s paperwork, owned by Chandler’s cousin. When Chandler’s cousin and mother answered the door, they initially denied Chandler’s presence. However, after Officer Thomas explained that a search was required due to Chandler’s parole, Chandler’s cousin allowed entry.

In Chandler’s room, officers discovered a loaded handgun. Despite being prohibited from owning weapons, Chandler was charged with felon in possession of a firearm, felon in possession of ammunition, and two counts of possession of a firearm during a felony, as a fourth-offense habitual offender. Chandler unsuccessfully sought to suppress the weapon found during the search, leading to an interlocutory appeal following the trial court’s denial of his motion.

The Search and Legal Question

The search in question took place in Chandler’s bedroom, conducted by Detroit police officers and a probation agent as part of Chandler’s conditions of probation. The critical issue was whether a warrantless search of a probationer’s property violated the Fourth Amendment.

Did such a search require reasonable suspicion or an express waiver by the probationer?

Chandler’s cousin, who lived in the same house, granted consent for the search. However, defense counsel argued that Chandler’s cousin lacked the authority to authorize the search of Chandler’s bedroom. Additionally, they contended that Chandler’s cousin did not consent freely or voluntarily.

Court’s Ruling

The Michigan Court of Appeals held that a warrantless search of a probationer’s property without reasonable suspicion or an express waiver is unconstitutional. In essence, probationers retain Fourth Amendment rights, even while under specific conditions during their probation.

Implications

This decision underscores the delicate balance between law enforcement’s need to monitor probationers and an individual’s right to privacy. By upholding Fourth Amendment protections, the court ensures justice while respecting individual liberties.

Contact Komorn Law

If you have legal questions or need assistance, don’t hesitate to reach out to our experienced attorneys at Komorn Law. You can call us at (248) 357-2550 or visit our website at KomornLaw.com for personalized legal guidance.

And now for something completely different….

Michigan Law: False Report of Crime

According to MCL Section 750.411a, intentionally making a false report of a crime to law enforcement or emergency services is a crime. Depending on the severity, it can range from a misdemeanor to a felony.

For instance:
False report of a misdemeanor: Up to 93 days in jail or a $500 fine.
False report of a felony: Up to 4 years in prison or a $2,000 fine.
If the false report results in injury or death, the penalties escalate

Recent

Other Articles