The Smell of Marijuana and the Court of Appeals
Body camera footage is an invaluable resource for courts facing suppression motions, but it rarely serves as a stand-alone source of information about a warrantless search or seizure.
Here, the trial court was hamstrung in analyzing the validity of a warrantless search of defendant, Jeffery Scott Armstrong, and the subsequent seizure of a gun because the trial court was given no evidence other than body camera footage.
Despite that disadvantage, the trial court dutifully made findings of fact and ordered the suppression of the gun.
Because we conclude that the trial court’s findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its conclusions of law were sound, we shall affirm the trial court’s suppression order.
Background
On October 8, 2020, law-enforcement officers conducting a home-compliance check in the city of Detroit came upon a Jeep Cherokee parked on the street.
They spoke to a woman who was in the driver’s seat and to Armstrong, who was sitting in the front passenger’s seat. What piqued the interest of the law-enforcement officers at first was the scent of marijuana emanating from the Jeep.
Body camera footage shows the officers approaching the vehicle, speaking with both people in the vehicle, instructing Armstrong to get out of the vehicle, and ultimately finding a gun under the front passenger’s seat.
As a result, Armstrong was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, MCL 750.227, being a felon in possession of a firearm (felon in possession), MCL 750.224f, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony (felony firearm), MCL 750.227b.
Aggressive Criminal Defense
Have you encountered legal issues related to DUI or lost your driving privileges in Michigan?
Call Our Office for a Free Case Evaluation
In response, Armstrong moved to suppress the gun as the fruit of a search that violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In the trial court, both parties several times declined an invitation to hold an evidentiary hearing, stipulating instead to the use of body camera
footage as the evidentiary basis upon which the trial court should resolve Armstrong’s suppression motion.
Additionally, although no police reports concerning the search and seizure were filed in the trial court, the parties included quotes from the police reports in their briefs, so the trial court considered those excerpts from the police reports.
Relying upon that limited record, the trial court described the factual background of the suppression motion in the following terms:
On October 8, 2020, Corporal Eaton and Officers Genaw, Saad, Scott, and
Krzyak were driving down Seneca street in the city of Detroit to conduct a home compliance check.
Corporal Eaton observed a black Jeep Cherokee parked on Seneca street, with a woman in the driver’s seat and Armstrong in the front passenger seat.
According to Corporal Eaton, she smelled the scent of burnt marijuana as she drove past the black Jeep Cherokee. She parked her vehicle then walked behind the black Jeep Cherokee, exited, and approached the car.
The prosecution’s brief in support alleges that when Corporal Eaton asked Armstrong about the scent of marijuana, she observed a black handgun lying on the floorboard of the vehicle directly in front of Armstrong.
Prosecution also makes note that Corporal Eaton noticed Armstrong’s hand shaking when he was being questioned.
With the parties’ consent to rely on the body camera footage as evidence of the initial interaction between Corporal Eaton, the driver of the vehicle, and Armstrong,
the dialogue is detailed below:
Conclusion
In sum, based on the limited factual record to which the parties stipulated in the trial court, no finding of fact made by the trial court is clearly erroneous.
Therefore, we shall uphold the trial court’s finding of fact that “the firearm was not visible until Armstrong had already been removed
from the vehicle.”
Because the gun was not in plain view before defendant was unconstitutionally seized, the prosecution has provided no exception to the warrant requirement that justifies seizure of the gun.
Accordingly, the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion to suppress the gun, thereby making dismissal of the charges against defendant appropriate.
Read it all here
COA People vs Jeffery Armstrong-Smell of Weed-20221122_c360693_48_360693.opn
Or is it?
It is headed to the Michigan Supreme Court for Oral Arguments
MSC-People vs Jeffrey Armstrong 11-2023 165233_58_01 (PDF Order)
courts.michigan.gov/c/courts/coa/case/360693 (MSC Page)
More Posts
Why Are Michigan Prosecutors Reassessing Their Cases Against Medical Marijuana Patients?
Trying to understand why prosecutors in St. Clair County, Michigan, suddenly decided to drop their case against Ginnifer Hency, a medical marijuana patient and caregiver, and return the property that police seized from her home, I obtained several court documents from...
Attorney: Crime labs ‘falsified’ marijuana reports
A Southfield lawyer alleges the Michigan State Police crime labs have “falsified lab reports on marijuana statewide” and he’s asking a judge to dismisses charges lodged against a client. Michael Komorn, who also represents defendants in Livingston County, said...
Clio marihuana dispensary fighting Genesee County Prosecutor’s office in court
CLIO (WJRT) - (04/25/16) - A Mid-Michigan marihuana dispensary is fighting the Genesee County Prosecutor's office in court after FANG shut them down. The owner of the Clio dispensary says warrants weren't valid and he wants his business back open. Attorneys...
Medical marijuana patients reunited with son after lengthy court battles, unfounded drug charges
SPRING LAKE, Mich. -- After 18 months, a Spring Lake family's son is out of foster care and reunited with his parents. Yet the fight to be together, through court battles and serious drug charges despite being card-carrying medical marijuana patients, still haunts...
Komorn Law Secures Release Of Lorincz Child From CPS in Marijuana Custody Case
“This is one of those cases in an attorney’s career that is not easily forgotten, and is a reminder to me of the reason I became an attorney.” – Michael Komorn, attorney from Komorn Law and recipient of the Michigan Bar Association Right to Counsel Award for 2015....
Komorn AVVO Reviews
Research no further, call Komorn. 5.0 stars Posted by a client December 31, 2015 Hired attorney After an incident involving my medical marihuana grow, I found myself being charged with 2 manufacturing felonies. Upon a recommendation from an associate, I retained...
Criminal Defense Attorney of Michigan Award Committee
The Criminal Defense Attorney of Michigan’s Award Committee has selected Michael J. Komorn as the recipient of their Right to Counsel Award. This award recognizes the amazing contributions of a group or individual in the form of legal representation or other...
Judge dismissed felony charge against medical marijuana patient Max Lorincz
OTTAWA COUNTY, Mich. – After 16 months of a criminal and family court battle, an Ottawa County Circuit Court Judge dismissed wrongful felony charges against a Spring Lake father and card-carrying medical marijuana patient for having “synthetic THC.” Friday Max...
Southfield attorneys accuse MSP Crime Lab of negligence and incompetence
Two local attorneys have filed a formal complaint against the Michigan State Police Crime Lab, suggesting the agency should be made into an independent entity, but state officials have refuted the accusations of negligence and incompetence. Southfield-based...
Forensic scientists blast State Police crime lab THC policy as man fights to get son back
Maxwell Lorincz lives in Spring Lake near Lake Michigan with his wife and their six-year-old son. At least, they did live with their son, until a year and a half ago. They lost custody of him after Lorincz was charged with a felony for possessing synthetic THC....