News (Media Awareness Project) - US MI: Wire: High Court Rules Bay City Police Didn't Violate |
Title: | US MI: Wire: High Court Rules Bay City Police Didn't Violate |
Published On: | 2001-08-01 |
Source: | Associated Press (Wire) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-25 12:04:01 |
HIGH COURT RULES BAY CITY POLICE DIDN'T VIOLATE SEARCH AND SEIZURE
City police officers acted within the limits of the law when
they inspected a suspect's photographs, which showed a friend posing
with bags of marijuana, the state's high court ruled.
In a 4-3 decision following debate about search and seizure
guidelines, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police.
The decision overturned rulings by the Michigan Court of Appeals and
Isabella County's district and circuit courts.
The lower courts had ruled that police were out of line when they
looked at the photos, which prompted a raid of a Mount Pleasant home.
After the raid, Michael Custer, 26, was charged with maintaining a
drug house, delivery and manufacture of marijuana and conspiracy.
At issue in Monday's Supreme Court decision was whether police had the
right to look at photographs that Custer had in his pocket. Police had
stopped him and his friend on suspicion of trespassing near a Bay City
home in 1998.
According to court records, police told Custer and his friend to call
a tow truck to move their vehicle. When Custer's friend pulled money
from his pocket, a small bag of marijuana fell out, police said.
After searching the two, an officer found the photos.
Justice Steven J. Markman wrote that since police believed Custer had
drugs in his pocket, they were justified in looking at the item, even
if it turned out to be something different.
"The fact that the officer is ultimately wrong in his assessment of
the object does not render the seizure unlawful," he wrote.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeals for a
decision on whether the search of the home was properly conducted.
If the search is upheld, felony charges against Custer will be
reinstated, The Bay City Times reported Wednesday.
Justice Michael F. Cavanagh wrote in dissent that the majority opinion
"chips away at the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of our
United States Constitution," to be free from unwarranted searches and
seizures by government agents.
City police officers acted within the limits of the law when
they inspected a suspect's photographs, which showed a friend posing
with bags of marijuana, the state's high court ruled.
In a 4-3 decision following debate about search and seizure
guidelines, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in favor of the police.
The decision overturned rulings by the Michigan Court of Appeals and
Isabella County's district and circuit courts.
The lower courts had ruled that police were out of line when they
looked at the photos, which prompted a raid of a Mount Pleasant home.
After the raid, Michael Custer, 26, was charged with maintaining a
drug house, delivery and manufacture of marijuana and conspiracy.
At issue in Monday's Supreme Court decision was whether police had the
right to look at photographs that Custer had in his pocket. Police had
stopped him and his friend on suspicion of trespassing near a Bay City
home in 1998.
According to court records, police told Custer and his friend to call
a tow truck to move their vehicle. When Custer's friend pulled money
from his pocket, a small bag of marijuana fell out, police said.
After searching the two, an officer found the photos.
Justice Steven J. Markman wrote that since police believed Custer had
drugs in his pocket, they were justified in looking at the item, even
if it turned out to be something different.
"The fact that the officer is ultimately wrong in his assessment of
the object does not render the seizure unlawful," he wrote.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the Court of Appeals for a
decision on whether the search of the home was properly conducted.
If the search is upheld, felony charges against Custer will be
reinstated, The Bay City Times reported Wednesday.
Justice Michael F. Cavanagh wrote in dissent that the majority opinion
"chips away at the protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment of our
United States Constitution," to be free from unwarranted searches and
seizures by government agents.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...