People of Michigan v. Michael Brian McJunkin ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                                        Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    December 13, 2019                                                                                 Bridget M. McCormack,
    Chief Justice
    158578                                                                                                  David F. Viviano,
    Chief Justice Pro Tem
    Stephen J. Markman
    Brian K. Zahra
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,                                                                     Richard H. Bernstein
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                                                                        Elizabeth T. Clement
    Megan K. Cavanagh,
    Justices
    v                                                                 SC: 158578
    COA: 338400
    Calhoun CC: 2016-001379-FH
    MICHAEL BRIAN McJUNKIN,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 28, 2018
    judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.305(H)(1), in
    lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE Part II of the judgment of the Court of
    Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Calhoun Circuit Court for an evidentiary
    hearing to determine whether the consent or the plain view exceptions to the warrant
    requirement justify the warrantless search and seizure in this case. Specifically, the court
    shall determine: (1) whether, based on an assessment of the totality of the circumstances,
    consent was freely and voluntarily given, see People v Borchard-Ruhland, 
    460 Mich. 278
    ,
    294 (1999); (2) whether an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that the
    homeowner had actual or apparent authority to consent to a search of the vehicle that the
    defendant had driven into the garage, see People v Mead, 
    503 Mich. 205
    , 216-219 (2019);
    and (3) whether, assuming the officers were lawfully in the garage, the items seized from
    the vehicle were visible and their incriminating character was immediately apparent, see
    People v Champion, 
    452 Mich. 92
    , 101 (1996). In all other respects, leave to appeal is
    DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be
    reviewed by this Court.
    We do not retain jurisdiction.
    I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    December 13, 2019
    p1210
    Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 158578

Filed Date: 12/13/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/14/2019