AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Defendant was stopped and searched by law enforcement after exiting a residence that was being secured for a search warrant, resulting in the discovery of methamphetamine. The residence had been visited by a probation officer for a home visit, during which drug paraphernalia and a parole absconder were found. Law enforcement was notified and decided to seek a search warrant. Defendant, who was inside the residence after it had been cleared and the resident arrested, was seen exiting the residence by officers, leading to his stop and subsequent search (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the warrantless seizure was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, contending that his seizure could not be justified under the Michigan v. Summers exception because he did not have a connection to the premises or to the criminal activity, and that the exception does not apply in the absence of a search warrant (paras 9-10).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State did not attempt to justify the seizure on reasonable suspicion grounds and relied exclusively on the Summers exception, arguing that the detention was justified under the circumstances (para 13).

Legal Issues

• Whether the warrantless seizure of the Defendant-Appellant was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
• Whether the Michigan v. Summers exception to the probable cause requirement for detentions incident to premises searches applies in the absence of a search warrant.

Disposition

• The district court's order denying Defendant's motion to suppress was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, per Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, with Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, held that the "presence plus" standard was satisfied at the time of Defendant's seizure. The Court found that Defendant's presence in the residence, after the resident had been arrested and the premises cleared for the purpose of obtaining a search warrant, established a reasonable belief that Defendant had some type of connection to the premises or to criminal activity. The Court also addressed Defendant's argument regarding the absence of a search warrant, stating that Defendant did not present a well-developed argument as to why the Summers exception should not apply in this context. The Court concluded that the State had a valid basis to be on private property, and thus the Summers exception, as recognized and extended in Graves, applied (paras 11-16).