People v. Lyon
227 Mich App 599, 577 N.W.2d 124 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence obtained from a statutorily invalid misdemeanor arrest will not be suppressed by the exclusionary rule if the arrest was nevertheless supported by probable cause and thus constitutionally valid.
Facts:
- On June 29, 1995, an automobile was found parked on an exit ramp of Interstate-75, with its passenger side tires six inches off the road and the driver's side partially blocking the exit lane.
- A state police trooper arrived at the location and observed the defendant, Lyon, and a second man arguing over the keys to Lyon's automobile, with the second man possessing the keys.
- Lyon admitted to the officer that he had driven the automobile and parked it in that dangerous position.
- The officer noted that Lyon's face was flushed, his eyes were watery, his speech was slurred, his balance was poor, and he smelled of alcohol.
- The second man informed the officer that he had found Lyon asleep behind the steering wheel of the vehicle, smelled alcohol, and took Lyon's keys to prevent him from driving.
- Lyon requested a preliminary breath test, which indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.353 percent.
- Lyon also failed three out of four field sobriety tests administered by the officer.
Procedural Posture:
- Lyon was arrested without a warrant for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL).
- Lyon filed a motion in the district court (trial court/court of first instance) to suppress evidence, including blood alcohol test results, arguing the arrest was illegal because the misdemeanor did not occur in the officer's presence.
- The district court denied Lyon's motion, concluding the statutory 'accident' exception applied and the arrest was lawful.
- Lyon brought an interlocutory appeal (appellant) in the circuit court (intermediate appellate court).
- The circuit court affirmed the district court's order.
- Upon remand to the district court, Lyon entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of OUIL, first offense, conditioned on his ability to appeal the suppression issue.
- Lyon was later allowed to withdraw his conditional plea after the Michigan Secretary of State refused to honor a nonrevocation of his license.
- The district court stayed all proceedings pending action by the Court of Appeals.
- A panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court), in Docket No. 196752, reversed the district court's order denying suppression and remanded the matter.
- The Michigan Supreme Court (highest court), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the Court of Appeals' order and remanded for plenary consideration by the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the exclusionary rule apply to suppress evidence obtained from a warrantless misdemeanor arrest for operating a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor (OUIL) when the arrest was statutorily invalid because the offense did not occur in the officer's presence and did not fit the statutory 'accident' exception, but was supported by probable cause?
Opinions:
Majority - Gage, J.
No, the exclusionary rule does not apply to suppress evidence obtained from the arrest. The court first determined that Lyon's arrest was statutorily invalid because the officer did not observe him operating the vehicle, and the situation did not qualify as an "accident" under MCL 764.15(1)(h). The court applied factors from People v. Keskimaki, noting no collision, personal injury, or property damage, and that the incident appeared intentional rather than unexpected/undesirable from the defendant's perspective. However, the court distinguished between constitutionally invalid and statutorily invalid arrests. The exclusionary rule, derived from the Fourth Amendment, is only applicable to constitutionally invalid seizures, which occur when there is no probable cause. Here, the officer had probable cause to arrest Lyon for OUIL based on his admission of driving, observed signs of intoxication (flushed face, watery eyes, slurred speech, poor balance, smell of alcohol), the second man's testimony about finding Lyon asleep and taking keys, a preliminary breath test showing 0.353% BAC, and failed field sobriety tests. Since the arrest was supported by probable cause, it was constitutionally valid, even if statutorily illegal. Therefore, the exclusionary rule does not apply, and the evidence (blood alcohol test results) should not be suppressed. The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to suppress, noting that the lower court reached the correct result, albeit for the wrong reason.
Concurring - Doctoroff, J.
Justice Doctoroff concurred with the majority opinion.
Concurring - Jansen, P.J.
Presiding Judge Jansen concurred in the result only, providing no separate reasoning.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the distinction between statutory and constitutional violations in Michigan arrests and limits the application of the exclusionary rule. It reinforces that the exclusionary rule, rooted in the Fourth Amendment, is reserved for constitutional violations (i.e., arrests without probable cause). A mere statutory violation in arrest procedures, if probable cause exists, does not automatically lead to evidence suppression. This ruling reduces the number of successful suppression motions based solely on technical statutory non-compliance in cases where an officer had a strong factual basis for believing a crime occurred.
