People of the State of Michigan v. Donnevan Lee Coppernoll

Detroit, Michigan criminal lawyer represented Defendant charged with drug possession.





The testimony at the preliminary examination established the following facts. On July 29, 2020, Police Officer Anthony Williams, who had been employed with the Detroit Police Department for about four years at the time, observed a vehicle apparently speeding on a residential street near Joy and Longacre in Detroit. Officer Williams commenced a traffic stop of the vehicle and the two persons who were in the car. Defendant was in the driver's seat.



Officer Williams approached the vehicle on the driver's side, spoke with defendant, and smelled an odor of freshly burned marijuana from the vehicle. Defendant gave Officer Williams his license, insurance, and registration when asked to do so. Officer Williams then asked defendant to exit the vehicle.



Officer Williams explained that, because of "the freshly burnt marijuana that was emitting from the vehicle," he asked defendant to step out of the car. The smell led Officer Williams to



1



suspect that defendant possibly was under the influence of marijuana while driving. A field sobriety test was not conducted on defendant. Immediately after defendant stepped out, Officer Williams began to search the vehicle. This search resulted in the finding of cocaine. The cocaine was packaged in two clear knotted bags. One bag was located beneath the driver's seat. The other bag was discovered in the arm rest.[1]



After the cross examination of Officer Williams, the prosecution requested that the district court bind defendant over to the circuit court. Following this request, defense counsel raised Fourth Amendment issues with regard to the traffic stop and the vehicle search:



Mr. Davis [defense counsel]: Judge, the officer testified that he effectuated a stop because my client was speeding. He doesn't know how fast my client going. He never made that determination. The only thing he can say is that he was in a residential twenty-five miles per hour and he was going over the speed limit. He didn't say how he determined that. He didn't say that he paced him or anything. I don't think that there is probable cause for the stop.



I think that there's an issue with the search as well. The smell of marijuana itself doesn't give him the right to search an individual's vehicle. He asked my client to step out immediately. He didn't perform any field sobriety test to actually determine if my client was, in fact, under the influence.



The Court: I don't think he has to be under the influence, because the law states that you can't operate a motor vehicle while smoking marijuana. You don't even have to be under the influence. Just smoking it period.



* * *



Ms. Bonomo [prosecution]: Your Honor, at this time, I would just stress the fact that it was freshly burnt marijuana, like he had just smoked marijuana while he was driving. Therefore, they had probable cause to have him step out of the vehicle and search that vehicle for contraband of that marijuana. Just so it happened that there was no marijuana in the vehicle, there was cocaine.



Mr. Davis: Judge, before marijuana was ruled legal, an officer could pull an individual over or could arrest and charge an individual with having the presence of marijuana in their system, any amount of THC in their system.



The Court: The distinguishing factor is - if you're talking about it being in his system, it doesn't necessarily have to be in his system. You cannot have or operate a motor vehicle while smoking marijuana.



2



Mr. Davis: While under the influence of marijuana. They would have to show that it effected [sic] his ability to operate the vehicle in a normal manner, and then they would be able to effectuate the arrest.



Ms. Bonomo: And your Honor, if I may, that's like saying - the fact that he's smoking marijuana, in and itself, that's what giving them probable cause. That is a violation of the law. Now, whether he's swerving all over the place or can't stand straight or anything like that, he's under the influence. That's different. Just the fact that he's actually smoking marijuana, that's enough.



* * * Mr. Davis: But smoking marijuana is not illegal.



The Court: In a car, it is.



Mr. Davis: If you're under the influence, then it's illegal.



The Court: That is not the state of the law. You don't have to be under the influence. You cannot smoke marijuana period in a vehicle. And that gave rise to the officer having probable cause to believe a crime was or was about to be committed, given that this freshly burnt marijuana was emanating from the vehicle.



Now, I was with you up until that in that in effectuating a traffic stop the inquiry should go no further than the traffic stop itself, but for the fact that he smelled this freshly burned marijuana. Now, that takes things to a whole different level. Now, the officer has probable cause that he is operating a vehicle. Contrary to the law that states that you cannot have marijuana, freshly marijuana at that, have marijuana in a vehicle. Now, if you have some law that states otherwise, I love to see it.



* * *



The Court: Here's the thing. You can smoke marijuana, and subsequent to that, get in the vehicle and drive, so long as it doesn't impair your ability to operate that vehicle safely. But you cannot have marijuana present in the car or smoking marijuana while operating a motor vehicle. That is contrary to the law. There was some exceptions that have been carved out, and that's one of the exceptions. All right. So, I'll give you a week to brief it.



One week later, the district court bound defendant over to the circuit court, stating as follows:



The Court: All right. Consistent with what I thought, the smell of burned marijuana does provide probable cause to search a defendant's vehicle, in that the Michigan Medical Marijuana [sic] Act does not allow for the use of marijuana in a vehicle or in a place opened to the public. You don't necessarily have to be under the influence of marijuana, but the use of marijuana suffices.



3



Based on that, the Court is satisfied, after hearing the testimony of Anthony Williams, that the People have met their burden of probable cause as it relates to the charges contained in the complaint and warrant....



On November 10, 2021, defendant filed a motion in the circuit court to quash the bindover and dismiss the charge, arguing that "[t]he officer in this case never had probable cause to search Mr. Coppernoll's vehicle and never made an attempt to develop probable cause.... [T]here was no evidence presented at the preliminary examination that the arresting officer ever attempted to determine if Mr. Coppernoll was in fact under the influence of Marijuana." According to defendant, "the arresting officer in this case should have first made a determination that Mr. Coppernoll was in violation of the [Michigan Regulation and Taxation of Marihuana Act] before he searched the vehicle.... Therefore, no probable cause existed to search Mr. Coppernoll's vehicle, and any evidence obtained is a violation of his 4th Amendment Constitutional protections."



On November 24, 2021, the circuit court denied the motion, reasoning as follows from the bench:



The Court: [S]o after wrestling with this case there's some credibility issues which you're well aware of, but as it relates to the stop, I think the stop, reasons for the stop, can expand.



They don't expand to the trunk, but for the smell of marijuana I think the case law definitely says that right now you can just go ahead and just search everywhere in that car if you want to cause you smell marijuana and you know that's going to open up the door for, you know, if you're going to smoke before you get in the car understand that you're carrying that smell with you and that smell gives people and the police, if you're stopped for any other reason, the ability to stop and investigate you and search your automobile despite what you might think for contraband and if they find anything along the way that they can use that. So I'm going to deny your motion ....



A few weeks later, at a motion hearing on December 21, 2021, the circuit court reversed course, stating as follows:



The Court: Okay. And we had already - and I had already listened to arguments as it relates to the Coppernoll matter and I was just trying to decide if I was going to grant the motion to quash or not.



I am going to grant the motion to quash and dismiss the case.



Thank you much.



On January 14, 2022, the circuit court entered an order providing that "the Defendant's Motion to Quash is GRANTED and this case is DISMISSED."

We reverse the circuit court's order, reinstate the charge against defendant, and remand the matter to that court for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.