Court Upholds Search Warrant


driver

Case: People v. Osborne

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals ( Unpublished Opinion )

Issues:

Motion to suppress blood alcohol level evidence; Probable cause for arrest; People v. Waclawski; People v. Champion; Probable cause for a search warrant authorizing a blood draw; MCL 780.653; People v. Harris; Sufficiency of the evidence for an operating while intoxicated (OWI) conviction; MCL 257.625(1)(a); Distinguishing People v. Burton; Sufficiency of the evidence for a resisting & obstructing an officer conviction; MCL 750.81d(1); Distinguishing People v. Moreno; Sentencing; Reasonableness; People v. Lockridge; Fourth habitual offender; MCL 769.12;

Summary:

Holding that defendant’s arrest and the search warrant authorizing a blood draw were both supported by probable cause, the court found that the trial court did not err in denying his motion to suppress the evidence of his blood alcohol content (BAC). It also held that there was sufficient evidence to support his convictions of OWI and resisting and obstructing an officer. Further, his sentences were reasonable, and it rejected his ineffective assistance of counsel claims. He was sentenced as a fourth habitual offender to concurrent terms of 11 to 25 years for OWI and 5 to 15 years for resisting and obstructing. When the officer (N) arrested defendant, he was aware of his “reported erratic driving, he observed what appeared to be fresh damage on defendant’s vehicle, and the vehicle was parked in a manner suggesting that someone impaired had been operating it.” N followed bystander leads to defendant’s apartment, where he observed his “level of intoxication. Finally, defendant and his vehicle both matched the descriptions” N received. His testimony indicated “a set of factual circumstances sufficient to create the belief in a person of reasonable caution that defendant had committed the offense” of OWI. Likewise, the search warrant for the blood draw was “supported by probable cause and comported with MCL 780.653.” As to the sufficiency of the evidence, a witness testified to seeing defendant hit a pole with his vehicle in the apartment complex parking lot while he was doing donuts, “driving in reverse ‘extremely fast,’ and pulling in and out of parking spots.” She also testified that he “could barely walk” when he exited the vehicle. N’s testimony also indicated that defendant was intoxicated while driving, and the prosecution presented expert testimony that his BAC after his arrest was .233. A rational trier of fact “could find that the essential elements of MCL 257.625(1)(a) were established beyond a reasonable doubt.” Further, there was evidence that he resisted and obstructed both N and an emergency medical service person, whom he knew or should have known were performing their duties. Affirmed.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Archive
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Twitter Basic Square
  • Google+ Basic Square