PEOPLE v. DAGWANDocket No. 262921.
711 N.W.2d 386 (2006)
269 Mich. App. 338
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Michael Aaron DAGWAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Michael Aaron DAGWAN, Defendant-Appellee.
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Submitted December 7, 2005, at Grand Rapids.
Decided December 22, 2005, at 9:00 a.m.
Released for Publication March 15, 2006.
Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, W. Clayton Graham, Prosecuting Attorney, and Alfred Feleppa, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people. Trenton M. Stupak, Escanaba, for the defendant.
Before: WHITBECK, C.J., and BANDSTRA and MARKEY, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals by leave granted the trial court's order granting defendant's motion to suppress evidence. The issue presented on appeal is the scope of the consent defendant granted the Michigan State Police to "conduct a complete search of the motor vehicle owned by me and/or under my care, custody, and control, including the interior, trunk, engine compartment, and all containers therein[.]" The trial court suppressed alleged child sexually abusive material the police found electronically stored on a laptop computer located inside the car, essentially reasoning that even in "a search supported by consent," there must be probable cause that the item that "is being looked for will be found in a specific place." We reverse.
Defendant entered the Michigan State Police post in St. Ignace and asked Sergeant Amy Pendergraff how he could transfer his Michigan sex offender registration to Massachusetts. Pendergraff contacted Trooper Elaine Bitner at the State Police post in Sault Ste. Marie. Trooper Bitner told Sergeant Pendergraff that defendant was being investigated for a possible sex offender registry violation, see MCL 28.729. Trooper Bitner asked Sergeant Pendergraff to detain defendant, so she searched defendant for weapons, then placed him in a holding cell. Soon thereafter, Trooper Bitner told Sergeant Pendergraff that the Chippewa County prosecutor had authorized a complaint for an arrest warrant charging defendant with a sex offender registry violation and asked her to arrest defendant on the basis of this probable cause.
Sergeant Pendergraff testified that she advised defendant he was under arrest. Defendant then consented to a search of his car. Sergeant Pendergraff stated that when she asked defendant if he was freely giving consent and if he would sign a written consent form, he said yes. Specifically, Sergeant Pendergraff testified: "He said yes. I got the form, filled it out. He read it over. He signed it." The pertinent part of the consent form is quoted above. Defendant initialed the form to the left of the paragraph describing the scope of the search and signed it at the bottom. Sergeant Pendergraff testified that she was searching for illegal items, including stolen property.
Sergeant Pendergraff further testified that she took defendant outside, and he unlocked his car for her. Sergeant Pendergraff found a laptop and some other equipment in the car. She asked defendant about the laptop because he had indicated earlier that he was living in his car. She explained that in her experience, people who live in their cars usually do not own laptops. None of the items removed from defendant's car was listed as stolen in police records. Sergeant Pendergraff also testified that defendant never revoked or restricted his consent to search, but she acknowledged that she did not specifically ask him whether she could start and look at the contents of the computer. Sergeant Pendergraff gave the computer to Detective Sergeant Robin Sexton to examine.
Detective Sexton, who had special training in computer data recovery, ran a cursory image search using a compact disc containing a computer software program designed for that purpose. Detective Sexton found what appeared to be child pornography. Detective Sexton explained that he then "turned the computer down and submitted for a search warrant."
Defendant was charged with three counts of possession of child sexually abusive material. MCL 750.145c(4). Defendant waived preliminary examination and moved in the circuit court to suppress the images found on his computer. The trial court granted the motion, concluding, in essence, that "containers," as referred to in the consent form, did not include "the inner workings of the computer." This Court then granted the prosecution's application for leave to appeal.
We review de novo the trial court's ultimate decision to suppress evidence on the basis of an alleged constitutional violation. People v. Frohriep,
Both the United States Constitution and the Michigan Constitution guarantee to the people the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11. The touchstone of these protections is reasonableness; not all searches are constitutionally prohibited, only unreasonable searches. Florida v. Jimeno,
To decide this issue, we begin by reviewing the basic principles governing the scope of searches authorized by consent. First, the party granting consent to a search may limit its scope or may revoke consent after granting it. Frohriep, supra at 703,
In Jimeno, the suspect granted the police general consent to search his car after the police told him they suspected it might contain narcotics. The police found narcotics in a paper bag on the floor of the car. Id. at 249-250, 111 S.Ct. 1801. The Jimeno Court held that "it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search respondents' car included consent to search containers within that car which might bear drugs." Id. at 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801. This is because "[a] reasonable person may be expected to know that narcotics are generally carried in some form of a container." Id. Thus, applying the objective standard of reasonableness, the scope of the consent to search in Jimeno "extended ... to the paper bag lying on the car's floor." Id. "The Fourth Amendment [was] satisfied when, under the circumstances, it [was] objectively reasonable for the officer to believe that the scope of the suspect's consent permitted him to open [the] container within the automobile." Id. at 249, 111 S.Ct. 1801.
Applying these principles to the instant case, we conclude that it was objectively reasonable for the police to believe that defendant's consent included consent to examining data stored within the laptop found in defendant's car. First, the object of the police search was broad: to look for anything illegal, including stolen property. We conclude that a reasonable person would know that computers may be used to commit crimes. See MCL 750.145d. Further, we conclude that a reasonable person would know that computers can contain illegal child sexually abusive material in the form of stored electronic images. MCL 750.145c(1)(m). Second, the
The wording of the written consent is plain and unambiguous, so the police were objectively reasonable in believing that defendant consented to their examining data stored on the laptop. See Mancik v. Racing Comm'r,
We are also impressed by the fact that at the suppression hearing, there was no evidence presented that defendant ever restricted or revoked the broad general consent he granted for "a complete search of [his] motor vehicle . . . and all containers therein[.]" This complete dearth of evidence is particularly important in this case because defendant knew that the police had found the computer. In fact, they had specifically asked him about it. Still, defendant never revoked, restricted, or limited in any way either his consent to search or the officers' access to the computer. This fact alone distinguishes the present case from the case on which defendant relies, State v. Wells,
In conclusion, we hold that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that defendant consented to their review of the data stored in the laptop found within his automobile. We therefore reverse the trial court's order suppressing the evidence obtained by the search.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
- No Cases Found