State of Michigan v TOUCHETTE
No. 279214
Michigan Court of Appeals
March 13, 2008, Decided
Prior case history: Oakland County Circuit Court. LC No. 2006-008547-AR.
Before: Murray, P.J., and Bandstra and Fort Hood, JJ.
OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted an order reversing the district court's dismissal of a charge of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of liquor (OUIL-second offense), MCL 257.625(1), entered by the circuit court. We affirm.
Defendant contends that the district court properly granted his motion to suppress all evidence obtained from Officer John Weise's investigatory stop of his vehicle. The district court dismissed the OUIL charge after determining that the traffic stop was not supported by reasonable suspicion. We disagree.
In order to conduct a traffic stop, an officer must either have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred or must have reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. People v Burrell, 417 Mich 439, 441; 339 NW2d 403 (1983); People v Davis, 250 Mich App 357, 363; 649 NW2d 94 (2002). "The totality of the circumstances as understood and interpreted by law enforcement officers, not legal scholars, must yield a particular suspicion that the individual being investigated has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity." People v Nelson, 443 Mich 626, 632; 505 NW2d 266 (1993). "Reasonable suspicion entails something more than an inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch,' but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause." People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 98; 549 NW2d 849 (1996).
Reasonable suspicion need not arise in whole from an officer's personal observations, but can also arise out of information provided by an informant. People v Dunbar, 264 Mich App 240, 248-249; 690 NW2d 476 (2004). Where an officer's determination is based in part on an informant's tip, this Court analyzes the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an informant's tip was credible. People v Levine, 461 Mich 172, 179; 600 NW2d 622 (1999). In conducting the analysis, particular attention should be paid to the informant's veracity, reliability and the basis of his knowledge. Id. at 180. Furthermore, an officer's ability to corroborate details provided by the informant is indicative of reliability. Id. at 179-180.
Defendant contends that because Officer Weise did not observe him violate any traffic law, there was no reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Officer Weise encountered defendant's vehicle after having a discussion with Jeffrey Jameel. Because Officer Weise did not personally observe anything indicative of criminal activity, the totality of the circumstances must be analyzed to determine whether Jameel was a credible informant. Jameel informed Weise that defendant and two other individuals had been drinking heavily at the bar and were en route to his parents' home to tell them that Jameel was homosexual. Jameel knew the individuals had been drinking heavily because he was at the bar with them. He did not inform Weise when the group started or stopped drinking nor did he tell Weise that the individuals were intoxicated. He also provided Weise with a description of defendant's vehicle, a statement regarding the number of passengers, and a description of the direction in which the vehicle would be traveling. Weise corroborated this information moments later when he observed defendant's vehicle driving toward Jameel's parents' home.
Based on the above-described facts, Officer Weise was justified in concluding that Jameel was a credible informant. Nothing in the record establishes that Weise had reason to believe that Jameel fabricated his account of the events at the bar. 1 Jameel's knowledge of defendant's heavy drinking was from his first-hand observations. His accurate description of defendant's vehicle, the number of passengers, and the direction in which it was traveling further establishes his reliability and veracity.
1 Defendant asserts that Jameel telephoned police with the self-serving purpose of preventing his parents from learning personal information and cites to the testimony of Officer Weise wherein the officer stated that the incident involved a "civil matter." On the contrary, the record reveals that the officer also sought to prevent a criminal trespass, MCL 750.552. Review of the officer's testimony reveals that Jameel expressed that the men were not permitted on his property. Officer Weise testified that he stopped the vehicle to investigate the alleged alcohol violation and to advise the men that they were not allowed on the property. The officer only testified that the content of the communication that allegedly was to occur at the property involved a civil matter. The officer testified that he waited until defendant turned onto Jameel's street, and the stop occurred "two or three houses if that" from the residence. The record does not substantiate defendant's representation that the officer merely injected himself into a civil matter.
Because Jameel was a credible informant, Officer Weise was justified in considering the information while seeking to determine whether there was reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The district court and defendant place great emphasis on the fact that Weise did not know specific details about the amount defendant drank or the time of the consumption, along with the fact that Weise did not observe any traffic violations. The argument is unpersuasive. While Officer Weise did testify that he was unaware of when the individuals were drinking, he also testified that, based on Jameel's demeanor, he concluded that Jameel just departed from the bar at which the confrontation occurred. Furthermore, as described above, reasonable suspicion is a standard lower than probable cause. In arguing that Weise needed to see defendant commit a traffic violation and have further detail on defendant's consumption, it appears that defendant invites this Court to require probable cause for an investigative traffic stop. Such a holding would break from strongly established precedent.
In a similar case, our Supreme Court previously held that police corroboration of elements of an anonymous tip can form the basis of a reasonable suspicion. In People v Faucett, 442 Mich 153, 155; 499 NW2d 764 (1993), police officers received an anonymous tip that the defendant was in the process of transporting a quarter pound of cocaine or marijuana in his vehicle, which was described as "a newer model blue pickup, possibly a Datsun." The informant named the street that the defendant was currently driving on and told the police the subsequent turns he would be making. Id. Upon being dispatched to investigate, an officer observed the defendant's blue Mazda pickup truck traveling down the road mentioned by the informant. Id. After running a LEIN check, the officer verified that the vehicle belonged to the defendant named by the informant. Id. at 155-156. A subsequent investigative stop resulted in the discovery of multiple bags of marijuana. Id. at 156.
In holding that the anonymous tip created reasonable suspicion, the Court explained that the officer's ability to corroborate the informant's description of the defendant's vehicle and the route it was traveling established the reliability of the informant. Faucett, supra at 172. In the present case, Jameel's reliability was similarly established when Officer Weise was able to corroborate the details of his account. Therefore, a reasonable suspicion was established, which justified the investigative stop. As a result, the circuit court properly reversed the district court's holding.
Affirmed.
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Richard A. Bandstra
/s/ Karen M. Fort Hood