application of a constitutional standard in Michigan

2026“However, to the extent that a ruling involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.” Id. -2- III.

2026To the extent that the trial court’s ruling regarding self- representation “involves an interpretation of law or the application of a constitutional standard to -2- uncontested facts, our review is de novo.” People v Russell, 471 Mich 182, 187 ; 684 NW2d 745 (2004).

2022RELEVANT AUTHORITY “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).

2022RELEVANT AUTHORITY “The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution guarantee the right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411, 417 ; 605 NW2d 667 (2000).

2022“The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.’ ” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 122 ; 858 NW2d 490 (2014) (citation omitted; alteration and ellipsis in original).

2022“The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to . . . have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.’ ” People v Kammeraad, 307 Mich App 98, 122 ; 858 NW2d 490 (2014) (citation omitted; alteration and ellipsis in original).

2019This Court “reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts.” People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 297 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006).

2019This Court “reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts.” People v Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 297 ; 721 NW2d 815 (2006).

2018“We review de novo a trial court’s ultimate decision on a motion to suppress.” People v Beuschlein, 245 Mich App 744, 748 ; 630 NW2d 921 (2001). -3- “Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.” People v Cortez (On Remand), 299 Mich App 679, 691 ; 832 NW2d 1 (2013).

2018“We review de novo a trial court’s ultimate decision on a motion to suppress.” People v Beuschlein, 245 Mich App 744, 748 ; 630 NW2d 921 (2001). -3- “Both the state and federal constitutions guarantee that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.” People v Cortez (On Remand), 299 Mich App 679, 691 ; 832 NW2d 1 (2013).

2013However, this error was harmless because the majority held that “[e]ven under a de novo review of the evidence,... we conclude, as did the trial court, that no express questioning occurred.” White, 294 Mich App at 633 .

2013However, this error was harmless because the majority held that “[e]ven under a de novo review of the evidence, . . . we conclude, as did the trial court, that no express questioning occurred.” White, 294 Mich App at 633 .

2021Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); People v Abraham, 234 Mich App 640, 644 ; 599 NW2d 736 (1999).

2021Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); People v Abraham, 234 Mich App 640, 644 ; 599 NW2d 736 (1999).

2021A. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings in a ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error, People v Jenkins, 472 Mich 26, 31 ; 691 NW2d 759 (2005), but reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001).

2021A. STANDARD OF REVIEW This Court reviews a trial court’s factual findings in a ruling on a motion to suppress for clear error, People v Jenkins, 472 Mich 26, 31 ; 691 NW2d 759 (2005), but reviews de novo a trial court’s interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001).

2021We also review de novo “whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies.” People v Anthony, 327 Mich App 24, 32 ; 932 NW2d 202 (2019). 1 An analysis of the substances found in defendant’s vehicle was inconclusive as to the presence of narcotics and defendant was thus not charged with possession of the substances found in the vehicle. 2 The dissent erroneously states, on several occasions, that the sole basis advanced in support of suppression was the failure to produce an impound inventory card.

2021We also review de novo “whether the Fourth Amendment was violated and whether an exclusionary rule applies.” People v Anthony, 327 Mich App 24, 32 ; 932 NW2d 202 (2019). 1 An analysis of the substances found in defendant’s vehicle was inconclusive as to the presence of narcotics and defendant was thus not charged with possession of the substances found in the vehicle. 2 The dissent erroneously states, on several occasions, that the sole basis advanced in support of suppression was the failure to produce an impound inventory card.

2020This Court reviews de novo “underlying issues of law such as statutory questions or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts.” People v Mullen, 282 Mich App 14, 21 ; 762 NW2d 170 (2008).

2020This Court reviews de novo “underlying issues of law such as statutory questions or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts.” People v Mullen, 282 Mich App 14, 21 ; 762 NW2d 170 (2008).

2018"We review de novo a trial court's ultimate decision on a motion to suppress." People v. Beuschlein , 245 Mich. App. 744 , 748, 630 N.W.2d 921 (2001).

2018"We review de novo a trial court's ultimate decision on a motion to suppress." People v. Beuschlein , 245 Mich. App. 744 , 748, 630 N.W.2d 921 (2001).

2017Russell, 471 Mich at 187 . “[I]t is a long-held principle that courts are to make every reasonable presumption against the waiver of a fundamental and constitutional right, including the waiver of the right to the assistance of counsel.” Id. at 188 . “[W]hile the right of self-representation is a fundamental constitutional right, other interests, such as the failure to effectively waive the right to counsel . . . may in some instances outweigh the defendant’s constitutional right to act as his own counsel.” Id. at 189 , citing Martinez v Court of Appeal of California, 528 US 152, 162 ; 120 S C

2017Russell, 471 Mich at 187 . “[I]t is a long-held principle that courts are to make every reasonable presumption against the waiver of a fundamental and constitutional right, including the waiver of the right to the assistance of counsel.” Id. at 188 . “[W]hile the right of self-representation is a fundamental constitutional right, other interests, such as the failure to effectively waive the right to counsel . . . may in some instances outweigh the defendant’s constitutional right to act as his own counsel.” Id. at 189 , citing Martinez v Court of Appeal of California, 528 US 152, 162 ; 120 S C

2017Id. 7 The ultimate question or whether a person was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.

2017Id. 7 The ultimate question or whether a person was “in custody” for purposes of Miranda warnings is a mixed question of fact and law, which must be answered independently by the reviewing court after review de novo of the record.

2017“Clear error exists if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 544 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2017“Clear error exists if the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” People v Miller, 482 Mich 540, 544 ; 759 NW2d 850 (2008) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2003People v Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich 626, 631 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999). *627 McGHEE (DOCKET NO. 239467) The search warrant in Docket No. 239467 described the place to be searched as: All rooms, compartments, crawlspaces, hallways, storage areas, porches and any attic or basement accessible therefrom of 483 Montana, City of Pontiac, County of OaMand, State of Michigan.

2003People v Stevens (After Remand), 460 Mich 626, 631 ; 597 NW2d 53 (1999). *627 McGHEE (DOCKET NO. 239467) The search warrant in Docket No. 239467 described the place to be searched as: All rooms, compartments, crawlspaces, hallways, storage areas, porches and any attic or basement accessible therefrom of 483 Montana, City of Pontiac, County of OaMand, State of Michigan.

2026“A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” People 4 The trial court merged defendant’s CSC-I and CSC-III charges at the end of the bench trial. -3- v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 348 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). “ ‘To the extent that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.’ ” Clark, 330 Mich App at 415, quoting People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 206 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014).

2026“A trial court abuses its discretion when it chooses an outcome that falls outside the range of principled outcomes.” People 4 The trial court merged defendant’s CSC-I and CSC-III charges at the end of the bench trial. -3- v Musser, 494 Mich 337, 348 ; 835 NW2d 319 (2013). “ ‘To the extent that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.’ ” Clark, 330 Mich App at 415, quoting People v Tanner, 496 Mich 199, 206 ; 853 NW2d 653 (2014).

2025“To the extent that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2024“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution—like Article 1, § 11 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, whose protections have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019), (citations omitted); US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11.

2024“The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution—like Article 1, § 11 of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, whose protections have been construed as coextensive with its federal counterpart, protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v Mead, 503 Mich 205, 212 ; 931 NW2d 557 (2019), (citations omitted); US Const, Am IV; Const 1963, art 1, § 11.

2023See People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001). -3- believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” People v Tavernier, 295 Mich App 582, 584-585 ; 815 NW2d 154 (2012), quoting United States v Gant, 556 US 332, 351 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009).

2023See People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001). -3- believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” People v Tavernier, 295 Mich App 582, 584-585 ; 815 NW2d 154 (2012), quoting United States v Gant, 556 US 332, 351 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009).

2023See People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001). -3- believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” People v Tavernier, 295 Mich App 582, 584-585 ; 815 NW2d 154 (2012), quoting United States v Gant, 556 US 332, 351 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009).

2023See People v Attebury, 463 Mich 662, 668 ; 624 NW2d 912 (2001). -3- believe the vehicle contains evidence of the offense of arrest.” People v Tavernier, 295 Mich App 582, 584-585 ; 815 NW2d 154 (2012), quoting United States v Gant, 556 US 332, 351 ; 129 S Ct 1710 ; 173 L Ed 2d 485 (2009).

2023Id. at 219 .

2021Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); People v Abraham, 234 Mich App 640, 644 ; 599 NW2d 736 (1999).

2021Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 444 ; 86 S Ct 1602 ; 16 L Ed 2d 694 (1966); People v Abraham, 234 Mich App 640, 644 ; 599 NW2d 736 (1999).

2021“A trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 329 ; 817 NW2d 497 (2012).

2021“A trial court’s decision on a motion to withdraw a plea is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” People v Cole, 491 Mich 325, 329 ; 817 NW2d 497 (2012).

2020Likewise, “[t]his Court reviews de novo whether defendant suffered a deprivation of his constitutional right to present a defense.” People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472, 480 ; 769 NW2d 256 (2009).

2020Likewise, “[t]his Court reviews de novo whether defendant suffered a deprivation of his constitutional right to present a defense.” People v Steele, 283 Mich App 472, 480 ; 769 NW2d 256 (2009).

2019“To the extent that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.” Attebury, 463 Mich at 668 . “[A]n officer’s obligation to give Miranda warnings to an accused attaches only when the person is subject to custodial interrogation.” People v Ish, 252 Mich App 115, 118 ; 652 NW2d 257 (2002).

2019“To the extent that a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress involves an interpretation of the law or the application of a constitutional standard to uncontested facts, our review is de novo.” Attebury, 463 Mich at 668 . “[A]n officer’s obligation to give Miranda warnings to an accused attaches only when the person is subject to custodial interrogation.” People v Ish, 252 Mich App 115, 118 ; 652 NW2d 257 (2002).

2018People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).

2018People v Carines, 460 Mich 750, 764 ; 597 NW2d 130 (1999).