Troopers seize handgun, suspected crack during traffic stop on I-94
Michigan State Police troopers arrested an 18-year-old Ypsilanti man this morning after they recovered a loaded handgun and baggies of what they believed to be crack cocaine during a traffic stop on I-94 in Ypsilanti Township, police said.
The man was a passenger in a car that was stopped at 1 a.m. after it was traveling below the minimum speed limit of 55 miles per hour, a press release said.
According to the release, troopers searched the car after the driver gave consent and found a loaded semi-automatic handgun under the passenger seat. In addition, troopers recovered several baggies filled with what appeared to be crack cocaine, the release said.
The passenger was taken to the Washtenaw County Jail, but the car's driver was released with verbal warnings about driving without a license and driving below the minimum speed limit, the release said.
Charges are pending.
Comments
nxil2009
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 1:30 a.m.
FYI. New USSC ruling says police cannot search a vehicle incident to arrest. FYI x2 Ypsilanti might now be the murder capital of Washtenaw county.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 3 a.m.
Your information is outdated and wrong. The case was Arizona v. Gant and the Court made no such decision. On October 20, 2003, without issuing a decision in the case, the Court sent it back to Arizona state court for further consideration in light of the Arizona case State v. Dean. The issue raised in this case, however, was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court later in the same term. On May 24, 2004, the Court issued a decision in the case of Thornton v. U.S., finding that police could constitutionally search a vehicle even after its occupant has left it voluntarily.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.
Cite the case please.
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:41 p.m.
Thanks Matt The armchair lawyer seems to be MIA.
Matt Cooper
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:25 p.m.
Just for those that want to play armchair lawyer and think they know something: If the police suspect drugs are in the car they don't need consent. If they do ask for consent and it is not given, all they have to do is get a drug sniffing dog to walk around the vehicle. If the dog hits on the odor of drugs, that gives the police probable cause to search the vehicle without consent. If you think, even for a second, that a K9 dog wouldn't hit on "several baggies filled with what appeared to be crack cocaine", you are dead wrong. These dogs are trained to detect drugs under a great many different scenarios and using many different scents to attemp to disguise the odor of the drugs.
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:55 p.m.
Yea, I am sure they were planning on rabbit hunting. And the crack was for medicinal purposes! No drivers license, but maybe they had hunting licenses!
actionjackson
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:57 p.m.
Rusty, It sure would have been better not to let them search and have that crack get out to the neighborhood along with the gun of course.
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.
I did not read where it said they had to ask. It only says "the driver gave consent". Any chance they did ask knowing if the driver refused they would search anyway because they might have had probable cause? I suspect it always looks better later if the driver gives their consent as opposed to proving probable cause later.
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
Folks, if the police had to ask to do a search it means they didn't have any evidence before hand. If they had probable cause they would not have needed to ask permission.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 12:52 a.m.
A dog trained to sniff for drugs that walks around the vehicle and hits on the scent of drugs provides all the PC a cop needs to effect a search of the vehicle with or without consent.
Matt Cooper
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 12:50 a.m.
No, I meant probable cause. Reasonable suspicion deals with searching a person's body or clothing, such as with "frisking" (also known as a Terry Stop). Google Terry v. Ohio. Probable cause from wiki: "Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)". "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. "
Ricebrnr
Fri, Feb 18, 2011 : 12:14 a.m.
@Matt, I believe you mean RAS, reasonable and articulable suspicion.
Matt Cooper
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:26 p.m.
Oh and one other thing. The police don't have to have evidence of a crime in order to search. They just have to have probable cause. Google it.
Matt Cooper
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:20 p.m.
Wrong answer bro. You don't have to give consent if the officer suspects the possibility of drugs being present in the vehicle. All they have to do is get a K9 unit to do a walk around the vehicle with the dog. If the dog hits for the odor of drugs that is probable cause enough to legally allow the officer to search without consent.
RJA
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:19 a.m.
I'm glad there are charges pending on the driver, no driver's license and driving below the speed limit and released? Sounds like a very nice State Police Officer to me.
OLDTIMER3
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 12:20 p.m.
Under 55 , I thought the minimum speed was 45 on thr freeway. They let the unlicensed driver drive away as if he/she didn't know what was in the car?
Ricebrnr
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:15 a.m.
alright! those gun laws preventing....wait never mind Yay! those gun laws punishing....ummm never mind What do gun laws do again????
Ricebrnr
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
And while we're on the subject, driving is not a freedom or a right. It is a privilege that is administered and granted by the State. Unlike some other freedoms which preceded the laws of men and ARE guaranteed (NOT GRANTED) in the US Constitution. That comment is a sad statement of our educational system...
Ricebrnr
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 5:48 p.m.
Driving without a license is not a CRIMINAL offense nor does it usually engender jail time. Could you not see the difference?
aanative
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.
I know you like to spin every story for the anti-gun law angle. You must be outraged by all those pesky driving laws. This driver didn't even have a license! Clearly the abundant driving laws are merely an infringement on our freedoms!!
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
or drug laws?
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 3:12 a.m.
Here is another pro tip. If the driver had not consented he would probably be in jail at this point. Be careful WHO you listen to!
Jackietreehorn
Wed, Feb 16, 2011 : 9:17 p.m.
Here's another pro tip. A driver with no license is subject to arrest. His vehicle is subject to impound. Prior to impound, the vehicle is subject to search. Consent was nice, but unneeded. All police know this. The better tip was not to drive around with crack and a gun.
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.
Good point, although searching/arresting the passenger if the only offense was the driver didn't have a license would be a bit suspect, constitutionally.
rusty shackelford
Wed, Feb 16, 2011 : 7:18 p.m.
Pro tip: don't consent to have your car searched.
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.
No. BUT many criminals are!
rusty shackelford
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:32 p.m.
I know, jcj, aren't people who care about the 4th amendment scum?
jcj
Thu, Feb 17, 2011 : 1:17 p.m.
I suspect here are two groups that would offer this type of tip. A defense lawyer or a criminal.
rjobrien32
Wed, Feb 16, 2011 : 7:44 p.m.
Or don't drive around with crack cocaine!