Background
David Duane Brown struck and killed a 13-year-old boy who was walking along Jolly Road in Lansing, Michigan, and then left the scene. Investigators connected Brown to the collision through surveillance footage, an anonymous tip, vehicle damage, headlight fragments, and data from his Chevrolet S-10’s event data recorder. Police seized Brown’s cell phone after seeing it in his bedroom while lawfully inside his residence and later searched it under a warrant.
A jury convicted Brown of driving while his license was suspended and causing death and failing to stop at the scene of an accident resulting in death. The trial court sentenced him to 5 years, 11 months to 15 years in prison on the first count and 44 days, with credit for time served, on the second. Brown challenged the seizure and search of his phone, his counsel’s failure to attack the search warrant, the exclusion of his crash expert’s undisclosed diagram, the scoring of Offense Variable 5, and comments the judge made at sentencing.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that officers lawfully seized the phone under the plain-view doctrine because they were lawfully present, the phone was visible, and the surrounding facts gave them probable cause to believe it contained evidence of the hit-and-run. Trial counsel was not ineffective for declining to challenge the later search because the warrant established probable cause, adequately limited the search to evidence concerning the victim’s death, and was sufficiently particular. The court added that officers reasonably relied on the warrant and that substantial evidence independent of the phone connected Brown to the collision.
The court also held that the trial judge acted within her discretion by excluding the defense expert’s diagram because it had not been disclosed as required. Any error was harmless because the expert was permitted to explain the diagram’s substance and use admitted exhibits to support his reconstruction.
Although the appellate court found unsupported and inappropriate the sentencing judge’s statements that Brown allowed his adult children to lie and unnecessarily prolonged the victim’s mother’s suffering by proceeding to trial, it concluded that the record did not show Brown was punished for refusing to admit guilt or exercising his right not to testify. The within-guidelines sentence rested on permissible considerations, including Brown’s driving history, the victim’s death, public safety, deterrence, and the jury’s verdict. The court also upheld the 15-point score for OV 5 because the victim’s mother’s testimony that every day had been a struggle for her and her daughters supported a finding of serious psychological injury that may require professional treatment.
Key Takeaways
- Police may seize a cell phone in plain view without a warrant when they are lawfully present and have probable cause to believe the phone contains evidence, although a separate legal basis is required to search its contents.
- An undisclosed expert diagram may be excluded for a discovery violation, particularly when the expert remains able to convey the substance of the proposed demonstrative through testimony and admitted exhibits.
- Improper sentencing remarks do not automatically require resentencing; the record must show that the court relied on an impermissible consideration or imposed an unreasonable or disproportionate sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the distinction between seizing a digital device and searching its contents, while emphasizing that probable cause and particularity remain central to a valid cell-phone warrant. It also shows that counsel is not constitutionally ineffective for declining to bring a suppression motion that lacked a reasonable probability of changing the result.
For sentencing practice, the opinion cautions judges against suggesting that a defendant should be punished for going to trial, remaining silent, or declining to admit guilt. At the same time, it confirms that inappropriate comments will not require resentencing when the complete record shows that the sentence was based on permissible factors and fell within the advisory guidelines.