Mr. You have more wasted too much time with you. Yes or no? So Sir, don't argue with me. Yes or no? Are we doing a preliminary exam today? Yes or no? I I object. I will address Answer the question. I want to address other issues as well. You're in contempt of court. Put him in jail. Civil and criminal procedures have different jurisdictions and I don't I need to know which one are you operating up under now. How could you be Mr. Michaud. The court The court answered the question multiple times. And the court deems this matter concluded. I will see you next Wednesday afternoon. And welcome to Facts or Frauds. What you are witnessing is real. The participants are not actors. This is 210736FY. This is State of Michigan versus Frank Michaud. May I have your appearances, please? Good afternoon, Your Honor. Mohammed Mohammed on behalf of the people P86771. Would you state your name for the record, sir? Uh my name is Frank Michaud. I am the beneficiary of the Frank Anthony Michaud estate that you are administering over and I appointed as the trustee for the record Frank Anthony Michaud. I am here on the as a limited special appearance, not general. I am here on the writ of habeas corpus. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Today is the day and time scheduled for the preliminary examination in this matter. There is count one, weapons, firearms, possession by felon. Count two, carrying concealed weapon. Count three, felony firearm. Are the people prepared to proceed? We are, Your Honor. We do have a couple preliminary matters. Before we do that, Mr. Michaud, are you prepared to proceed? Uh no, ma'am. I'm actually here to get a better understanding of these things first before you proceed. What is it that you need to get a better stand understanding of, sir? The one is the jurisdiction that the court is operating up under. Judge, I'm going to object. The court has made a decision on this motion previously. Both you and Judge Oakley had ruled on this, so I'm going to object. Uh Mr. Muhammad, hold on a second. Mr. Muhammad, what we will do is let Mr. Michaud make his record. Uh yes, ma'am. Okay. Um constitution, the 6th Amendment grants me the right to know the nature and cause of that and I want to know the the jurisdiction that I'm being brought up on or whatever. The next thing, sir. The next thing. You said you had some preliminary matters, which suggests more than one thing. Oh, the uh this, the jurisdiction of the court. Okay. Okay. Okay. You're going to Anything else? Yes. What's next? Uh is this going to be criminal, civil or criminal? And I also want to With the basis of that answer, I would like to address some other things as well. What other things, sir? It is It's pertaining to all of the above. So Mr. Michaud, I think we had this conversation last week. Correct me if I'm wrong. Um this is a criminal case. It is alleged that on February 23rd, 2021 at the Detroit Metro Airport, which is located in the city of Romulus, you committed the following: That you did possess and or transport and or purchase a firearm when ineligible to do so because you've been convicted of violation of controlled substance act 333.740124 401284 a specified felony and the requirements for regaining eligibility had not been met contrary to MCL 750.224F count two carrying a concealed weapon that you did carry a dangerous weapon to wit a pistol whether concealed or otherwise in a vehicle operated or occupied by said defendant to wit a revolver contrary to MCL 750.224 count three felony firearm that you did carry or have in your possession of firearm to wit a pistol at the time he committed you committed or attempted to commit a felony to wit felon in possession of a firearm contrary to MCL 750.227B there's also an habitual offender third offense notice on the file where it's alleged that you were convicted of the offense of violation of controlled substance act on October 24, 2013 and convicted of the offense of attempt carrying of a concealed weapon on April 30th, 2002. That being the case the court having responded to the charges indicated to you that this is a criminal matter. The court's question back to you sir is are you prepared to proceed with the exam in this matter? No. No. You still haven't stated the jurisdiction of the court for the record. I have identified this court as the 34th District Court to you before sir and I will renew that indication to you. Are you prepared to proceed with the exam? No. Because Oakley stated that the jurisdiction of the court was Michigan statutes and that's not what you're saying today. Chief Judge Brian Oakley you had a conversation with him about a month ago. We're having a conversation well we're having a hearing today and sir we're doing one of three things today. We are proceeding with the exam. You're waving the exam. Or we're adjourning this matter. Your response to my question right now is one of those three things. What are we doing this afternoon? And I would say you also stated that uh you addressed me having questions. I had another question pertaining off your answer and I wanted to read that Mr. Michelle, no, no. We're We're not doing this this afternoon. Exam waiver. Well, at this moment, okay, since I'm under threat arrest for murder, I would like to appoint Mr. Sullivan as trustee for them. Mr. Mr. Michelle, you're not under any threat. This is This is a court. What up? You have appeared this afternoon. This case has been called and if you're prepared to proceed with Mr. Sullivan sitting to your left, this court will proceed. Is that what you're indicating? Well, you say I'm not under threat, right? And if I continue to ask a question, I will be held in contempt, which is a threat, right? I never said contempt, sir. What What we are What we are is scheduled for a hearing and what this court does is hearings. And I entertained some of your questions, but it is now 2:15. We just And the court's I know, sir, but I'm I'm presuming that there will be some testimony. Okay, but you're asking me am I ready to proceed and you while you're asking me you're also telling me that we about to proceed. So, you're not actually giving me the right to answer the question. You're also making it seem like you're threatening me. So, uh Mr. Mr. Michelle, I'm interrupting you to tell you that I'm not threat- threatening you, but I've answered I've answered all that needs to be answered from this court to proceed with either the exam or waiver. Okay, all right. But, you haven't answered the questions that I have asked. I had I said I had another question and you're still not allowing me to ask the question. So, do I have the right to What's your question, Mr. Michelle? want to ask you far as Hold on one second. I want to read this for you to the record. No, sir. You had a question. What is your question? Can you help me understand this? Okay, according to 27 CFR 72.11 it say all crimes are commercial and must have nature and cause and be prosecuted in the name of the people of the state as a real party in interest, not the people of the state, the corporation, the ficti- the fiction fict- fiction. This is 20 of CFR, right? So, I would need you to elaborate on this code for me, please and thank you. Mr. Michelle, this court will decline to elaborate or respond to that because this afternoon we are here to determine if the prosecution is able to show that a crime has been committed and that probable cause exists to believe that you were in commission of that crime. That is what's what we're doing this afternoon. I understand. What it says that possession of a deadly weapon is a commercial crime. So, we have to make I need to have a better understanding if this is a commercial crime. You said this is a crime and there is no injured party where I hurt anyone. You haven't gave me the right to face my accuser and it tells me under this code 27 CFR 70 72.11 all crimes are commercial. A deadly weapon is considered a commercial crime. So, how if I I understand that commercial is civil, but you're telling me this is criminal. So, how is it criminal and it says if a injured if there must be an injured party uh for the a corpus delicti for the record. An injured party and you haven't presented an injured party for the record. So, I mean, can you elaborate on what um jurisdiction you're operating under? Is this Mr. Michelle civil or criminal cuz it doesn't make sense to me. Mr. Michelle You're asking a compound question, so I'm going to try to answer it. Last week and just now you indicated a right to face your accusers. And you indicated that the court will be presenting something. The court is not presenting anything. The court will take testimony this afternoon and review evidence, documents, videos, whatever it is that either Mr. Muhammad or Mr. Sullivan or Mr. Sullivan on your behalf presents to this court. You want the right to face your accusers. I don't know who Mr. Muhammad is calling to give testimony this afternoon. I don't know who of anyone Mr. Sullivan is calling to give testimony this afternoon. That being the case, sir, are you prepared to proceed with the exam? Okay, so you the chief Oakley said that he stated for the record that my accuser was the state of Michigan. And here in this code it says uh the the prosecutor in the name of the people of the state, not as the people of the state of Michigan. So, what he said is contradiction to this code. And this this 27 code of federal regulations 27 7211, all crimes are commercial. So, I still need to I don't understand. You were in front of Judge Oakley for a probable cause conference, which is basically a scheduling. Are we having exam? Is there a plea or is there a waiver? For some reason that didn't happen with Judge Oakley. You then had a PCC with Judge Green. Then you were with me for PCC last week. I asked you questions, you wouldn't respond, but I tried to answer your questions. And the people twice demanded an exam. And when you would not answer my questions, I scheduled the exam. Mr. Muhammad, your only response right now is yes or no. Are you prepared to proceed with the exam this afternoon? Well, under threat and threat and the rest of coercion, I appoint Sullivan as my trustee for the record. Mr. Sullivan, are you prepared to proceed this afternoon? I am prepared to conduct the preliminary exam yesterday. Thank you. Your first witness, sir. Judge, I do have a couple of preliminary matters. What are your preliminary matters, sir? Pursuant to Well, first I'll start it off and request a mutual order of sequestration. Any objection? No objection. If there is anyone in this courtroom or anyone who is viewing these proceedings as this court is live streaming as it does most of his exams, you should stop watching the live stream. If you're in this courtroom and intend to give testimony, not just today but at any point in the future, you should exit yourself from this courtroom at this time. Is there anyone in this courtroom other than Mr. Macho who is potentially a witness to this matter or will provide testimony in this matter? No response? Judge, I believe that Crystal Watley was excused at the previous hearing by Judge Chief Oakley. Um and so we're requesting that she be excused. Mr. Muhammad, I don't know. I see I know there are four people. One of them I know who it is. The other three I don't know who they are. I have asked if there's anyone in this court's gallery or anyone who is viewing this court's YouTube live stream of this case. If you are giving testimony this afternoon or intend to give testimony at any point during the life of this case that you stop viewing these proceedings or exit the courtroom. So, Ms. Watley is not present, but there is someone I'm told from the media that is here and so I I am going to Maybe I wasn't clear when I asked them to absent themselves from the courtroom. Your next preliminary matter. Judge, pursuant to 766.11 B, the people would like to introduce into evidence a certified record of conviction which is relevant to this case was not allowed to be carrying a firearm on the day in question. Mr. Sullivan. Judge, I would object. Um Uh I would note that this is a um conviction from 2002. Um I I don't believe that constitutes like a life ban on possession of weapons. Um You know, this is over 20 years ago. Um so so I would have got it on that basis. Judge, I res- My response is I will be citing People versus Perkins, which would indicate that the defendant had the burden of producing evidence that the defendant's firearm rights have been restored and I have printed out that case law for you to review Judge. However, that case law is People versus Perkins. May I approach the bench? Uh the certified record of conviction and case law. You may approach. Thank you. Any other preliminary matters, Mr. Muhammad? Nothing from the People, Judge. Any preliminary matters, Mr. Sullivan? Uh none at this time, Judge. Thank you. Your first witness, sir. And Judge, just briefly the uh in regards to our preliminary matter, we also we're stating that we're also requesting an exception for the officer in our Detective Carmona to remain in the courtroom. Any objection, Mr. Sullivan? I would object, Judge, if the witness is going to be a um if the detective is going to be a witness at any point um in the case in the future. Um he's allowed to remain today, then I then I would expect him to never go into cases in the trial, uh hearing. Mr. Sullivan, I believe it's been the practice and procedure that the officers in charge are allowed to remain in the courtroom during the exam. So, over your objection, the court will allow Detective Carmona to remain in the courtroom. Mr. Muhammad. Thank you, Judge. The call Officer Jonathan Steffin? Sir, would you stop at this podium, state your first and last name, and then spell them both for the record. Jonathan, J O N A T H A N, Steffin, S T E M B I N. Raise your right hand for me, please. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please come have a seat in this black chair that's closest to me. Mary Ann, my secretary, is recording your testimony. If she's unable to hear you, I'll ask you to either keep your voice up or move yourself closer to the microphone, okay? Thank you. Mr. Muhammad. Good afternoon, Officer. Can you please restate your name for the record? Yep. Jonathan Steffin. Officer Steffin, are you currently employed? I am. And who is your employer? I am now with the City of Huntington Woods, but I was formerly at the Trent Metro Airport Police Department. Okay. And in what capacity are you employed as a for the department? Currently, I'm a public safety officer. And previously at the other department? Police officer. And for how long at the previous department were you a police officer? 16 years. Were you employed in this capacity as a police officer on February 23rd, 2021? I was. And did you work this day? I did. And did you work this day by yourself or with a partner? By myself. On this day, were you working in full uniform or modified uniform? Full uniform. And were you on foot patrol or in a scout vehicle? Scout vehicle. Was the scout vehicle marked? It was. Semi-marked or fully marked? Fully marked. And did your duties on the day of February 23rd, 2021 take you at or near the location of North Terminal, Upper Terminal Drive? They did. Is that located in the city of Romulus, County of Wayne? It is. Okay, what's at this location? At that location is the uh again, the North Terminal at Detroit Metro Airport. And while at or near this location, did you observe something that drew your attention? I did. What did you observe? I observed a unattended vehicle curbside in front of the terminal. Okay. And when you made this observation, were you working in your capacity as a police officer? I was. For the airport? Yes. Okay, upon making this observation, what if anything did you do? Uh the vehicle was in a uh no parking zone. Exited my patrol vehicle, um checked the interior of the vehicle from the exterior with the aid of my flashlight to see if there was any occupants in the vehicle. There was none. Okay, upon making that observation that there was no occupants in this vehicle, what if anything did you do? Due to it being in violation of the prohibited parking uh uh rule there, uh I requested a uh tow truck to impound the vehicle and I returned to my patrol car to uh start writing the vehicle a prohibited parking citation. Okay, now where exactly was this vehicle parked? It was parked in front of the uh at the time it was called the North Terminal. Now, they have the South Terminal. It was parked right in front of the terminal. Okay, and it was left unattended? It was left unattended. And why did you call for a tow truck? Uh again, cuz it was parked in a no parking zone. And is that a ticketable offense? It is. Okay, now what occurred next if anything? Um next, I'm called for the tow truck, uh, Martin's Towing to be specific. Martin's Towing arrived and impounded the vehicle. Okay. And did you observe that? Yes, I observed the the uh, impound. And can you describe what you mean by they impounded the vehicle? So, the uh, the tow truck basically hooks up to the to the tow or to the uh, the vehicle that's in violation. And um, depending on what stage it is, they'll sometimes just hook up to it, sometimes they'll lift it. Um, I can't recall if this this particular um, case, if he lifted it, but I I can confirm that he did impound the vehicle. Okay. And upon observing that impound, what if anything did you do? Um, so next, the completed the um, the citation. Um, checked if the vehicle was uh, unlocked, which it was. And at that point, I conducted an inventory search of the vehicle. Okay. And upon conducting an inventory search, did you discover anything? Yes, I did. What if anything did you discover? Uh, in the interior of the vehicle, the center console to be exact, I located a uh, Smith & Wesson M&P uh, pistol. Okay. And can you describe this weapon? Uh, I I don't recall what it looked like other than it was a pistol due to it being 3 years ago. Okay. Now, upon making this observation, what if anything did you do? Uh, next, I secured the pistol um, on my patrol what you mean by secure? So, I removed the pistol from the vehicle and then um, locked it in my patrol car. Okay. Was this pistol loaded? Um, yes, it was. Okay. Okay. Now, after securing it in your vehicle, what if anything did you do next? Um, next, I checked the vehicle or I'm sorry, I the pistol, um, its status to make sure it wasn't stolen. Um, it was not stolen and it came back registered to a Crystal Whitley. Okay, and what if anything did you do next? Uh, next I checked the, um, license plate of the vehicle. Um, the registered owner was, uh, Frank Michaud, Jr. Uh, after I checked, uh, him in lean, I checked the to, uh, hearsay. Um, that is for the officer testifying to, I I don't know what what the basis of his testimony is knowing the, uh, owner of the vehicle. I'm not I'm not really following that objection, Judge. I don't Well, what is what's the hearsay? He said he's objecting to hearsay, so what is the hearsay? There's no statement. Right, so, uh, perhaps there could be some greater foundation as to how the officer knows who the owner of the vehicle is. Did he watch him Did he purchase the vehicle? Um, I I just presume no, but I presume the officer is relying on a record. And so I'm looking at it as hearsay. That's a presumption and and if he's watched somebody purchase the vehicle, I I would say that's incorrect. But he can only testify to personal knowledge. And Judge, I believe he is testifying to personal knowledge. He conducted a lean search and it came back registered to the individual, Frank Michaud. I believe Mr. Sullivan's objection was requesting a more um, greater foundation before we get to that conclusion. Mr. Sullivan Yeah, he didn't testify that he did a lean search. He just testified as to who the owner of the vehicle is. So that my objection is to if he did a lean search, my objection is to hearsay. Okay, I can lay a better foundation. Yes, sir. Um, Officer Steppen, after you conducted a lean search in regards to seeing who the registered owner is. What did you do next, exactly? I checked if the registered owner What did you check? I checked if the registered owner had a concealed pistol license. How did you do that? Through lean. Okay. And who was the registered owner of the vehicle after you conducted a lean search? Frank Mishaw Jr. Okay. I object to the hearsay. It also seems based on community about the officer. I think he's actually testifying about the owner of the weapon. Um he's testifying about the owner of the vehicle. I'm not sure exactly where all these things are coming from. They're all coming from lean, but I am objecting to the hearsay. As to the gun or as to the car or as to both? Um as to both. Your objection is that he relied on lean as to the owner of the car? Correct. Okay. Judge, my response to this is not lean or it's not hearsay. There's no out-of-court statement. It is definitely an out-of-court statement that's being used for the truth of the matter asserted. But I did say the owner of the vehicle and the owner of the gun. gun. I'm sorry, Mr. Solomon. Your I thought your objection started as to the ownership of the vehicle. I didn't hear you object when um Officer Stempien testified as to the ownership of the gun. So, I'm I'm with you on No, no, I'm looking at you because you opened your mouth and I just didn't want to interrupt you. I didn't want to interrupt. No, judge. Um when when the officer was asked the questions again, he backed up to uh the owner of the gun, and then the questions proceeded with how did you know the owner? And so, you know, I I I I I suppose I'm objecting to both, but the first objection, you're correct, is as to the owner of the vehicle, and I and I think that that's where the lean search is coming in. I don't know how the officer is checking the ownership of the gun. So, I I won't go further foundation, but if it is lean search, then I'm objecting. Uh if the lean search is an out-of-court statement, and it's certainly used for the truth of the matter asserted. Um in the in the in the in the wording in the response. Anything else, Mr. Muhammad? Is it I don't believe it is hearsay, and I don't think it's being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It's It's just him performing an investigation. And and it's He's testifying to his personal knowledge as to um what he was doing. It's not being offered to show that this individual exactly did not have um was not the registered owner, but it was just more into his investigation. And I don't believe lean is considered hearsay. Anything else, Mr. Sullivan? Not at all. Your objections are overruled. Um Officer Stamp, you may answer the question if you recall the question. Can you please repeat the question? So, after you conducted a search and you discovered that the weapon was not registered and um the vehicle was not registered or or who the vehicle was registered to, what did you do next? So, after uh the vehicle was run on lean and it returned to Mr. Michelle, um I checked if he then had a concealed pistol license, which he did not. And by he you're referring to Frank Michelle? Yes, the defendant. Okay, now what what what occurred next? If anything. After the again the pistol was secured in my patrol vehicle. Um Uh I can't recall how exactly down to the minute when he came out but the defendant eventually exited the uh terminal and then approached us as we were standing with the the impounded vehicle. Okay. And by that that individual that approached you, do you see that individual in the courtroom today? Yes, it's the defendant sitting at the defendant's table. Can you can you please point to that individual and point out an article of clothing that individual is wearing? He's wearing a white button-up shirt. Your honor, can you please let the record reflect that the witness has pointed to and identified the defendant? Yes, sir. Thank you. Now what occurred next if anything? Um I asked Mr. Michelle if he drove the vehicle up to the airport that day. And what was his response? He said he did. Judge, can I What? Hold on one second. Yes. Just that the uh Mr. Michelle as he at at at the onset of our hearing Mr. Michelle introduced himself to your honor as the trustee of the Frank Michelle beneficiary beneficiary to of the Frank Michelle estate and so uh we just want that objection on the What's the objection? I'm sorry. Um at that I am not the Frank Anthony Michelle that you that he is referring to which is a fictitious entity of persons which is a corporation that I am a beneficiary of that corporation that said estate for the record and I as trustee of that. I'm not a United States citizen. I am not a 14th Amendment citizen. The corporation or the physical or the physical person, I am a natural person, a flesh and blood living man on the land for the record. Mr. Sullivan, the court will note your objection for the record and will indicate that the way that this file was received by this court is State of Michigan versus Frank Anthony Michaud. The court has not received anything to change that caption. So, if Officer Steppin refers to Mr. Michaud as Mr. Michaud, we will understand it to be as Mr. Michaud has identified himself at the beginning of these proceedings. I understand, Judge, and and I think identity is, you know, something that your honor can make a ruling on. Um, we're just noting the objection for the record. Understood. Thank you. I have to object to that because I have sent in my authenticated birth certificate, which which is authenticated, giving me full faith and credit from the United States of America, Secretary of State, John F. Kerry. Let me let you know Also, let you know that I am uh the authorized representative of this state that you are administering over for the record. I also sent you a UCC lien. If you need to see my UCC lien, the Michigan that I have filed in Michigan means that I am the lien holder of this estate as well as my commercial surety security agreement as well as indemnity bonds or any other information you need. I have put it on the record for the record. Mr. Michaud, the court has acknowledged Mr. Sullivan's objection and will treat it as an ongoing objection, but has indicated that inasmuch as the complaint received in this case identifies you a specific way, the court will accept Officer Steppin and anyone else to proceed in that manner. So, Officer Steppin, your response to the question. I can Officer Steppin, this individual that you pointed out here in the courtroom that approached you on that day. Yes. What was What was said to you by him? Uh again, I asked him if uh he drove the vehicle up to the airport. He said yes. I then asked him if he drove it by himself or if he drove with someone else, and he said he drove the vehicle by himself. Okay. Did this individual that you identified here in court ever produce to you a CPL license? He did not. Nothing further to this witness, Judge. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Judge. Good afternoon, Officer. Good afternoon, sir. It's your testimony that you conducted an inventory search in this case, right? Yes, sir. Um and you performed the inventory search prior to the vehicle being towed, right? That is incorrect. Oh, it being impounded? I conducted the inventory search once the vehicle was impounded. Okay. Um so uh I'll rephrase. You uh conducted the inventory search pursuant to the car being impounded. After the car was impounded, yes. Um it's the department's policy that when a car is impounded, it needs to be inventoried. Correct. Um and so there are policies uh from the Detroit um What is it? The police The uh Detroit Metro Airport Police issues some policies regarding inventory searches? Yes. Um and and those policies uh provide that when a car is being impounded, it needs to be inventoried. Yes. Um Okay. You said that you uh Well, I don't think you said, but you started the search uh at the passenger side of the vehicle, right? I don't recall. Objection, assuming facts not in evidence. That was definitely mentioned today. I don't know uh Objection's overruled. You may answer the question. I I don't recall. Okay. Listen. Good night. Officer, your testimony earlier was that the car was impounded. Yes. And it was impounded, I think your testimony is that it was impounded when you conducted your search. Yes. Um and let's talk about the definition of impound. Um when we say impound, uh that could be as in lifted up onto the back of the tow truck. I'm not sure what your definition is, but the departmental policy is as soon as the tow truck makes contact with the said vehicle, it is impounded. Okay. Thank you. That's my my question is not as to my definition, but as to yours. So, uh in this case, the tow truck had made contact with uh the vehicle in question. Correct. And I believe that your testimony earlier was that you don't remember whether the car had been lifted up or not. Is that correct? Correct. Um but you just remember that there was enough contact. I remember it was impounded. Okay. And you don't remember the order of uh what you searched first. No, sir. Do you remember where you found the gun? Yes. Uh you found it in the center console, correct? Correct. Um and that center console was closed when you found it in the in the center console? I don't recall. Um Okay. You uh do you recall whether you were entering the vehicle from the driver or passenger side when Objection, relevance. I was uh and knowing which side you entered the vehicle conduct this inventory search relevant. I think that the procedure that the officer is following when conducting inventory searches highly relevant. Um that there the officer testified that there is a policy and so I'm just wanting to get a little bit more of a sense of how the inventory search is conducted and whether it's conducted according to policy. Your objections overruled. You may answer the question if you recall the question. I do not recall which side I started on. Okay. Um during your search uh you crossed paths with a pair of designer sunglasses. Objection, relevance. I don't believe that Mr. Sullivan was done with his question yet. Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Judge. Uh my question is at some point during your search you came came across a pair of designer sunglasses. Is that correct? I don't recall. Um is there a list that you can refer to? Not on me. I do not have one. Um did you generate a list in the process of conducting the search? There was a tow tag um generated. Um so let me ask the question a different way. Uh as you went through the vehicle did you make a list of the things that you found in the vehicle? I don't recall but I should have, yes. You are testifying that you should have made a list of the things that are in the vehicle. I don't have the tow tag in front of me so I can't testify to it. Okay. You would agree with me that your policy is to complete a tow tag. Correct. And if a tow tag is not completed that would be in a violation of your policy. I can't speak to that. Well, you just you just testified that it's policy to complete the tow tag. Correct. Okay. Would reviewing your report refresh your recollection as to whether you completed a tag? I can take a look. But may I approach? Yes, sir. I'd like to see it. I'm sorry. It's okay. For the record, counsel, for the record. But may I approach? Yes, sir. Officer, I'm handing you a report. Okay. Tell me if you recognize that. I do. Is that your report? It is. Take a moment, uh review it, let me know if it refreshes your recollection as to whether you completed a tow tag. Okay. I don't believe it says on there. Um I'm going to direct your attention to the very last line. This says the inventory search was documented on body worn camera. Correct. Does that mean that there is not a tow tag that's completed? That is incorrect. Uh okay, so your testimony is that it's inconclusive as to whether there's a tow truck completed. Correct. Unless I can see it, I can't testify to it. Okay, but you wrote in your report the inventory search was documented on body cam. Correct. And it's fair to infer from that that it's not documented anywhere else. I'm not going to agree with that. Okay. But you at this point you can't testify to whether you completed a tow truck. No. He's answered, Judge, he's answered the question multiple times. I don't know how many I'm moving on. I'm sorry. No, you're fine, Mr. Sullivan. Uh do you recall coming across a uh several pairs of shoes in the car? I don't recall. Uh no list that you can refer to? No, sir. Do you recall coming across an umbrella? I don't. I can't testify to that. I don't recall. No list that you can refer to? No. You would agree that the purpose of an inventory search is to document the contents of the vehicle. Correct. Um so that when the vehicle is released to the owner uh this prevents uh or or protects the department from liability for stolen or missing property. Yes. Um and so the owner can see the list of things that's been inventoried at the time that his car was impacted. Yes. And you can't tell me at this point whether that list was ever generated. I can testify that it's per my report that it was documented on body worn camera. But that's not you your testimony is that's not the uh police's policy. Correct? Hm, I think Objection, he's already mentioned, Judge, that he cannot testify to that. That he can't testify to the policy? No, not that he can't testify. He can't testify to everything that's in the policy. I mean, he he you're at We don't have to be hundreds of pages long. We don't He can't testify to everything. He's testified to what he knows in his personal knowledge. Hold on one second. Mr. Sullivan, your response to the objection? Judge, I'm just asking about I'm not asking about the entire contents of the policy, just sort of one provision of the policy, which I believe he's already testified to, and so I'm just looking for clarification. Um I believe his testimony was that policy dictates that he completes a tow card. Your objection is overruled. You may respond to the question if you recall the question. Can you repeat it, please? Your testimony earlier is that uh the police policy is that you complete a tow card. Correct. Uh the police policy is not that you document the contents of the vehicle via your body worn camera. I I can't speak to the specifics of the policy whether it includes a body camera or not. Like the prosecutor states, the policy is quite extensive. Are you aware of any instances when somebody goes to pick up their car from the impound lot, and upon picking up their car, they also receive a copy of their body worn camera? I To your knowledge, has that ever happened? Objection. Relevance. Judge, I think it I mean, I'm I'm again, my questions are about the purpose and the intent of an inventory, and uh if the officer doesn't quite remember whether or not the policy allows for the body worn camera to be substituted for a tow card, well then maybe the officer will remember that sometimes people receive the body worn camera in lieu of a tow card. And I'm blocking up the car. Respectfully, I'm also going to be objecting as to speculation. I asked if he had it to his knowledge. I'm not asking him to speculate. I'm asking as to his knowledge. If he says he doesn't know, then I'll move on. Your objection is overruled. The specific question is, are you aware of any instance where someone goes to retrieve their car, right? That was my question. A specific instance, not some random general question, correct? I'm not asking him to speculate. I'd prefer that he testify whether he's aware or not. Do you recall the question, Officer Stempien? Uh I I'm not aware of that happening. Okay. Just a moment, Judge. Yes, sir. Officer, uh in your experience, uh when you complete a tow tag, you enter that tag into evidence, correct? It's entered into the Clue system. Okay. It's turned over to the prosecutor. I I can't testify to that. I can just testify that once it's logged, it goes into the Clue system. What is the I don't The Clue system is our report was the report writing system. The report writing system. So, it it's entered into the same file with all of the reports and other evidence that is generated in the case. I'm not sure once I enter it, I'm not sure where it goes. I can tell you that it gets impounded or input into the police database. And that's that's per your policy that it gets entered into the database. Our policy is that it gets entered, yes. Thank you. Uh Judge may I approach? Approach whom? Uh the witness. Thank you. Sorry, I previously shown to opposing counsel a video which I'd like to approach the witness with. You may approach. Officer, I'm I'm showing you a video. Okay. Do you recognize this? Just Just for the record, I'll stipulate to the introduction of any video. You In relation to this case in regards to this body worn camera, I'll just stipulate. Stipulate to the court receiving the body worn camera video? Correct. Judge, I wasn't intending on admitting it into evidence. Um I was just going to ask the officer a few questions about the video. Do you remember what time it was in the video? Yes. This is your body worn camera? It appears so. And this is uh your uh conducting what you call an inventory search of the vehicle? Yes. Um Here we see you opening uh shoe box. Okay. Is that fair to say? I'm not sure what that is. It's a box I can tell you. Okay. Um when you open that shoe box, that's a place where you're anticipating there might be things hidden? I'm not sure what hidden. Okay. Um You want to make sure that there is no uh narcotics in the car before you impound it? No, that's not a point of inventory search. Okay. Um I'm going to continue the following video, okay? Okay, in the portion of the video that I just played, you open a toiletry bag, correct? I'm not sure what that was. Uh it's a small compact bag in the back of the of the car? Yes. Uh you unzip it, you shine a flashlight around inside, um and you said brushes. Okay. Is that correct? I couldn't hear you. Okay. You didn't write down any of the things that you found in the bag? Not at that moment, no. And you didn't certainly didn't uh inventory the entire contents of the bag. I can't testify to that. Um Okay. You didn't remove anything from the bag? I don't recall. Um I'm going to show you one more portion of the body worn camera from the first Yes. I don't think it's 27. Okay, in that portion of the video on camera, you're opening the compartment where the spare tire is, correct? Correct. Um, you removed something from that compartment and you threw it into the trunk. It looked like something fell. Okay, um, but do you know what that item was? No. Uh, you didn't document it, um, in a list anywhere? I I I can't tell you if I did or not. Uh, and then in the video we watched you close the trunk. Correct. You testified on direct that, uh, you ran a a lean search, uh, to determine the owner of the weapon that you found. Yes. Uh, and the owner was a Crystal Watley. Yes. And that's, um, consistent with, uh, something that Mr. Michelle told you, correct? Mr. Michelle told you that, uh, that his girlfriend borrowed the car. Objection, that was never raised at any point during any testimony to my knowledge. He He learned that from conducting the lean search, is what I recall, Judge. So, I believe that's a misrepresentation. Judge, my understanding, and I've been practicing for a few years, is that I'm allowed to ask questions on cross-examination, which, uh, extend beyond the scope of the direct examination. Um, defense attorneys oftentimes do independent investigation, and this leads to questions that I, um, sometimes like to ask on cross. And so, um, please correct me if I have that wrong, but, uh, I don't think that I'm moving to the scope of the direct the Judge, I'm just saying I think he's misrepresenting his words. He said he learned that information based off of a lean search is what I recall. It was never through the words of anybody else. That's what the testimony today has reflected and that's from what I recall that's what he said. I'm incorrect, I withdraw, but pretty sure that's what he said that it was he learned that through a lean search. Your objection's overruled. I believe the question was a lean search and through something Mr. Michelle said to you. I'll I'll back up and wait for the clarification, Judge. You had a conversation with Mr. Michelle, correct? Yes. Um you confronted him about the gun that you found. I spoke to him, yes. Uh he told you that he believed it was his girlfriend's gun. Uh I don't recall. If I can take a look at it again at my report, I might be able to tell you. Good, may I proceed? Yes, sir. Thanks, sir. Let me know when you're ready to refresh your memory. Okay. Okay, I believe I'm ready. Can you repeat it just so I make sure I answer it correctly. Uh my question is uh did Mr. Michelle tell you what he believed the gun belonged to his girlfriend? Uh let's see here. Yes, he said that um Yes, he stated that the gun may belong to his girlfriend. Okay, I'll take your word for it. Mr. Waldman. So, uh that was consistent with what you learned in lean. Answer. That was consistent with what you learned in LEAP. Correct. Um your testimony earlier is that you don't recall whether the center console was open or closed when you conducted the search. Correct. Uh would an opportunity to review your body worn camera refresh your recollection as to whether you had to open the center console? Yeah, let me take a look. Does that refresh your recollection? Yes, sir. Do you recall whether you had to open the center console in order to locate the gun? In that video I had to open. Okay, so um the center console was closed um when you began your search. Yes, according to the video, yes. No further questions, Jenny. Thank you, sir. Any redirect? Very briefly. Officer Steppen, you mentioned that you had conducted an inventory search on this vehicle. Why did you conduct an inventory search? Because the vehicle was in violation of the prohibited parking and was uh impounded. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? I misunderstood the first Yes. So, can you repeat your question? I just want to make sure I answer it correctly. Why did you conduct an inventory search on this vehicle? Because the vehicle was impounded. And why was it impounded? Because the vehicle was in violation of the prohibited parking. Okay. And is conducting an inventory search of a vehicle that's being impounded, standard policy? Yes. Nothing further. Thank you. Officer Steffin, thank you for your testimony. You may step down. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Muhammad, your next witness. No further witnesses, Judge. Mr. Sullivan. No witnesses, Judge. Argument. Judge, the people move to bind over on all counts. In regards to the CCW, Officer Steffin was performing his lawful duties as a police officer. He observed a vehicle that was just unoccupied and parked in a no parking zone. He then approached this vehicle and observed there was no occupants in the vehicle. Um upon that observation, Officer uh Steffin then performed a search on the Well, prior to performing a search, he wrote up a citation for no park for parking in a in front of a terminal and it being unoccup- and it being not occupied by any um individual. He then cla- contacted the towing company who came and approached and they took this vehicle. They They may or may have not placed it onto their vehicle. He then conducted an inventory search pursuant to that and he discovered a firearm. Shortly after he and he testified here that he conducted a lean search and observed that this individual, Frank Pishotta, the defendant, did not have a CPL license. He further testified that this is the individual who was registered who was the registered owner of the vehicle. Furthermore, he testified that at some point after he was approached by the defendant who he identified here in court, and that individual um indicated to Officer Steffin that he was the only person who drove that vehicle there, and he um was in possession of that vehicle. He's the one who brought that vehicle to that location. This vehicle was reco- A weapon was recovered from this vehicle, and the testimony reflect reflects that um the defendant in this case, who had an affirmative duty to produce a CPL license, failed to do so. Not only did he fail to produce a CPL license, he uh was the LEIN search confirmed that he did not have one. Um based on that, I believe the people have met their burden of probable cause, and we move for a bind over. In regards to the FIP charges, this individual has the burden to produce that he regained his firearm, his right to possessing a firearm. He failed to do so. Um People vs. Perkins also reflects that he has failed to do so, and the burden is on the defendant to do that, not the people. So, at this time, the people move for a bind over. Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Judge. Um two arguments. One, I don't think the people have met their burden of probable cause as to Mr. um Michelle being in knowing possession of this weapon. Um his The testimony was that the weapon was discovered pursuant to an inventory search, and I'm going to get to that in a minute. I don't think that this is an inventory search, um but uh skipping that, the officer's testimony is that a gun is found in the in the vehicle, that it was not sort of readily apparent, it's not in plain view, but the officer had to open a center console in order to locate it, and that the gun is registered to you know, an acquaintance of Mr. Michelle, and that that was consistent with what Mr. Michelle told the officer. I don't think that that establishes probable cause that Mr. Michelle was ever in knowing possession of the weapon, but that somebody else used the car, left something in the car. Mr. Michelle very well didn't know that that had been left in the car, but I think that that is a secondary issue. The primary issue here, Judge, is that the police are calling this an inventory search, and um it's not controversial. We all know that a warrant is generally required in order to conduct a search. There are exceptions to the warrant requirement, but the government has the burden of proving that the conditions of any exception are satisfied, and that's People versus Reed, 393 Michigan, United States versus the Michigan Supreme Court opinion from 1975. The exception that I think that people are offering in this case is that of for that for an inventory search, but the Michigan Supreme Court has been very clear in a case called People versus Touhy, that's spelled t o o h e y, a Michigan Supreme Court opinion from 1991. I'll quote, "To be constitutional, an inventory search must be conducted in accordance with established departmental procedures, which all police officers are required to follow, and must not be used as a pretext for criminal investigation." Judge, I think that the um the search here is quite clearly a pretext for a criminal investigation. We heard testimony that this officer is looking around in a bag, not making any notes as to what he's finding in the bag. He can't recall anything that he any particular things that he's found in the car. He's testified that he made no list of the things that he found in the car. He testified that the policy would require him to make it a tow slip or or generate a list of the things he's finding in the car. And so I don't think that the people have met their burden certainly as to whether or not the officer is following established departmental procedures as required by people versus Toohey. But also the nature of this search looking into you know a spare compartment where the tire is or looking into you know this bag but not making any notes as to what they're finding. I think that it draws the reasonable inference that these officers are looking for narcotics or a gun. They're looking conducting a criminal investigation and they're not conducting an inventory search pursuant to established departmental procedures. If there was a tow slip the officer has testified that it should it would have been included in all of the reports. And you know if if the tow slip exists then I think we have a discovery violation judge cuz it's never been turned over. The people don't have it. I don't have it. And so whether this becomes a discovery violation or a violation of people versus Toohey I think it's much clearer based on the officer's testimony that this is a violation of people versus Toohey and that the officer did not complete the tow slip. The officer's testimony agreed with me that he wrote in his report that the body worn camera quote documented the inventory search but that's not but but the officer also testified that that's inconsistent with the policy of producing a tow slip. And so judge I think that this is an unconstitutional search a search in violation of Mr. Michaud's rights and so even the probable cause issue aside the evidence of this gun should be suppressed. And And and we definitely have no probable cause judge in it be dismissed and I ask you to deny the prosecutor's motion for a bind over. Judge, may I respond? Yes, sir. Thank you. So, Officer Steffin never mentioned that there wasn't a tow slip. He just said that he doesn't remember. Um and then in regards to So, what happened in this case, Judge, was that they observed a vehicle that was unoccupied. This is at an airport. There's nobody in the vehicle. They They They called for a tow truck company that tow truck company came and they they hooked it up. And then pursuant to standard policy of the police department, they performed an inventory search. There's nothing weird about it. It's standard between all police departments from my knowledge. Furthermore, this individual, the defendant, he exercised dominion and control of this vehicle and this was displayed through the testimony of Officer Steffin. He said that the the defendant told him that he drove the vehicle and he was the sole occupant. So, this individual, the defendant, he exercised at at the very least had constructive possession of the weapon. And so therefore, he had a duty on that day to produce a CPL license. He failed to do that. And the reason he failed to do that is because he doesn't have one. And that's what we're here for. the officer conducted a lean search. He confirmed this individual doesn't have a CPL license. So, I believe that this time, Judge, the people have met their burden of probable cause and we believe that at the very least, there is a question of fact for the trier of fact. So, I still move to bind over, Judge. Thank you for your time. Thank you. This court was in receipt of a sealed copy of Mr. Michelle's record and Mr. Muhammad proffered to the court People versus Perkins. And Mr. Sullivan, the court has had the opportunity to review the opinion and it does indicate that the defendant bears the burden of producing evidence to establish that his or her right to possess a firearm has been restored. Um that being the case, the court is accepting the certified record that was tendered by Mr. Muhammad. The court also has had the opportunity to hear the testimony of Officer Stempien. And for purposes of this preliminary examination, we'll find that the people have met their burden. And we'll bind Mr. Moshe over as charged. Mr. Moshe, your next appearance date will be on March the 13th, 2024 at 9:00 a.m. That will be at the Frank Murphy Hall of Justice. Your previously entered bond with any conditions will continue. Mr. Muhammad, is there anything else on behalf of the people? Nothing on behalf of the people, thank Mr. Sullivan, anything else on behalf of your client, sir? Nothing else, your Thank you. That concludes this matter. That concludes this court's docket for the day. And you think this show is educational? Yes, it'll drive people to read books. And thanks for hanging out with us on Facts or Frauds. Make sure you hit the thumbs up button, you're subscribed, and ring that bell for notifications. So next time for your video, you can be in the live chat with everyone else, and leave a comment in the comment section tell them what you think. And a huge thank you to all of our Facts or Frauds channel members. And if you're still hanging out, thank you. I appreciate you all. Make sure you hit the thumbs up button, you're subscribed, and leave a comment in the comment section tell me what you think. Until next time, I'll see you soon.