Opinion
Docket No. 145967. COA No. 305466.
2013-02-8
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Frank Arthur CROWELL, Defendant–Appellant.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2012 WL 3321921.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 14, 2012 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Defendant argues that the warrantless search of the contents of his cell phone based solely on the third-party consent of the complainant violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988, 39 L.Ed.2d 242 (1974). However, even if this evidence were to be suppressed, considering the weight and strength of the untainted evidence presented at trial, the defendant cannot demonstrate a reasonable probability that the result of the proceeding would have been different. People v. Carines, 460 Mich. 750, 597 N.W.2d 130 (1999).