contend that the plaintiff is collaterally es-topped from arguing that element of his claim because the state court magistrate found probable cause that the crime was committed at the preliminary examination. Because the charged crime' — drunken driving third offense, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 257.625(9)(c) (“If the violation occurs within 10 years of 2 or more prior convictions, the person is guilty of a felony” and may be imprisoned for one to five years)— was a felony, a preliminary examination was required. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 767.42(1). The purpose of the preliminary examination is to determine whether probable cause exists to believe that an offense has been committed by the defendant. Mich. Ct. R. 6.110; see also People v. Perkins, 468 Mich. 448, 452, 662 N.W.2d 727, 730 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The state magistrate specifically found
holding that the purpose of a preliminary examination is to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a crime was committed and whether there is probable cause to believe that the defendant committed it holding that a vehicle may be seized without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe that it is subject to forfeiture holding that the officers examination revealed that there was probable cause to believe that the property was stolen recognizing that the necessary inquiry  is not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one but whether there was probable cause for the arrest holding a warrantless arrest by a law officer is reasonable under the fourth amendment where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed