207 N.W.2d 176 (Mich.App. 1973), 13335, People v. Williams

Docket Nº:Docket No. 13335.
Citation:207 N.W.2d 176, 45 Mich.App. 623
Opinion Judge:Before V J BRENNANand T M BURNS and ADAMS, JJ
Party Name:PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and ADAMS, [*] JJ.
Case Date:March 27, 1973
Court:Court of Appeals of Michigan

Page 176

207 N.W.2d 176 (Mich.App. 1973)

45 Mich.App. 623

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Willie Lee WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 13335.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 27, 1973

Released for Publication May 15, 1973.

Page 177

[45 Mich.App. 624] Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, App. Div., Robert A. Reuther, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before V. J. BRENNAN, P.J., and T. M. BURNS and ADAMS, [*] JJ.

ADAMS, Judge.

Statement of Facts

At about 1:45 a.m. on June 3, 1971, defendant's car was stopped on Calvert Street in the City of Detroit for disregarding a flashing red signal. Defendant was the driver and Miss Toni Roberson was a passenger. A police officer asked defendant for his driver's license. Williams emerged from the car, reached into his back pocket, and his jacket opened. The officer saw the top portion of an apparently empty gun holster. The policeman handcuffed defendant, searched his automobile, and discovered a handgun under the front seat on the driver's side.

[45 Mich.App. 625] Defendant was subsequently arraigned on an information charging him with carrying a pistol in a motor vehicle without a license (M.C.L.A. § 750.227; M.S.A. § 28.424), was convicted by jury, and now appeals as of right.

Issue I

Was the gun illegally seized from under the front seat of defendant's vehicle?

At his preliminary examination, the gun seized from defendant's automobile was introduced into evidence over defense counsel's objection to the legality of the search and seizure. Defendant later unsuccessfully sought to quash the information on similar grounds, and now contends

Page 178

that the examining magistrate based his finding of probable cause upon the allegedly illegally seized handgun.

At the time the policeman observed defendant standing outside of his vehicle with an empty holster, he had probable cause to believe that the felony of possessing an unlicensed pistol in a motor vehicle had been committed or was in the process of being committed. The resulting search and seizure were legal. Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 90 S.Ct. 1975, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970). The magistrate did not err in binding defendant over for trial.

Issue II

Was it...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP