People v. Orlando, 76.
| Decision Date | 07 June 1943 |
| Docket Number | No. 76.,76. |
| Citation | 9 N.W.2d 893,305 Mich. 686 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. ORLANDO et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Charles Orlando and another were convicted of possessing and placing a stench bomb in a theater, and they appeal.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Donald Van Zile, judge.
Before the Entire Bench.
Seddon L. Etherton and Michael McNamara, both of Detroit, for defendants and appellants.
Herbert J. Rushton, Atty. Gen., Edmund E. Shepherd, Sol Gen., of Lansing, and William E. Dowling, Pros. Atty., and
Henrietta E. Rosenthal, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Detroit, for the People.
Defendants were tried and convicted of a violation of sections 209 and 210 of Act No. 328, Pub.Acts 1931. They were charged with possessing and placing a ‘stench bomb’ in the Center Theater in Detroit, Michigan.
On the evening of May 9, 1940, a ‘stench bomb’ had been released in the Center Theatre. A police officer was called and a search of the theater was made. Charles Orlando was apprehended and arrested in the theater and Charles Parise was apprehended about a block away from the theater, brought back to the theater and there placed under arrest. Both defendants were taken to a police station and searched. On the person of Charles Parise, a certificate title and a certificate of registration of a motor vehicle, the license number of which was BP–3731, were found. When asked about the car, Charles Parise stated that the car belonged to a friend of his. Police officers were asked to locate the car and the same was found unlocked, about one block from the theater. The officer who located the car noticed a package lying on the back seat. The package contained a stench bomb. The fluid found in both stench bombs was amonium valeriate.
Defendants appeal and allege that it was error on the part of the trial court to admit evidence of the ownership of the car with license No. BP–3731 and of the substance found in the car. They also urge that it was error to search and seize the car without a search warrant.
The principal question involved in this case relates to the search and seizure of the automobile and the package contained therein, without a search warrant. The solution of this question is closely associated with the question of the legality of the arrest of both defendants.
Section 17149, 3 Comp.Laws 1929, Act No. 84, Pub.Acts 1935, Comp.Law 1940 Supp. § 17149 (Stat.Ann. § 28.874), reads in part:
‘Any peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person—* * *
‘(c) When a felony in fact has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed it.’
In People v. Licavoli, 245 Mich. 202, 222 N.W. 102, we said: ‘The rule is pretty well settled that, if an officer believes, and has good reason to believe, that one has committed a felony, or is committing a felony in his presence, he has probable cause, as the term is used, and may arrest without a warrant and search him before confining him to jail.’
Whether an officer has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested committed a felony must depend upon the situation in the particular case. In the case at bar, defendant Charles Parise was seen to enter the theater with Charles Orlando and was seen to leave the theater after coming up from the lavatory. Defendant Charles Orlando was apprehended in the lavatory where the stench bomb was found in the toilet. Upon each of the defendants, there was an odor similar to that of the stench bomb. In our opinion, the arresting officer had good reason to believe that both defendants were involved in the placing of the stench bomb in the theater. The arrests were legal.
The next question relates to the search and seizure of the automobile and its contents. It is to be noted that in deciding this question, we have in mind that the ‘search and seizure’ took place after the defendants were arrested and in the custody of the police officers. After the defendants were arrested, they were searched. On the person of Charles Parise were found the papers relating to the ownership of the car in question.
The rule regarding search and seizure is well stated in People v. Miller, 245 Mich. 115, 222 N.W. 151, 152, where we said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Winkle v. Bannan, 58
...seizure without warrant. People v. Licavoli, 245 Mich. 202, 222 N.W. 102; People v. Miller, 245 Mich. 115, 222 N.W. 151; People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 9 N.W.2d 896; Scher v. United States, 305 U.S. 251, 59 S.Ct. 174, 83 L.Ed. 151; * * *.'To same effect see Carroll v. United States, 267 ......
-
People ex rel. Roth v. Younger
...offense has been or is being committed. A like view of the reasonableness of a search without a warrant is reflected in People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 9 N.W.2d 893; People v. Nappo, 251 Mich. 89, 231 N.W. 130; People v. Absher, 240 Mich. 107, 214 N.W. 954, and in People v. Goss, 246 Mich......
-
People v. Armendarez
...Shabaz, 424 Mich. 42, 52, 378 N.W.2d 451 (1985), cert. dis. 478 U.S. 1017, 106 S.Ct. 3326, 92 L.Ed.2d 733 (1986); People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 690, 9 N.W.2d 893 (1943). Therefore, the touchstone of a reviewing court's Fourth Amendment analysis is always "the reasonableness in all the c......
-
People v. Snider
...on its reasonableness. Vernonia School Dist. v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995); People v. Orlando, 305 Mich. 686, 690, 9 N.W.2d 893 (1943); People v. Armendarez, 188 Mich.App. 61, 66, 468 N.W.2d 893 (1991). "Generally, a search conducted without a warrant i......