People v. Beachman

• Decision Date: 02 July 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 78-3941
• Citation: 296 N.W.2d 305,98 Mich.App. 544
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold Eugene BEACHMAN, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 305

296 N.W.2d 305

98 Mich.App. 544

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arnold Eugene BEACHMAN, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 78-3941.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

July 2, 1980.

Released for Publication Sept. 24, 1980.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., E. Reilly Wilson, App. Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Anne B. Wetherholt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.

Milton R. Henry, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before CAVANAGH, P. J., and MAHER and WALSH, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was charged with possession of heroin with intent to deliver in violation of M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). Defendant was bound over for trial following a preliminary examination on June 9, 1978. Thereafter, defendant moved to suppress the evidence. A suppression hearing was conducted on June 19, 1978, in Detroit Recorder's Court. The trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and discharged the defendant. The People appeal from this ruling as of right.

At the preliminary examination, Detroit Police Officer Woodrow Horne testified that on May 14, 1978, he received the following tip from an unidentified informant:

"He told me a black male was selling heroin in the lobby of 14 Charlotte. I asked him for a description and he gave me a black male about twenty-eight years old, 5'10 , 140 to 150 pounds, wearing a gray jacket, green shirt, red print-type pants, and also stated that the drugs would be in his waistband of his pants."

Officer Horne characterized his informant as "reliable" because of six prior tips received from him, five resulted in arrests, two ultimately resulted in convictions, and two cases were yet pending. In addition, Officer Horne testified that 14 Charlotte is a residence hotel which is a known site of narcotics sales.

Ten minutes after receiving the tip, Officer Horne arrived at the hotel. The door to the hotel was locked. Officer Horne knocked on the door and was admitted by one Ladonne Towns. Towns was not the manager of the hotel, and Officer Horne did not know whether Towns was a guest of the hotel. Towns gave his address as 2454 Glynn Court. Officer Horne stated that he had known this man to live at 14 Charlotte.

When he entered the lobby, Officer Horne observed that defendant fit the description in that he wore a gray jacket, green shirt and plaid pants. Defendant was with a female. Officer Horne approached the defendant, identified himself, placed him under arrest for violation of the controlled substance act, then lifted up his shirt and discovered two bundles of six coin envelopes, each containing suspected heroin. Officer Horne opened one pack which contained an off-white powder. The bundles were later analyzed and found to contain 5.2 grams of heroin.

Officer Horne had obtained no warrant prior to the arrest. He could not see the defendant until after he had entered the building and did not actually observe the defendant selling heroin.

At the suppression hearing, the defendant testified that, at the date of his arrest, he had been sharing a room at the hotel with a friend. He did not invite the officer to enter the hotel. Someone named Ladonne told him that the officer had brushed past him through the door as Ladonne was leaving the hotel. After defendant was arrested in the lobby, the officer searched him and took the packages of suspected heroin.

At the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the description provided by the informant, which omitted any mention of defendant's distinctive facial hair, was not sufficiently distinctive, that the police were not entitled to rely on the informant without further investigation to ascertain that defendant was the correct person and that the police lacked probable cause to enter a private dwelling to make the arrest.

The first issue to be resolved on appeal is whether the arresting officer, acting on information supplied by the informant, had probable cause to arrest the defendant herein.

Evidence derived from an informant will not, by itself, constitute probable cause for a warrantless arrest unless: (1) the police have reason to believe the information is reliable, and (2) the police are informed of the underlying circumstances upon which the informant based his conclusion. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); People v. Hoerl, 88 Mich.App. 693, 700, 278 N.W.2d 721 (1979). In Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), the United States Supreme Court explained that the tip must describe the accused's criminal activity in sufficient detail to ensure that it was more than a "casual rumor circulating in the underworld or an accusation based on the individual's general reputation". In McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62 (1967), the Court stated that one recognized method of establishing the trustworthiness of the informant is a disclosure that the informant has provided information on past occasions which later proved to be correct upon investigation.

If an informant remains anonymous, there is no way to assess his reliability based on past experience. The Spinelli court said that the veracity of an anonymous informant can be established extrinsically, by corroborating certain parts of the information given by independent sources.

In People v. Walker, 401 Mich. 572, 259 N.W.2d 1 (1977), an anonymous tipster told the police officer that defendant had just driven to Detroit to pick up "a load of dope" and would return to Benton Harbor in approximately 5 hours. The informant stated that defendant would be riding in one of two automobiles, which he then described in detail, and would be riding with two women. Finally, the tipster said that defendant would be going to 668 Superior Street upon his return to Benton Harbor. The Michigan Supreme Court held that this information was sufficiently detailed to warrant the inference that it was obtained in a reliable manner and was more substantial than a "casual rumor". The Court also found that the police working independently, had traced the registration of one of the described vehicles to a woman living at the specified address on Superior Street, and had seen the other described car parked in the driveway, which was sufficient to corroborate the reliability of the informant.

In the case at bar, there was no need for independent corroboration of the information given, since the tipster was not anonymous, but had provided reliable information six times in the past. See People v. Greer, 91 Mich.App. 18, 23, 282 N.W.2d 819 (1979); People v. Tooks, 403 Mich. 568, 586, 271 N.W.2d 503 (1978) (dissenting opinion).

In People v. Greer, supra, the informant telephoned the police officer with information that he had just observed the defendant selling heroin at Duke's Playhouse Bar. He described defendant as a 36-year-old black male wearing a brown hat, brown jacket, white sweater and blue jeans and was known to the informant as Steel Bill Greer. The officer arrived at the bar within ten minutes of receiving the tip. The defendant fit this description perfectly. The officer stopped him, asked his name, and placed him under arrest. He then searched the defendant and found coin envelopes containing heroin. This informant had provided reliable information five times in the past. This Court upheld the warrantless arrest, finding that it had satisfied the two-pronged test for probable cause. The Greer court found further that the trial court had erred in concluding otherwise and dismissing the case in mid-trial.

We conclude that the trial court in the instant case erred in concluding that there was no probable cause to arrest the defendant where a known and reliable informant supplied a detailed description of the defendant and of the offense he had observed being committed. The fact that the informant omitted any mention of defendant's facial hair does not invalidate his otherwise distinctive description.

The second allegation of error raised by the People involves the legality of the arresting officer's warrantless entry into the locked residence hotel in order to arrest the defendant.

The United States Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the "physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed". United States v. United States Dist. Court for Eastern Dist. of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297, 313, 92 S.Ct. 2125, 2134, 32 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972). There is a basic presumption that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are per se unreasonable, absent exigent circumstances. Coolidge v. New...