People v. Bressler, No. 124.
Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
Writing for the Court | McDONALD |
Citation | 194 N.W. 559,223 Mich. 597 |
Decision Date | 19 July 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 124. |
Parties | PEOPLE v. BRESSLER. |
223 Mich. 597
194 N.W. 559
PEOPLE
v.
BRESSLER.
No. 124.
Supreme Court of Michigan.
July 19, 1923.
Error to Circuit Court, Calhoun County; Walter H. North, Judge.
Frank Bressler was convicted under an information charging him with unlawfully transporting and having in his possession intoxicating liquors, and brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before WIEST, C. J., and FELLOWS, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, and STEERE, JJ.
[194 N.W. 559]
D. G. F. Warner, of Lansing, for appellant.
Clyde C. Cortright, Pros. Atty., of Marshall, and Andrew W. Lockton, Asst. Pros. Atty., of Battle Creek, for the People.
McDONALD, J.
Frank Bressler was convicted in the Calhoun circuit court under an information charging him with unlawfully transporting and having in his possession certain intoxicating liquors.
At the time of his arrest the defendant was living with his family at 106 Third street in the city of Battle Creek, Mich. Two officers of the Battle Creek police department were set out by the chief to look for a couple of automobiles, one of which belonged to the defendant. About 10 o'clock in the evening they secreted themselves in an alley near defendant's home. A young man came by having in his possession an empty bottle. When accosted, he told them he was on his way to buy some liquor; that he could get it at three places, one of which was defendant's; and that defendant was in the habit of bringing the liquor home in his automobile. After receiving this information, they waited for the defendant. The officer who made the arrest testifies:
‘We kept this boy there all the time, probably 40 minutes, when we saw this defendant drive into his yard with an automobile, and
[194 N.W. 560]
this man that was with us says, ‘that man drives in there with it now,’ so we goes over and places this man under arrest. I am the man who told him he was under arrest. I said, ‘You are under arrest.’ We placed him under arrest by reason of instructions that we had from our chief to look out for these cars, and from the information furnished by the man that was with us, for the violation of the liquor law or prohibition law. Respondent was in his car when we told him he was under arrest. He didn't say anything.'
The order officer testified:
‘Q. What did you say to him? A. Merely told him that he was under arrest and to come to the station with us.
‘Q. Did you make a search? A. No, sir.
‘Q. What was done then? A. Well, we ordered him to drive us to the station. Officer Hensley got into the front seat with him. I got into the rear seat. As I got into the rear seat I saw a container in the automobile, a one-gallon jug. We made no search for it at all. It was there in plain sight. On the way to the station he wanted a drink and wouldn't drive any further, but we induced him to go to the station, and we gave him in charge of Chief of Police Fonda.’
At the station the chief searched the automobile and, in addition to the gallon jug of whisky, found two quart jars also containing whisky, packed away in the rear of the car. The liquor and automobile were retained, and a warrant duly issued.
When arraigned, the defendant stood mute, and a plea of not guilty was entered for him by order of the court. The questions relied on by the defense were preserved by timely and appropriate motions, objections, and exceptions. Before the jury was impaneled, a motion to quash was made and denied. A motion was also made for the suppression of the evidence obtained by searching the automobile, and for the return of the property, including the liquor, to the defendant. These motions were denied. A motion for a directed verdict was disposed of in a similar manner. No testimony was offered by the defense. After the jury had returned a verdict of guilty the defendant, by his counsel, made a motion in arrest of judgment, and the court again determined the legal questions involved adversely to him.
The first question presented by the record is stated by counsel as follows:
‘The court erred in not granting the motion of the respondent which was made and filed prior to the impaneling of the jury, which motion was to the effect that the place where the alleged liquor was obtained and taken from was the respondent's private property, his automobile, which automobile at the time was upon his own premises, and that the same was seized and taken without any search warrant and against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Quock, 6757.
...where probable cause was held to exist under circumstances no stronger, if as strong, as those here, are: People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 194 N. W. 559;People v. Ward, 226 Mich. 45, 196 N. W. 971; Jenkins v. State, supra; State v. Kittle, 137 Wash. 173, 241 P. 962;State v. Jenkins, 195 N......
-
State v. Hum Quock, 6757.
...where probable cause was held to exist under circumstances no stronger, if as strong, as those here, are: People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 194 N.W. 559; People v. Ward, 226 Mich. 45, 196 N.W. 971; Jenkins v. State, supra; State v. Kittle, 137 Wash. 173, 241 P. 962; State v. Jenkins, 195 N......
-
People v. Panknin, 684
...The rule concerning lawful arrest of a person for a felony without a warrant is set forth in the case of People v. Bressler (1923) 223 Mich. 597, on pp. 600, 601, 194 N.W. 559, on p. 560, wherein Mr. Justice McDonald stated as 'An officer may arrest without warrant in cases of felony upon i......
-
People v. Hamilton, Docket No. 118615.
...facts creating probable cause of guilt.'" People v. Panknin, 4 Mich.App. 19, 27, 143 N.W.2d 806 (1966), quoting People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 600-601, 194 N.W. 559 (1923), paraphrasing People v. Burt., 51 638 N.W.2d 96 Mich. 199, 202, 16 N.W. 378 (1883). Here, the officer only had prob......
-
State v. Quock, 6757.
...where probable cause was held to exist under circumstances no stronger, if as strong, as those here, are: People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 194 N. W. 559;People v. Ward, 226 Mich. 45, 196 N. W. 971; Jenkins v. State, supra; State v. Kittle, 137 Wash. 173, 241 P. 962;State v. Jenkins, 195 N......
-
State v. Hum Quock, 6757.
...where probable cause was held to exist under circumstances no stronger, if as strong, as those here, are: People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 194 N.W. 559; People v. Ward, 226 Mich. 45, 196 N.W. 971; Jenkins v. State, supra; State v. Kittle, 137 Wash. 173, 241 P. 962; State v. Jenkins, 195 N......
-
People v. Panknin, 684
...The rule concerning lawful arrest of a person for a felony without a warrant is set forth in the case of People v. Bressler (1923) 223 Mich. 597, on pp. 600, 601, 194 N.W. 559, on p. 560, wherein Mr. Justice McDonald stated as 'An officer may arrest without warrant in cases of felony upon i......
-
People v. Hamilton, Docket No. 118615.
...facts creating probable cause of guilt.'" People v. Panknin, 4 Mich.App. 19, 27, 143 N.W.2d 806 (1966), quoting People v. Bressler, 223 Mich. 597, 600-601, 194 N.W. 559 (1923), paraphrasing People v. Burt., 51 638 N.W.2d 96 Mich. 199, 202, 16 N.W. 378 (1883). Here, the officer only had prob......