People v. Brooks

• Decision Date: 05 November 1980
• Docket Number: Docket No. 45612
• Citation: 300 N.W.2d 582,101 Mich.App. 416
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene BROOKS, Defendant-Appellant. 101 Mich.App. 416, 300 N.W.2d 582
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 582

300 N.W.2d 582

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

Docket No. 45612.

101 Mich.App. 416, 300 N.W.2d 582

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Nov. 5, 1980.

Released for Publication Jan. 29, 1981.

James R. Neuhard, State Appellate Defender, Norris J. Thomas, Jr., Asst. State Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant.

[101 MICHAPP 417] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William A. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Chief Appellate Atty., Asst. Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P. J., and V. J. BRENNAN and T. M. BURNS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted, after a [101 MICHAPP 418] jury trial, of possession with intent to deliver heroin, M.C.L. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). He was sentenced to a prison term of from two to ten years and appeals by right.

Prior to trial, defense counsel moved to suppress heroin, paraphernalia, identification, and other evidence that had been seized pursuant to a search warrant. The sole issue on appeal is whether the warrant affidavit provided a sufficient basis for the issuance of a valid search warrant.

Neither the warrant nor the affidavit in support of the warrant appear in the record before this Court. The warrant was read into the record at trial, however, and it details information from the affidavit. According to this information, a police informant identified only as S.O.I. 471, who had provided the police with reliable information in several narcotics cases, met with Sergeant Joseph Piersante and informed him that heroin could be purchased at the Highland Inn in the City of Highland Park. Piersante accompanied the informant to the motel, searched him, and then issued him marked funds. The informant entered the motel where he met a woman named Luanne, who took him to room 715. Luanne indicated the heroin would be brought up from room 513. After a short period of time, a man named Ronnie arrived with the heroin, saying he had just come from room 513. The heroin was purchased with the marked funds, and the informant reported back to Piersante and turned over the narcotics. Piersante phoned this information to Officer Richard Caretti, who was the actual affiant. A search warrant was issued for room 513 and executed later the same day. The defendant and another were arrested in room 513, and the evidence, which is now challenged, was seized.

[101 MICHAPP 419] The warrant is specifically attacked on the ground that the affidavit did not contain sufficient information to establish probable cause for a search of room 513. As regards room 513, the affidavit contained three levels of hearsay. The first is from Luanne and Ronnie to the informant, the second is from the informant to Piersante, and the third is from Piersante to Caretti, the affiant. This fact alone presents no problem. Hearsay may be properly relied on, Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960), and the same is true of multiple hearsay, People v. Chartrand, 73 Mich.App. 645, 650, 252 N.W.2d 569 (1977), lv. den. 400 Mich. 848 (1977). When hearsay is used, however, the judicial officer being asked to issue the warrant must be supplied with (1) some of the underlying circumstances supporting the conclusion that the object of the search is where it is said to be and (2) some of the underlying circumstances supporting the conclusion that the person supplying the information is reliable. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969), People v. Walker, 401 Mich. 572, 259 N.W.2d 1 (1977).

Although this test of "credibility and reliability" must be applied to each level of hearsay, there is no challenge in the instant case to the credibility or reliability of either Piersante or informant S.O.I. 471. Defendant instead argues there was not a sufficient showing regarding Luanne and Ronnie to justify a finding of probable cause based on their statements regarding room 513.

Applying the first part of the test to the instant case, it becomes clear that the affidavit sufficiently related the underlying circumstances supporting the conclusion that narcotics and other relevant [101 MICHAPP 420] evidence could be found in room 513. The affidavit states that Luanne said the heroin...