People v. Bules, 136.
| Decision Date | 20 March 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 136.,136. |
| Citation | 234 Mich. 335,207 N.W. 818 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. BULES. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Ottawa County; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Andrew Bules was convicted of violating the prohibition law and he excepts before sentence. Conviction reversed, and the defendant discharged.
Argued before BIRD, C. J., and SHARPE, SNOW, STEERE, FELLOWS, WIEST, CLARK, and McDONALD, JJ.Willard G. Turner, Jr., of Muskegon, for appellant.
Fred T. Miles, Pros. Atty., of Holland, for the People.
Defendant, by exceptions before sentence, brings for review his conviction of a violation of the prohibition law.
Under a search warrant his home was entered by officers, and whisky and whisky mash seized. Before trial he moved suppression of the evidence so seized, claiming the warrant was void. This motion was denied, and at the trial the liquor and the warrant went in evidence.
The part of the search warrant material here was as follows:
‘Whereas there has been filed with the undersigned an affidavit that intoxicating liquors are being manufactured, possessed, sold, furnished, and given away contrary to law, and are now concealed contrary to law in a dwelling house, farm and farm buildings, building situate upon premises described as east one-half of the northwest one-quarter of section 23, range 15 west, town 7 north, which said building is occupied by one Andrew Bules, and is a private dwelling, occupied as such, that said dwelling house is a place of public resort where moonshine whisky is manufactured, stored, possessed, sold, and given away; and whereas it appears to me by the said affidavit that there is reasonable cause for such belief by the affiant.’
Then followed the command to search and seize. This warrant was void on its face, for omission to recite the material facts alleged in the affidavit upon which it was based. People v. Moten, 206 N. W. 506, 233 Mich. 169. That case is readily available, and we need not repeat what we there said.
The mandate of the statute is clear, that the material facts alleged in the affidavit for the warrant shall be recited in the warrant, and the Legislature even took the pains to set out a form, in which it directed the user to (‘Here set out the material facts alleged in the affidavit’).
The warrant neither states facts alleged in the affidavit, nor does it carry the affidavit along with and as a part of the warrant. The law cannot be made plainer, and is but expressive of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sobczak-Obetts
...].10 The conviction must therefore be set aside and defendant discharged. [Moten, supra at 174, 206 N.W. 506.] In People v. Bules, 234 Mich. 335, 207 N.W. 818 (1926), the search warrant suffered from the same deficiency as that in Moten: It failed to recite the facts set forth in the suppor......
-
People v. Hawkins
...the Court again applied the exclusionary rule to remedy a statutory violation, relying, in part, on Knopka. See also People v. Bules, 234 Mich. 335, 207 N.W. 818 (1926) (reversing a conviction on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of statutory warrant requirements); People v. Galnt......
-
People v. Chapin
...basis for the charge. Id. at 171-173, 206 N.W. 506. See also People v. Galnt, 235 Mich. 646, 209 N.W. 915 (1926), and People v. Bules, 234 Mich. 335, 207 N.W. 818 (1926). Since Moten, the statutes governing the issuance of a search warrant and the contents of the affidavit in support have b......
-
Goodman v. State
... ... Officer Allen ... Clark, has stood in the store in the past week, and seen ... people come in and they would ask the clerk whether or not ... they could go upstairs. Behind the counter ... 24 R.C.L. 711; 13 A.L.R. 1317; People v. Bules, 234 ... Mich. 335, 207 N.W. 818; Hampton v. State, 148 Tenn ... 155, 252 S.W. 1007; Jackson v ... ...