People v. Burdo, Docket No. 17898
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan (US) |
| Writing for the Court | VanVALKENBURG |
| Citation | 56 Mich.App. 48,223 N.W.2d 358 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,Docket No. 17898 |
| Decision Date | 08 October 1974 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronald A. BURDO, Defendant-Appellee |
Page 358
v.
Ronald A. BURDO, Defendant-Appellee.
Released for Publication Nov. 21, 1974.
Page 359
[56 Mich.App. 49] Russell W. Schmidt, City Atty., Wayne, for plaintiff-appellant.
James L. Steffen, Tinkham, Snyder, MacDonald & Wilder, Wayne, for defendant-appellee.
Before BRONSON, P.J., and QUINN and VanVALKENBURG,* JJ.
VanVALKENBURG, Judge.
The factual basis of this appeal is not in dispute. On April 20, 1971, at approximately 12:15 a.m., defendant Burdo's automobile ran into the rear of the automobile operated by one Glen Tapis as that automobile was stopped for a red light at the intersection of Sims Street and Wayne Road in the City of Wayne. The police were summoned and about five minutes later a City of Wayne patrolman arrived to take the accident report. The officer observed defendant at the scene and asked him if he had been driving the vehicle to which the officer received an affirmative[56 Mich.App. 50] reply. The officer observed that defendant was unsteady on his feet, his speech was slurred and his breath smelled of intoxicants. After taking the accident report, the officer announced that defendant was under arrest for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquors.
Defendant was then taken to the police station, which was located some 150 feet from the scene of the accident. At the station defendant was given the statutorily required warning of his rights with respect to the taking of a Breathalyzer test, after which defendant indicated that he would take the Breathalyzer test. The test resulted in a reading of .24%.
Prior to trial in the district court defense counsel moved to suppress the Breathalyzer results on the ground that the officer's arrest of defendant for a misdemeanor not committed in his presence and without a warrant was illegal. Counsel argued that since the arrest was illegal the Breathalyzer
Page 360
results must be excluded. The motion was denied by the district court judge. At the trial Mr. Tapis identified defendant as the driver of the automobile that struck him. Both Tapis and the officer testified that defendant appeared to be intoxicated. The officer who administered the Breathalyzer test testified as to the results, over the objection of defense counsel. The jury thereafter returned a verdict of guilty of driving under the influence of an intoxicating liquor. Defendant's motion for a new trial was denied by the district court.Defendant appealed to Wayne Circuit Court alleging error in the admission of the Breathalyzer results. The circuit court judge reversed defendant's conviction, concluding that the arrest was unlawful and that the evidence should have been suppressed. From that opinion and order of the circuit court, the people appeal on leave granted.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McKay, No. S091421.
...1142, 1144-1146] [refusing to suppress a photograph taken following an arrest that was illegal under state law]; People v. Burdo (1974) 56 Mich.App. 48 [223 N.W.2d 358, 360] ["defendant's arrest was not constitutionally invalid, but rather merely statutorily illegal; therefore the per se ex......
-
People v. Dyla
...Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-709, supra; State v. Allen, 2 Ohio App.3d 441, 442 N.E.2d 784, 786, supra; People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 223 N.W.2d 358, 360-361). The right of a misdemeanant to be arrested only upon a warrant where his crime took place outside the presence of......
-
People v. Brooks, Docket No. 58734
...the requisite acts. 5 Ross v. Leggett, 61 Mich. 445, 449, 28 N.W. 695 (1886). See also People v. Bartz, supra. 6 See People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 51, 223 N.W.2d 358 (1974); Gallagher v. Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 59 Mich.App. 269, 272, 229 N.W.2d 410 7 M.C.L. § 764.15; M.S.A. §......
-
State v. Johnson, No. 10015
...1237 (W.D.Mo.1984) (violation of conservation laws). A number of state courts have come to the same conclusion. See People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 51, 223 N.W.2d 358 (1974) (driving under the influence); Bucyrus v. Williams, 46 Ohio App.3d 43, 45, 545 N.E.2d 1298 (1988) (driving under th......
-
People v. Brooks, Docket No. 58734
...the requisite acts. 5 Ross v. Leggett, 61 Mich. 445, 449, 28 N.W. 695 (1886). See also People v. Bartz, supra. 6 See People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 51, 223 N.W.2d 358 (1974); Gallagher v. Secretary of State (On Rehearing), 59 Mich.App. 269, 272, 229 N.W.2d 410 7 M.C.L. § 764.15; M.S.A. §......
-
People v. Dyla
...Eubanks, 283 N.C. 556, 196 S.E.2d 706, 708-709, supra; State v. Allen, 2 Ohio App.3d 441, 442 N.E.2d 784, 786, supra; People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 223 N.W.2d 358, 360-361). The right of a misdemeanant to be arrested only upon a warrant where his crime took place outside the presence of......
-
People v. McKay, S091421.
...1142, 1144-1146] [refusing to suppress a photograph taken following an arrest that was illegal under state law]; People v. Burdo (1974) 56 Mich.App. 48 [223 N.W.2d 358, 360] ["defendant's arrest was not constitutionally invalid, but rather merely statutorily illegal; therefore the per se ex......
-
State v. Johnson, 10015
...1237 (W.D.Mo.1984) (violation of conservation laws). A number of state courts have come to the same conclusion. See People v. Burdo, 56 Mich.App. 48, 51, 223 N.W.2d 358 (1974) (driving under the influence); Bucyrus v. Williams, 46 Ohio App.3d 43, 45, 545 N.E.2d 1298 (1988) (driving under th......