People v. Casey

• Decision Date: 04 May 1981
• Docket Number: No. 66445,66445
• Citation: 305 N.W.2d 247,411 Mich. 179
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edal Leslie CASEY, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 247

305 N.W.2d 247

411 Mich. 179

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Edal Leslie CASEY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 66445.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 4, 1981.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Atty., Appeals, and Don W. Atkins, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.

Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case we encounter a so-called "reverse writ" proceeding. Apparently, the procedure is usually a brief hearing at which the police or the prosecutor seek judicial approval for the continued detention of a citizen when, for want of probable cause, no warrant has been issued. ¹ For the reasons herein stated, we hold that reverse writ proceedings are without legal effect and may not be employed to justify the detention of a citizen.

I

Defendant was convicted by a jury in Recorder's Court of armed robbery, M.C.L. § 750.529; M.S.A. § 28.797, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, M.C.L. § 750.227b; M.S.A. § 28.424(2). After the Court of Appeals granted a motion to affirm, we returned the case to that Court for plenary consideration. People v. Casey, 408 Mich. 935 (1980). The Court of Appeals then reversed the convictions, ruling that the defendant had been illegally arrested and that a pair of inculpatory statements made by the defendant must be suppressed. People v. Casey, 102 Mich.App. 595, 302 N.W.2d 248 (1980). ² The Court of Appeals wrote that "the record clearly shows a causal connection between the tainted arrest and the confession" and that "(n)o intervening circumstances existed which would make either * * * (statement) admissible".

II

In plaintiff's application to this Court, it is urged that "an intervening event of significance did, in fact, occur; namely, the issuance of a 'reverse writ' * * * which is an independent determination by a judicial officer (t)o permit continued detention". Thus, in the plaintiff's view, defendant's statements should be admissible upon retrial.

We disagree that the reverse writ proceeding which occurred in this case is "an intervening event of significance". It is a nullity. Its constitutional and statutory bases cannot be examined for it has none.

The United States Supreme Court has properly labelled the writ of habeas corpus "the Great Writ". Darr v. Burford, 339 U.S. 200, 203, 70 S.Ct. 587, 589, 94 L.Ed. 761 (1950). That Court has written,

"It must never be forgotten that the writ of habeas corpus is the precious safeguard of personal liberty and there is no higher duty than to maintain it unimpaired." Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U.S. 19, 26, 59 S.Ct. 442, 445, 83 L.Ed. 455 (1939).

We will not allow the writ to be utilized as an instrument for a citizen's detention rather than his release. ³

The principles governing the detention of a citizen may be located in a host of constitutional, statutory, and judicial sources; whether a citizen is being legally or illegally held is a determination which must be made by reference to those principles. We today neither add to nor subtract from that body of law. A detention which is otherwise illegal is not cleansed of its illegality by the issuance of a reverse writ or by the pendency of such proceedings.

Accordingly, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. GCR 1963, 853.2(4).

COLEMAN, C. J., FITZGERALD, Deputy C. J., and MOODY, LEVIN, KAVANAGH, WILLIAMS and RYAN, JJ., concur.

1 The Court of Appeals described the reverse writ procedure as one in which "the local police seek judicial approval for extended detention of a suspect without the issuance of a warrant". In People v. Antonio Johnson, 85...