People v. Christiansen

• Decision Date: 02 November 1922
• Docket Number: No. 143.,143.
• Citation: 220 Mich. 506,190 N.W. 236
• Parties: PEOPLE v. CHRISTIANSEN.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

220 Mich. 506

190 N.W. 236

PEOPLE

v.CHRISTIANSEN.

No. 143.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Nov. 2, 1922.

Exceptions from Circuit Court, Muskegon County; Vanderwerp, Judge.

Peter Christiansen was convicted of illegal possession of liquor, and brings exceptions. Affirmed and remanded.

Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ. Willard J. Turner, of Muskegon, for appellant.

Merlin Wiley, Atty. Gen., and Harry W. Jackson, Pros. Atty., and R. Glen Dunn, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Muskegon, for the People.

FELLOWS, C. J.

Defendant was convicted in the Muskegon circuit court of having in his possession prohibited liquor in violation of Act 338, Public Acts 1917, and reviews the case on exceptions before sentence. The officers, armed with a search warrant, searched defendant's room, and there found some moonshine whisky. The search warrant was based on the affidavit of Mr. Yarranton, an investigator employed by the county, who had purchased of defendant a pint of liquor at his room. Nearly all of the questions here involved have been considered and settled by decisions of this court handed down since the briefs in this case were written.

It is insisted that Mr. Yarranton, the investigator, did not have a search warrant when he went to defendant's premises and purchased the liquor of him, and that this fact was an invasion of defendant's constitutional rights, and invalidated the subsequent proceedings. But Mr. Yarranton did not visit defendant's place to search it; he went there as a customer. He did not search for liquor, he bought it. We know of no rule of law which requires that a prospective customer of a bootlegger shall be armed with a search warrant before he opens negotiations for an illicit purchase of prohibited liquors.

As stated the search warrant was based on the affidavit of Mr. Yarranton. He swears positively in the affidavit to facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the justice to issue the writ. He swears that he purchased the liquor of defendant at the premises searched. In the recent case of People v. Czckay, 218 Mich. 660, 188 N. W. 376, we held:

‘The affidavit gave the police judge jurisdiction to issue the writ. This jurisdiction was not lost by proof aliunde that the facts therein positively stated were in reality stated upon information and belief. This is settled by numerous decisions of this court [citing numerous cases.].’

The affidavit conferred jurisdiction on the justice to issue the search warrant; the warrant was fair on its face, there was no error in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained in its execution.

It is next insisted that defendant was induced by the investigator to make the illegal sale, and therefore he should not be convicted. The record discloses that the investigator was a stranger to the defendant; that he went to defendant's place and purchased the liquor without difficulty, that defendant was not tried for making such sale, but was tried and convicted for having liquor in his possession at the time the search warrant was executed. In the recent case of People v. McIntyre (Mich.) 188 N. W. 407, we fully considered a somewhat similar defense. We need only cite that case to demonstrate that this...