People v. Daniels

• Decision Date: 23 April 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 18629,No. 1,1
• Citation: 60 Mich.App. 458,231 N.W.2d 386
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 386

231 N.W.2d 386

60 Mich.App. 458

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert DANIELS, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 18629.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

April 23, 1975.

Released for Publication July 24, 1975.

Carl Ziemba, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Div., John L. Thompson, Jr., Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before ALLEN, P.J., and McGREGOR and CAVANAGH, JJ.

McGREGOR, Judge.

Defendant was charged with the offense of armed robbery, M.C.L.A. § 750.529; M.S.A. 28.797. At a jury trial, on September 17 and October 1, 1973, in Detroit Recorder's Court, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced; he now appeals as of right.

Defendant first contends that the trial court committed reversible error in denying his motion to suppress items seized at the time of his arrest, on grounds that the arrest was made without probable cause.

From a careful and detailed analysis of the evidence, this appears to be a close question and the most meritorious of defendant's three allegations of error.

From the record it is evident that the Felony Prevention Department of the Detroit Police, commonly called 'STRESS', received a telephone call from an unidentified person. Officer Virgil Starkey took the call; the caller told him that 'if you want the guys that is pulling the gas-station (sic) and posing as gas officers, they are on Ferguson'. Starkey testified that the caller stated that the house was near Keeler on Ferguson; in addition, the caller said that the suspects drove a late-model, leased, beige Plymouth Duster, license number JGP855. The officer did not ask for the basis of this information, nor did he obtain the identity of the caller.

The police found the automobile described in front of the address of 15757 Ferguson, about one block from the intersection of Keeler and Ferguson Streets. A police observation of this address was then commenced.

At some point during the surveillance, Officer Starkey contacted two informants who had given him information previously; both these informants were known to the officer, one had been used for information 'extensively', while the other had been used occasionally. Both informants gave the officer similar information, naming names, describing 'two white boys', and 'several other black males'. Defendant's name was not mentioned. The informants also told Officer Starkey that these persons lived near Puritan and Ferguson, and drove a beige Duster. In addition, the modus operandi of the robberies was described--that the robbers posed as gas-men and police officers in order to gain entrance. Later, the informants described the two white males involved. One was 'about 6 foot, long blond hair with a thin beard or goatee. He also weighed about 180, or 180 to 190'. The second male was described by one of the informants as a 'white male approximately 25 years of age, long blond or brown hair, light brown hair, approximately 150'. One of the informants based his statements on personal knowledge gained at a party, where he had heard the named suspects boast of the robberies. In response to questions by the trial judge, Officer Starkey related two specific instances in which information given to the officer by the informant based on his personal knowledge had been found to be accurate. Also, Officer Starkey testified that both informants were reliable and both had given information to him previously upon which other arrests had been made.

Officer Starkey further testified that he had consulted the 'preliminary complaint reports in the detective division concerning holdups involving persons posing as police officers or gas-men. From these sources, he compiled seven or eight descriptions and kept copies with him at the stake-out. He further testified that, during the surveillance, no independent evidence of criminal activity was collected. However, persons who fitted the description compiled by the police were seen leaving and entering the house. Officer Starkey testified that the police were waiting until all of the suspects were present before making the arrests.

Further, the officer testified, on March 16, 1973, the police officers decided to make their move: on that date, a Pontiac automobile was in the driveway, and two black males and one white male were seen entering the automobile; the white male fitted the description received from the informant and also derived from the police reports; Officer Starkey recited the details of that description as he testified. A black male who fitted one of the descriptions was already in the driver's seat; Officer Starkey again remembered the description and recited it from the police records.

At this time, a third black male, this defendant, was standing at the rear of the car, cleaning the window. The police approached the driveway, but did not reach it before the Pontiac automobile drove off. A spotlight was shone on the Pontiac and three patrolmen jumped out of the police car. At least one of these patrolmen was in plainclothes. This defendant ran into the house and, Officer Starkey testified, when the police vehicle came to a stop in front of the Pontiac, the other black male dropped a gun into the Pontiac.

Officer Starkey chased this defendant into the house; he testified that he had a description in his mind while in this pursuit, but could not remember the exact description during his testimony. He explained that at the time of the arrest he had been reviewing the copies of the descriptions nightly so it was then fresh in his mind; when questioned concerning the preliminary complaint reports, he admitted that only one written description contained therein fitted the defendant: 'Black male, slim-built, medium complexion, large Afro, small mustache.' Under the exigency of the circumstances, Officer Starkey chased the defendant upstairs and arrested him in one of the bedrooms on the second floor.

When the officer entered the bedroom to arrest the defendant, he observed a shotgun on the bed, next to some coats; he knew a shotgun had been taken in the robberies but did not know whether this was that particular gun. He also viewed a large-cluster diamond ring, which matched descriptions of a stolen ring, on the dresser in the room. He did not have to go closer to observe it. Police officers then searched the whole house and found more coats and guns and television sets.

The officers had probable cause to make a valid arrest if, at that moment, the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man believing that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense. People v. Wolfe, 5 Mich.App. 543, 147 N.W.2d 447 (1967).

Defendant moved to suppress the information concerning these items of stolen property on the ground that his arrest was without probable cause. The trial court ruled that the evidence was admissible. Specifically, the following items were admitted into evidence: (1) a 12-gauge shotgun (seen on the bed), (2) a fur coat (seen in the hallway), (3) a television set, which was seized in the living room. The last two of these items were identified by Harbert Washington, one of the robbery victims, as his property.

When only an informant's information is involved, two requirements exist: first, the police officer should have a basis for finding that informant to be reliable, and second, the police officer should be informed of some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant drew his conclusion. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964), McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300, 87 S.Ct. 1056, 18 L.Ed.2d 62, Reh. den., 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1474, 18 L.Ed.2d 616 (1967).

The testimony of the two informants was sufficient to support a finding of probable cause with respect to some of the suspects. One informant testified from personal knowledge as to the statements made by the suspects concerning their involvement in the robberies. In addition, these informants had proven to be reliable in the past. There was sufficient probable cause to arrest those identified. In addition to the evidence which links this defendant to the crime was his flight from the scene of the arrest and the description which Officer Starkey had obtained from the police...