People v. Emmert
| Decision Date | 06 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 22661 and 22662 |
| Citation | 255 N.W.2d 757,76 Mich.App. 26 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kip Russell EMMERT, Defendant-Appellant. 76 Mich.App. 26, 255 N.W.2d 757 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[76 MICHAPP 28] Murphy, Neff, Burns & McInerney by Robert C. Timmons, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
[76 MICHAPP 27] Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., David H. Sawyer, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
[76 MICHAPP 28] Before J. H. GILLIS, P. J., and D. E. HOLBROOK and ALLAN C. MILLER, * JJ.
Defendant was found guilty of violating the controlled substances act, M.C.L.A. § 335.341(1)(b); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(b), and M.C.L.A. § 335.341(1) (c); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(c), by possessing with the intent to deliver, phencyclidine (PCP), lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) and amphetamines on the first complaint and possession of marijuana with intent to deliver on the second complaint. Defendant appeals as of right.
Defendant's primary contention on appeal is that the search which resulted in discovery of a substantial quantity of controlled substances was invalid. The search herein was conducted pursuant to a warrant which directed the seizure of "barbiturates, amphetamines and marijuana". Defendant contends that the warrant herein was improperly granted.
The information which served as a basis for this warrant was primarily given by defendant's ex-wife. She supplied information to the police that indicated that their eight-year-old son, Jamie, had spent the weekend with his father, defendant herein. She told police that the boy came home and produced various pills and capsules from his suitcase which he had found in a peanut can at defendant's home. The investigating officers ran tests on some of the suspected narcotics which disclosed them to be amphetamines. Jamie also indicated to his mother that he had observed defendant take pills from the peanut can, put them in plastic bags and deliver them to others. Defendant's ex-wife executed an affidavit for a search warrant before a district court judge, who [76 MICHAPP 29] subsequently authorized issuance of this warrant. Jamie was neither examined or produced by the prosecution. At trial the parties agreed that Jamie should not be called and in lieu of his testimony the affidavit was offered into evidence. Defendant contends that this warrant was improperly based on hearsay information and that, further, the reliability of the informer was inadequately shown.
We find no case directly on point. However, our decision is guided by United States Supreme Court decisions involving sufficiency of warrants. Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108, 84 S.Ct. 1509, 12 L.Ed.2d 723 (1964); United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102, 85 S.Ct. 741, 13 L.Ed.2d 684 (1965); Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410, 89 S.Ct. 584, 21 L.Ed.2d 637 (1969). Numerous decisions of our own Court also have considered similar questions. People v. Iaconis, 29 Mich.App. 443, 185 N.W.2d 609 (1971), aff'd 387 Mich. 431, 196 N.W.2d 767 (1972); People v. Gould, 61 Mich.App. 614, 233 N.W.2d 109 (1975); People v. Rodriguez, 65 Mich.App. 723, 238 N.W.2d 385 (1975); People v. Staffney, 70 Mich.App. 737, 246 N.W.2d 364 (1976); People v. Battle, 71 Mich.App. 136, 246 N.W.2d 389 (1976); People v. Davis, 72 Mich.App. 21, 248 N.W.2d 690 (1976). See M.C.L.A. § 780.653; M.S.A. § 28.1259(3).
The proscription against unreasonable searches is firmly and justifiably entrenched in American jurisprudence. An equally established rule is that the informed and deliberate determinations of a magistrate are greatly preferred over hurried action by police officers. Aguilar v. Texas, supra. Herein, the sufficiency of the warrant was fully considered by a judge. The Court in Aguilar emphasized that when a search is based upon the informed judgment of a judicial officer, reviewing [76 MICHAPP 30] courts should accept evidence of a less judicially competent or persuasive character to justify issuance of a warrant than would be sufficient in the absence of review by a judicial officer. Aguilar, supra, People v. Iaconis, supra. Therefore we will examine what information the reviewing judge was presented with herein.
The affidavit of Mrs. Monfort herein indicated that immediately upon return of her eight-year-old son from defendant's house he produced suspected narcotics from his suitcase. The mother's concerned investigation revealed that defendant was the source of the narcotics. The mother was also available for question by the reviewing judge. The affidavit, which specified the type of narcotics, indicated specifically in the house where such narcotics were to be found. This is not the unsupported type of conclusionary language found invalid in Aguilar or People v. Zoder, 15 Mich.App. 118, 166 N.W.2d 289 (1968).
Further, the information was provided by a known source of information. This is not the unnamed informant as was present in Spinelli, supra, or the professional criminal stool pigeon or criminally disposed type of informant as found in Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307, 79 S.Ct. 329, 3 L.Ed.2d 327 (1959), which are inherently unreliable. The informants herein were ordinary citizens. Defendant has failed to enlighten us as to what he feels is necessary to show that Jamie was a reliable informant. However, the reviewing judge found no reason to inquire further. We have frequently recognized that a commonsense approach must be taken when considering the sufficiency of search warrant affidavits. People v. Iaconis, supra; People v. Gould, supra. See also, Aguilar, supra. Had the reviewing judge seen any necessity for calling [76 MICHAPP 31] eight-year-old Jamie, he could have done so. Absent any showing that Jamie may have been unreliable or had been unreliable in the past or was untruthful we cannot agree with defendant's contention that this warrant was invalid merely because Jamie was not examined by the judge.
The reviewing judge was apprised of facts and circumstances showing the reliability of the persons supplying the information. Not only were the persons named in the affidavit, but, in addition, their relationship to the defendant was set forth. The relationship alone illustrates that they would be in an excellent position to know the truth of what they said. In addition, the detailed information provided further buttressed the showing of reliability. Named citizen informants should not be subjected to the same stringent test of reliability as those persons usually criminally involved or criminally disposed, often referred to as "undisclosed but reliable informants". 1
A commonsense approach reveals that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Powell
...517, 522, 337 N.W.2d 557 (1983), and cases noted therein; People v. Harris, 95 Mich.App. 507, 291 N.W.2d 97 (1980); People v. Emmert, 76 Mich.App. 26, 255 N.W.2d 757 (1977). Because the rape victim was identified by name by an experienced police officer, both the officer and the victim are ......
-
People v. Miller
...were people who admittedly heard rumors and had no unusual or special relationship with any of the defendants. Cf. People v. Emmert, 76 Mich.App. 26, 255 N.W.2d 757 (1977), and discussion in People v. Tooks, 403 Mich. 568, 271 N.W.2d 503 (1978).3 Defendant Miller in his second confession st......
-
People v. O'Brien
...A "common sense" reading of the affidavit supports the district judge's decision to issue the warrant. See, People v. Emmert, 76 Mich.App. 26, 255 N.W.2d 757 (1977). It was not necessary to prove that the evidence would be found, it was sufficient to show the probability of its existence. P......
-
People v. Tooks
...in a decision of the California Court of Appeals and cited as authority by the Michigan Court of Appeals, People v. Emmert, 76 Mich.App. 26, 31, fn. 1, 255 N.W.2d 757 (1977), necessarily lead to the conclusion that the information was neither reliable nor credible. We do not " 'Citizen info......