People v. Falconer
| Decision Date | 20 June 1977 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 29212 |
| Citation | 76 Mich.App. 367,256 N.W.2d 597 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lee FALCONER, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Edward R. Wilson, Appellate Chief, Asst. Pros. Atty., Timothy A. Baughman, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellant.
Joseph P. Zanglin, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before D. E. HOLBROOK, P. J., and BASHARA and WILLIAM F. HOOD, * JJ.
The defendant was charged with possession of heroin with intent to deliver, M.C.L.A. § 335.341(1)(a); M.S.A. § 18.1070(41)(1)(a). After he was bound over for trial, he moved to suppress the heroin based on illegal search and seizure. The motion was granted and the people appeal.
The facts of the defendant's arrest and seizure of the evidence were testified to by the arresting officer who was the only witness at the preliminary examination. The motion to suppress was based upon such testimony.
The officer testified that on the evening of the day in question he was on duty "on observation for narcotics activity" and in a position to see the defendant without being noticed. The officer observed on two occasions unknown males walk up to the defendant and hand him paper money. Each time the defendant walked back to a car, opened the passenger door with a key from his pocket and withdrew from the car a brown manila coin envelope. The officer could not see what was in the envelopes, but he suspected it was heroin.
When the same sequence of events happened a third time, the officer left his place of concealment, arrested the defendant and searched him, but found no weapon or contraband. The officer then removed the car key from defendant's pocket, unlocked the car door and removed a paper bag in which were found ten coin envelopes later identified as containing 5.3 grams of heroin.
There was no testimony that the officer was in possession of any information from any source linking the defendant, any of the persons who approached the defendant, the car, or the locality, with prior narcotics involvement. The sole ground of the arrest and search was the officer's suspicion that the manila coin envelopes contained narcotics. Such suspicion does not constitute probable cause for either the arrest of the defendant or the search of the car. People v. Reeves, 23 Mich.App....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Whitfield
...and reasonable inference to be drawn is that defendant believed that the officer made an offer to purchase a single coin envelope. In People v. Falconer,3 the Court of Appeals ruled that an officer's suspicion that coin envelopes contained narcotics did not constitute probable cause. The of......
-
People v. Nabers
...There was no more than a mere suspicion that defendant was involved in criminal activity and not probable cause. People v. Falconer, 76 Mich.App. 367, 256 N.W.2d 597 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 816 (1977).9 Rehearing denied, 439 U.S. 1122, 99 S.Ct. 1035, 59 L.Ed.2d 83 (1979).10 After Rakas, ......
-
People v. Alfafara
...of the police officer in finding probable cause. With these two facts the Kincaid Court thus distinguished People v. Falconer, 76 Mich.App. 367, 256 N.W.2d 597 (1977), lv. den. 402 Mich. 816 (1977), where this Court found no probable cause. In Julkowski, supra, the Court found probable caus......
-
People v. Young
...circumstance of marijuana smoke in Ridgeway renders it inadequate precedent for plaintiff's position. See also People v. Falconer, 76 Mich.App. 367, 369, 256 N.W.2d 597 (1977), Lv. den. 402 Mich. 816 (1977), holding that a police officer's suspicion that manila coin envelopes, being exchang......