People v. Flowers, Docket No. 8001
| Decision Date | 29 April 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 8001,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 56,23 Mich.App. 523 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
William C. Ibershof, Birmingham, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Thomas G. Plunkett, Jr., Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before R. B. BURNS, P.J., and FITZGERALD and VAN DOMELEN, * JJ.
About 10 a.m. on June 17, 1968, a police officer received information from an unnamed informant concerning the defendant and his use and possession of narcotics. The officer telephoned the defendant's father and thereafter, in the company of another officer, went to the residence of the defendant who lived with his father. The officers advised the father of the information received and requested permission to search for narcotics. The officers testified that the father readily gave his consent to the search and was very cooperative in assisting the officers. The father, however, while not denying that his consent was given, claimed that an illness precluded his complete understanding of the matter and further that he was not fully advised of his rights until after the consent was granted. Testimony also revealed that the narcotics in question were found by the officers in the defendant's bedroom secreted in a speaker. The defendant was a 17 year old youth, attended high school and was being supported by his father. The defendant was not present at the time of the search and the seizure of the narcotics. The defendant filed a motion to suppress, which was denied by the trial court before trial.
Two questions are presented on appeal: 1. Is the defendant's father's consent to search the premises valid? 2. Where the defendant is a 17 year old boy living at home, attending school, and being supported by his parents, can the father effectively consent to a search of the defendant's room?
Defendant's father testified that he was surprised at his son's alleged involvement in drugs, didn't believe it and was not fearful of the officers searching the house because he was convinced they wouldn't find anything. He also testified that he gave the officers permission to conduct a search of his premises. There is no evidence that his physical disabilities interfered in any way with mental power to form a proper judgment.
The father's consent was not only proved by clear and positive testimony, it was admitted. There was no duress or coercion and the consent was unequivocal and specific, freely and intelligently given.
In denying the motion to suppress, the trial court made the following findings:
The present record contains sufficient evidence to support a finding of valid consent. Under the circumstances the discretionary ruling of the trial judge on the issue is not clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1; People v. Walker (1967), 6 Mich.App. 600, 149 N.W.2d 912; People v. Townsend (1969), 17 Mich.App. 267, 269, 169 N.W.2d 357.
The specific problem of parental consent to search a suspected son's room without a warrant is one of first impression in Michigan. Plaintiff contends the relationship of parent-child under the circumstances of this case permits the waiver of the search and seizure privilege by the parent. Defendant contends that consent to an otherwise unlawful search is a personal right which cannot be waived, even by a parent.
The trial court held, 'This coupling of control of the premises with the parental right of control of the adolescent convinces this court that the consent of the father was valid.' Authority for the ruling is found in cases from other jurisdictions: State v. Kinderman (1965), 271...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wagner
...flies in the face of existing Michigan precedent. 2 See, People v. Overall, 7 Mich.App. 153, 151 N.W.2d 225 (1967), People v. Flowers, 23 Mich.App. 523, 179 N.W.2d 56 (1970), lv. den. 384 Mich. 780 (1970), People v. Frank Smith, 43 Mich.App. 400, 204 N.W.2d 308 (1972), People v. Mazzulla, 7......
-
People v. Chism
...officers. The Court of Appeals did not base their decision of the seizure issue on the wife's consent. 19 Following People v. Flowers, 23 Mich.App. 523, 179 N.W.2d 56 (1970) the Court of Appeals stated in Dicta that the wife was an outsider and could not waive the right of a charged party. ......
-
State v. Douglas
...416 U.S. 904, 94 S.Ct. 1608, 40 L.Ed.2d 108 (1974) has since been overruled by the Illinois Supreme Court. In People v. Flowers, 23 Mich.App. 523, 179 N.W.2d 56 (Mich.Ct.App.1970), the Michigan Court held that only the accused could waive his constitutional rights. In State v. Peterson, 525......
-
People v. Hopkins
...24 Cal.3d 395, 155 Cal.Rptr. 671, 595 P.2d 105, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973, 100 S.Ct. 468, 62 L.Ed.2d 388 (1979); People v. Flowers, 23 Mich.App. 523, 179 N.W.2d 56 (1970). Likewise, a landlord or hotel owner cannot consent to a search unless the defendant has relinquished control of the pr......