People v. Hagadorn
| Decision Date | 25 June 1931 |
| Docket Number | No. 145,June Term.,145 |
| Citation | 255 Mich. 121,237 N.W. 526 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HAGADORN. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Case-Made from Circuit Court, Lenawee County; G. Arthur Rathbun, Judge.
Ralph Hagadorn was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.
Reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
James W. Helme, of Adrian, for appellant.
Paul W. Voorhies, Atty. Gen., and Major Bird, Pros. Atty., of Adrian, for the People.
January 2, 1931, Howard Treat, a deputy sheriff, complained, that on December 31, 1930, defendant, in Lenawee county, did unlawfully possess a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor, to wit, two pints of whisky. Defendant was arrested, and on examination before a justice, on January 12, 1931, the deputy sheriff was sworn. He testified he knew defendant; there had been reports from several sources that defendant was selling liquor at Ridgeway, and for that reason he was down there, saw defendant come out of the dance hall and go into a room below the dance hall, whereupon witness went into this room. A partly filled bottle of liquor was found on the floor. After making some investigation, defendant was searched, and two pints of moonshine found on his person. Motion was made to suppress this evidence upon the ground the search was illegal, which motion the court overruled. Upon the trial of the case, the objection was again renewed, overruled, and defendant convicted, and he brings error.
The right of search and seizure did not exist at early common law, but crept into the law by imperceptible practice. 4 Cokes Institutes, 176; Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. State Trials, 1029; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 617, 6 S. Ct. 524, 29 L. Ed. 746.
In People v. Marxhausen, 204 Mich. 559, 171 N. W. 557, 3 A. L. R. 1505, and the dissenting opinion in People v. Case, 220 Mich. 379, 190 N. W. 289, 27 A. L. R. 686, is a recital of some historical facts leading to the adoption of the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable search.
When the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was contended by its advocates it created a government of delegated powers, and all powers not delegated to the United States were reserved to the states and to the people, but so tenacious were the colonists of the liberty which they had secured that the Constitution of the United States was only adopted upon the tacit agreement it would be amended so as to contain a bill of rights protecting individual liberty. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was proposed in the first session of the first Congress and adopted by the requisite number of states in 1791. It provides: ‘The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’
And section 10 of article 2 of the Constitution of Michigan provides:
In People v. Halveksz, 215 Mich. 136, 183 N. W. 752, 753, it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Mason, Docket No. 6884
...research has not revealed Michigan authority on the question of which party has the burden of proof 17 (cf, however, People v. Hagadorn (1931), 255 Mich. 121, 237 N.W. 526), numerous cases from other jurisdictions have held that the prosecution must prove that its warrantless search was rea......
-
People ex rel. Roth v. Younger
...probable cause which is made a prerequisite to the issuance of a search warrant under the provisions of said section 10. People v. Hagadorn, 255 Mich. 121, 237 N.W. 526; People v. Miller, 245 Mich. 115, 222 N.W. 151; People v. Kamhout, 227 Mich. 172, 198 N.W. 831; People v. Keller, 238 Mich......
-
People v. Ubbes
...even seeking a search warrant, re-entered the defendant's property without permission and seized the evidence. See People v. Hagadorn, 255 Mich. 121, 124, 237 N.W. 526. That which distinguishes this case of Ubbes from People v. Alverson is trooper White's testimony at defendant's examinatio......
-
Dawkins v. Edwards
...or not, for the reason that he had reasonable ground to believe an offense was being committed therein. In People v. Hagadorn, 255 Mich. 121, at p. 124, 237 N.W. 526, at p. 527, we 'The facts necessary to be shown to uphold a search without a warrant must be strong enough to support the iss......