People v. Howell
| Decision Date | 23 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 56682,56682 |
| Citation | 394 Mich. 445,231 N.W.2d 650 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Willie A. HOWELL, Defendant-Appellee. 394 Mich. 445, 231 N.W.2d 650 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., and Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Patricia J. Boyle, Principal Atty., and Robert M. Morgan, Asst. Pros. Atty., Detroit, for the People.
Jack J. Kraizman, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Willie A. Howell was found guilty by a jury of receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100, M.C.L.A. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction. 58 Mich.App. 152, 227 N.W.2d 266 (1975). The prosecution seeks leave to appeal in this Court. We grant leave and, under GCR 1963, 865.1(7), reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the conviction of Howell.
The salient issue concerns a search and seizure, in Detroit, of jewelry stolen four days before in a Grand Rapids burglary.
Defendant was a passenger in an automobile stopped for a traffic violation. One police officer at the scene of the arrest said he observed, in plain sight, a small pouchtype bag in the car which he could see contained chains, watches and rings. After this initial observation, upon which the officer predicated no action, the officer returned to his own vehicle and, looking back to the stopped vehicle, observed one man in the stopped vehicle hand something from the front seat to the back where another man leaned down. The officer re-approached the automobile and asked what had happened to the bag. The response was, 'What bag?' The bag was found hidden in a stepwell.
The officers then proceeded to make arrests and make further checks as to the true ownership of the jewelry.
On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the officers had probable cause to proceed as they did. The following facts were in evidence: (1) The bag was bulging and the jewelry was in plain view. An officer saw a variety and quantity of jewelry more akin to the results of a theft than to property likely to be the personal belongings of an occupant of the automobile; (2) the bag was not the kind that a jewelry salesman would normally use; (3) the furtive behavior observed by the police officers; (4) the response, 'What bag?' While furtive behavior by itself does not justify a search, furtive behavior may be considered as a factor, and, as in this case, in combination with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pier v. State
...officer observed occupant with hand rolled cigarette that appeared to be marijuana throw it to floor of vehicle); People v. Howell , 394 Mich. 445, 231 N.W.2d 650, 651 (1975) (finding probable cause where bag bulging with variety of jewelry observed on initial contact, then concealed, and v......
-
People v. Talley
...and experience of the arresting officers, and any other relevant facts the prosecution may choose to advance. See People v. Howell, 394 Mich. 445, 447, 231 N.W.2d 650 (1975). Accordingly, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, and pursuant to GCR 1963, 853.2(4), we vacate the Court of Appeals......
-
People v. Young
...of tinfoil packets, a mere furtive gesture, standing alone, does not create probable cause to search a vehicle. People v. Howell, 394 Mich. 445, 447, 231 N.W.2d 650 (1975); People v. Boudah, 61 Mich.App. 563, 566, 233 N.W.2d 84 (1975); People v. Obadele,58 Mich.App. 139, 143, 227 N.W.2d 258......
-
People v. Mersino, Docket No. 72636
...cause to search can be established by a combination of suspicious actions or furtive movements and other factors. People v. Howell, 394 Mich. 445, 231 N.W.2d 650 (1975). Among these additional factors is the lack of a driver's license or other satisfactory identification. People v. Goodrick......