People v. Lewis, 127.
Decision Date | 10 December 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 127.,127. |
Citation | 257 N.W. 843,269 Mich. 382 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. LEWIS. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Tell L. Lewis was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Appeal from Recorder's Court of Detroit; Christopher E. stein, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
J. Leon Katz, of Detroit, for appellant.
Patrick H. O'Brien, Atty. Gen., and Harry S. Toy, Pros. Atty., and George W. Schudlich and Edmund E. Shepherd, Asst. Pros. Attys., all of Detroit, for the People.
Tell L. Lewis was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon contrary to the provisions of section 227 of the Michigan Penal Code (Act No. 328, Public Acts 1931). After dark, on February 14, 1934, Detroit police officers in a Lincoln cruiser noticed a car passing at a high rate of speed, without properly displaying a rear light. They overtook the car within a distance of two blocks and stopped it at the curb. It was occupied by respondent and one Jackson, who was driving. When they halted the car, the officers saw respondent fumbling in his coat pocket with his right hand, one of the officers stating that he was fumbling with both hands. Respondent thereupon was placed under arrest and searched, and a 380 Colt automatic pistol was found in his pocket. It is conceded that respondent had no permit to carry the weapon. His attorney, however, claims that the case is ruled by People v. Stein, 265 Mich. 610, 251 N. W. 788, 92 A. L. R. 481, and that the weapon should therefore not have been admitted in evidence, and that the respondent should have been discharged. The people claim that the rule laid down in People v. Stein, supra, owing to a material difference in the facts, is not controlling in the instant case, and, further, that there was sufficient testimony, to which no objection was made, to support the judgment of conviction, without the introduction of the weapon in evidence.
In People v. Stein, supra, it was held by the majority opinion that the facts did not justify a search and seizure without a warrant, that there was no showing that the car was going at an unlawful rate of speed, although it was being driven rapidly, and the officers had no reason to stop the car, beyond the fact that as they drew abreast of it, a movement was made by Stein as if he were trying to hide or push something toward the rear of the seat. In the instant case, however, the car was being driven after dark without a rear light, in violation of the provisions of section 499 of the Penal Code (Act No. 328, Public Acts 1931). In thus stopping the car for an infraction of the law, the officers were acting not only within their rights, but in the performance of a clear and manifest duty. If, then, after lawfully calling the driver to a halt, they detected conduct on the part of the respondent, an occupant of the car, which led them reasonably to believe that a felony was being, or was about to be, committed in their presence, they had a right to arrest respondent and search his person. People v. Licavoli, 245 Mich. 202, 222 N. W. 102, 103. In that case the officers had been looking for defendant for some time for the purpose of questioning him, and as they drove alongside his car, he started squirming around as though he were trying to reach for a gun. They thereupon arrested him and searched his person and found the weapon in the back of his trousers. One of the officers testified that he had reason to believe that the law was being violated. The court, in holding that the testimony sustained the ruling of the trial court denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, stated ‘that the officer would have been foolhardy, had he pursued any other course than the one taken.’ The instant case is similar in many respects. As the officers drove alongside of the car in which respondent was riding, and ordered the driver to stop, they witnessed respondent fumbling in his right-hand coat pocket. At the preliminary examination, the arresting officer testified as follows:
During the trial, the same officer testified:
‘Then at the time we stopped this car I saw this passenger fumble with his coat pocket as though he was trying to get something out of it.’
Another officer testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Blessing
...563, 124 N.W.2d 736.2 People v. Licavoli, 245 Mich. 202, 222 N.W. 102; People v. Miller, 245 Mich. 115, 222 N.W. 151; People v. Lewis, 269 Mich. 382, 257 N.W. 843; People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, 97 N.W.2d 16; People v. Kuntze, 371 Mich. 419, 124 N.W.2d 269; Brinegar v. United States, 33......
-
People v. Gonzales
...law allows. We do not so read it. He cites in support of his contention People v. Orlando, supra; People v. Miller, supra; People v. Lewis, 269 Mich. 382, 257 N.W. 843; and People v. Davis, 247 Mich. 536, 226 N.W. 337. In the Miller Case, the Court found no probable cause to believe a felon......
-
People v. Schaub
...under all the authorities. If they did, he should have so stated and told why.NORTH, J., concurred with FEAD, C. J. In People v. Lewis, 269 Mich. 382, 257 N.W. 843, 844, in approving of the search of an automobile and the seizure of concealed weapons therein without a warrant, we held ‘that......
-
People v. Pitts
...to believe that the defendants had committed a felony or were in the process of committing a felony. 'The facts in People v. Lewis (1934), 269 Mich. 382, 257 N.W. 843, bear a closer similarity to the facts of the instant case. After dark, one evening, Detroit police officers saw a car not p......