People v. Oaks

• Decision Date: 27 June 1930
• Docket Number: No. 111.,111.
• Citation: 251 Mich. 253,231 N.W. 557
• Parties: PEOPLE v. OAKS.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

251 Mich. 253

231 N.W. 557

PEOPLE

v.OAKS.

No. 111.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 27, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, Genesee County; Edward D. Black, Judge.

Floyd Oaks was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench. Howard Cline and Frank Stipes, both of Flint, for appellant.

Wilber M. Brucker, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Beagle, Pros. Atty., and Ralph M. Freeman, Asst. Pros. Atty., both of Flint, for the People.

CLARK, J.

Defendant brings error to review judgment upon conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor.

The affidavit for the search warrant is in usual form and the statement of fact to support the belief of affiant is that on October 9, 1927 (the day the warrant was issued), he bought and paid for, at the place, two drinks of moonshine whisky. This is sufficient. People v. Ranes, 230 Mich. 384, 203 N. W. 77;People v. Karamol, 233 Mich. 670, 207 N. W. 832. That it was not stated from whom the whisky was bought is not important. People v. Karamol, supra.

The search warrant, following the affidavit, described the place to be searched: ‘* * * The dwelling house, outbuildings and premises including all garages thereon, located at No. 1501 New York avenue, in the city of Flint, county of Genesee and state of Michigan. * * *’

The description of the place is definite enough. People v. Urban, 228 Mich. 30, 199 N. W. 701.

The complaint charged second offense. No evidence of this element of the charge was given at the examination. People v. McDonald, 233 Mich. 98, 206 N. W. 516. The point was not raised before the magistrate, nor was it raised in circuit court until after the jury had been sworn. It came too late. People v. Brott, 163 Mich. 150, 128 N. W. 236.

The affidavit and the search warrant recited that the person or persons possessing the liquor at the place were unknown. It turned out that it was not defendant's home; he was merely a tenant of a stall in the garage, and it was there that a large quantity of his whisky was found. Defendant, on his motion to suppress, sought to challenge the statement of fact in the affidavit as false and therefore insufficient. See People v. Burt, 236 Mich. 62, 210 N. W. 97;People v. Middleton, 245 Mich. 197, 222 N. W. 173. The rule, establsihed by these cases, and clearly stated in the Middleton Case, may be employed only in protection of private dwellings. The stall in the garage was not defendant's dwelling, so the rule is not applicable. Steele v. U. S., 267 U. S. 498, 45 S. Ct. 414, 69 L. Ed. 757. The constitutional right of the owner of the dwelling was no legal concern of defendant. People v....