People v. Pipok, Docket No. 126052

Decision Date04 November 1991
Docket NumberDocket No. 126052
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Everett PIPOK, Robert John Jelinski and Roy Leonard Monko, Defendants-Appellants. (After Remand)
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Gay Secor Hardy, Sol. Gen., and Michael J. Riley, Pros. Atty., for the People.

Michael P. Mathews, Big Rapids, for Arthur E. Pipok.

Harold F. Closz, III, Muskegon, for Robert J. Jelinski.

Roy L. Monko, in pro. per.

Before MICHAEL J. KELLY, P.J., and GRIBBS and SHEPHERD, JJ.

MICHAEL J. KELLY, Presiding Justice.

This case is again before this Court following a remand to the trial court to determine whether evidence seized pursuant to a federal search warrant was obtained through the joint activity of state and federal officers. People v. Pipok, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided March 7, 1991 (Docket No. 126052). The trial court's supplemental opinion was entered on stipulated facts on April 19, 1991.

In remanding, this Court held that when evidence challenged in a state prosecution is obtained in a search involving the joint activity of state and federal officers, the search is scrutinized under state standards. On remand, the trial court found that the search in this case did involve the joint activity of state and federal officers. We agree with the trial court's finding. The next inquiry is whether the search was valid under Michigan law. Defendants argue that the warrant was invalid and that the trial court improperly denied defendants' motion to suppress the evidence seized during the search. Defendants' appeal is by leave granted.

It is uncontested that the search warrant in this case did not comply with M.C.L. Sec. 780.654; M.S.A. Sec. 28.1259(4), which, in relevant part, requires that a search warrant provide on its face or in an attached affidavit the grounds on which the warrant is issued. The search warrant in this case failed to state the grounds for probable cause and did not have a supporting affidavit attached. The warrant was issued pursuant to federal law, for which there is no state counterpart to the precise statutory provision at issue here. A copy of the affidavit used to support the warrant was made available to the defendants before their preliminary examinations.

Defendants contend that noncompliance with Sec. 4 rendered the search warrant invalid and, as a result, the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant should be suppressed. In support of their position, defendants rely on the cases of People v. Galnt, 235 Mich. 646, 209 N.W. 915 (1926), People v. Bules, 234 Mich. 335, 207 N.W. 818 (1926), and People v. Moten, 233 Mich. 169, 206 N.W. 506 (1925).

Contrary to the law then in effect, 1917 PA 338, Sec. 27, the search warrants challenged in Galnt, Bules, and Moten failed to recite all the material facts alleged in the supporting affidavits. In each case the Supreme Court found the warrant invalid and suppressed the evidence seized pursuant thereto. The Court in Moten quoted with approval the following from United States v. Kaplan, 286 F. 963, 969-970 (D.Ga.1923):

"The commissioner or judge having become satisfied by proven facts 'of the existence of the grounds of the application or that there is probable cause to believe their existence,' he must not only issue the warrant, but must state therein 'the particular grounds or probable cause for its issue.' The mandate is clear. Why should there not be an exact compliance? Is not the protective purpose of congress most definite--that the proof should be in writing, that facts, and not opinions, should be relied on, that the judgment should be on the proven facts and that a record of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Garvin, Docket No. 203354.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • April 9, 1999
    ...the warrant provided or left does not require suppression of evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. In People v. Pipok (After Remand), 191 Mich.App. 669, 673, 479 N.W.2d 359 (1991), this Court In this case, there is an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the federal magistrate's de......
  • People v. Sobczak-Obetts
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 1, 2001
    ...that the Court of Appeals decisions in People v. Garvin, 235 Mich.App. 90, 597 N.W.2d 194 (1999), and People v. Pipok (After Remand), 191 Mich.App. 669, 479 N.W.2d 359 (1991), controlled this case, and that this case was distinguishable from Moten. While the statute in effect at the time Mo......
  • People v. Sobczak-Obetts
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 11, 2002
    ...the "joint activity" rule enunciated by the Court of Appeals. Nevertheless, we take this opportunity to note our disapproval of the dicta in Pipok and Paladino suggesting that state warrant requirements apply to joint federal and state execution of federal warrants. Michigan statutory provi......
  • People v. Chapin
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • March 8, 2001
    ...of the evidence seized pursuant to the warrant because the requirement is merely procedural. See also People v. Pipok (After Remand), 191 Mich.App. 669, 479 N.W.2d 359 (1991). However, Garvin's holding is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Moten, Galnt, and Bules that vi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT