People v. Rowe, Docket No. 78-1022

CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan (US)
Citation95 Mich.App. 204,289 N.W.2d 915
Docket NumberDocket No. 78-1022
PartiesPEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd ROWE, Defendant-Appellant. 95 Mich.App. 204, 289 N.W.2d 915
Decision Date05 February 1980

Page 915

289 N.W.2d 915
PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Todd ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket No. 78-1022.
95 Mich.App. 204, 289 N.W.2d 915
Court of Appeals of Michigan.
Feb. 5, 1980.
Released for Publication April 4, 1980.

Page 916

[95 MICHAPP 205] Joseph C. Legatz, Grand Haven, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Wesley J. Nykamp, Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before BRONSON, P. J., and ALLEN and MAHER, JJ.

MAHER, Judge.

The defendant appeals as of right from a jury conviction for the crime of resisting arrest, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.479; M.S.A. § 28.747. The defendant was sentenced to a term of 90 days in the Ottawa County Jail, ordered to pay [95 MICHAPP 206] $300 in court costs, and given 18 months probation.

On April 12, 1977, the 58th District Court, a district of the first class consisting of the County of Ottawa (M.C.L. § 600.8128; M.S.A. § 27A.8128) issued a warrant for defendant's arrest on a charge of receiving and concealing stolen property, contrary to M.C.L. § 750.535; M.S.A. § 28.803.

Two Holland police officers went to defendant's residence in Holland Township, outside of the City of Holland, to execute the warrant. Defendant's resistance to that arrest led to this conviction.

Defendant contends on appeal that the officers had no authority to arrest him outside of the city and that he was entitled to a jury instruction to that effect. In addition, defendant contends that he is entitled to be discharged because the officers, acting without authority, had only the arrest power of a private citizen and no statutory grounds for a citizen's arrest existed. M.C.L. § 764.16; M.S.A. § 28.875.

In arguing that the officers had no authority to arrest him outside of the territorial limits of the city, defendant relies on the common-law rule. See 5 Am.Jur.2d, Arrest, § 18, p. 709; 6A C.J.S. Arrest § 53b, p. 125; 1 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, § 59, p. 92. However, the common-law rule has been abrogated by statute in Michigan.

Arrest warrants may be executed in any part of the State. M.C.L. § 767.31; M.S.A. § 28.971. 1 In issuing an arrest warrant for a felony the magistrate acts as a judicial officer for the one court of justice (Const.1963, art. 6, § 1).

"The office of justice of the peace is a part of the [95 MICHAPP 207] judicial system of this state, and in the exercise of the important functions of this office the persons filling it cannot be said to be performing duties local in character, but must rather be said to be performing duties in behalf of the entire state." People v. DeMeaux, 194 Mich. 18, 23, 160 N.W. 634, 636 (1916).

The magistrate's authority to issue warrants is equivalent to the authority of a circuit judge and extends county-wide. M.C.L. § 600.8317; M.S.A. § 27A.8317, M.C.L. § 764.1; M.S.A. § 28.860. Accordingly, the magistrate is authorized to direct the warrant to all law enforcement officers in the county.

M.C.L. § 766.3; M.S.A. § 28.921 provides:

"If it appears from such examination that any criminal offense not cognizable by a justice of the peace has been committed, the magistrate shall issue a warrant directed to the sheriff, chief of police, constable or any peace officer of the county, reciting the substance of the accusation and commanding him forthwith to take the person accused of having committed

Page 917

the offense and bring him before the appropriate court to be dealt with according to law, and in the same warrant may require the officer to summon such witnesses as are named therein." (Emphasis added.)

Similarly, M.C.L. § 767.31; M.S.A. § 28.971 directs that "every (arrest) warrant shall be directed to the sheriff, constable, police officer or peace officer of the county in which the indictment shall be found * * * ". 2

In the present case the warrant was directed in accordance with those statutes to "any sheriff, deputy sheriff, court officer, state police officer, or police officer". As a consequence the Holland police officers, to whom the arrest warrant was directed, had statutory authority to execute the [95 MICHAPP 208] warrant anywhere in the county. In addition, those officers, and any other peace officer to whom the warrant was directed, would have been authorized to execute the warrant outside of Ottawa County. In accordance with the legislative scheme that there are no territorial limits in the state on arrest warrants (M.C.L. § 767.31; M.S.A. § 28.971), M.C.L. § 764.2; M.S.A. § 28.861 contemplates that an officer to whom a warrant is directed will be able to execute it anywhere in the state with the same authority as in his own county:

"If any person against whom a warrant shall be issued for an alleged offense committed within any county, shall, either before or after the issuing of such warrant, escape from or be out of the county, the sheriff or other officer to whom such warrant may be directed, may pursue and apprehend the party charged, in any county...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • People v. Meyer, Docket No. 73672
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 30, 1985 by order dated November 30, 1984 (Docket No. 74120), People v. Palma, 111 Mich.App. 684, 315 N.W.2d 182 (1981); People v. Rowe, 95 Mich.App. 204, 289 N.W.2d 915 (1980); People v. Bashans and People v. Herbin, 80 Mich.App. 702, 265 N.W.2d 170 (1978), and Delude v. Raasakka, 42 Mich.App.......
  • Van Horn v. State, 90-131
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • December 14, 1990
    ...sheriff or other "peace officer" while acting within established jurisdiction could have lawfully made this arrest. See People v. Rowe, 95 Mich.App. 204, 289 N.W.2d 915...
  • People v. Keskinen, Docket No. 103209
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 26, 1989 decided as a matter of law, see City of Birmingham v. 48th Dist. Judge, 76 Mich.App. 33, 37, 255 N.W.2d 760 (1977); People v. Rowe, 95 Mich.App. 204, 210, 289 N.W.2d 915 (1980), we do not believe that the Legislature intended, under any circumstances, that evidence admissible solely for ......
  • People v. Davis, Docket No. 65303
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 7, 1984
    ...decided and decline defendant's invitation to disturb it. Contrary to the citation to Bashans as a hot pursuit case in People v. Rowe, 95 Mich.App. 204, 211, 289 N.W.2d 915 (1980), Bashans was clearly not a hot pursuit case; the holding in Bashans was reached without any finding of hot purs......
  • 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