People v. Sansoni

• Decision Date: 29 March 1968
• Docket Number: No. 3,3757,Docket Nos. 3029,3
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph SANSONI and William Maxson, Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 858

159 N.W.2d 858

10 Mich.App. 558

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph SANSONI and William Maxson, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket Nos. 3029, 3757.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

March 29, 1968.

Released for Publication July 18, 1968.

Leave to Appeal Denied Oct. 10, 1968.

Donald H. Hann, Roper, Meyers & Hann, Holland, for appellants.

Robert S. Bailey, LeFevour & Bailey, Oak Park, Ill., Arthur E. Engelland, Chicago, Ill., on the brief for defendant-appellant in No. 3029.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, James W. Bussard, Pros. Atty., Ottawa County, Grand Haven, for appellee.

Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and BURNS and GILLIS, JJ.

HOLBROOK, Presiding Judge.

These two cases are governed by the same set of facts and were joined together in this Court for oral argument and decision. Defendants Joseph Sansoni and William Maxson were charged in separate informations with attempting to break a safe, vault, or depository of money located in the Faith Christian Reformed Church with intent to commit a larceny.* Before trial, defendants filed a motion to suppress evidence seized from them at the time of their arrest. Defendants claimed on the motion that the officer who authorized the arrests did not have reasonable grounds for believing that defendants committed any criminal offense, that no crime was committed in the officer's presence and therefore the arrests were illegal and the evidence seized should be suppressed.

The trial judge after hearing testimony denied the motion to suppress. The defendants were tried separately by a jury and each was convicted and sentenced to prison.

Defendants appeal raising the single question: Did the trial court err in denying the motion to suppress the evidence seized on the basis that the arrests were illegal? Defendants assert that the Holland police did not have reasonable cause for arrest in that there were insufficient facts present for believing that defendants had committed the felony.

The pertinent facts necessary to a decision in this case are accurately stated in the trial court's opinion denying the motion to suppress, Viz:

'The issue before the court is whether the Holland police department officer, who authorized the arrest of defendants herein, had such information that would induce a fair-minded person of average intelligence and judgment to believe that a felony had been committed and that defendants had committed it.

'The following facts and information had been supplied to this officer prior to the time he authorized the arrest:

'Two churches in the city of Holland had been broken into the night before and a safe in each church cracked. At about 7:30 a.m., December 21, 1964, the day after the break-ins, two strangers came into the Clark gasoline station on Michigan avenue, located midway between the two churches. These strangers stated that they wanted to use the phone. They called the Hertz Car Rental Agency and talked to the manager, Jerry Horne. Mr. Horne dispatched a cab to pick them up and convey them to his office to discuss the rental. Mr. Horne also operated the Holland Cab Company. They asked to rent a car to drive to Chicago claiming that they had been hired in Chicago to repossess a car in Traverse City, Michigan, but that the car broke down just outside of Holland in the course of driving it back to Chicago. In describing the repossessed car these strangers indicated it was of such a vintage as to arouse the suspicion of Mr. Horne that their story lacked veracity. As Mr. Horne indicated in his testimony: no one in his right mind would hire two men to go to all the trouble and expense of repossessing such an old car. Mr. Horne desired some evidence of responsibility before he hired out a car to these two men but was given only a drivers license and selective service card. To add to this suspicion, Horne noticed that both men had wet shoes and that their trousers were wet from the knees down. There was evidence that the city had plowed all the roads and sidewalks following a snowfall the previous night.

'When Mr. Horne refused a car rental he suggested the men catch the 8:30 a.m. Greyhound bus to Chicago and offered to take the men in a cab to the bus station without charge. When the two strangers arrived at the bus station they inquired of the cab driver whether he would drive them to Kalamazoo, Michigan. The driver agreed and notified Mr. Horne of the change in plans. Mr. Horne insisted the driver get his fare in advance and the cab and strangers left for Kalamazoo sometime shortly after 7:40 a.m.

'Mr. Horne was concerned about the two strangers and immediately called the police department and gave the above information to the answering officer. When informed about the church breakins he suggested that the two strangers could be the wanted burglars. The call for the arrest went out and the strangers were apprehended in the city of Otsego, Allegan county, Michigan, and returned to Holland. An examination of their clothes and shoes resulted in their being charged with the above offenses. They now petition the court to suppress the evidence seized after the above arrest on the ground that there existed no reasonable grounds to make the arrest.

'In the opinion of the court reasonable grounds existed in the mind of Officer Ver Scheur at the time he authorized the apprehension of defendants. Defendants had been traced from the vicinity of the crimes, had given a suspicious story about their presence in Holland, had shown no concern about a car which was their responsibility, could not wait forty minutes for a bus to Chicago, changed their minds about their destination, did not appear to have come out of a car by reason of their wet feet and trousers and two churches had been broken into. Under such circumstances, a fair-minded person of average intelligence would have been induced to believe that defendants were connected with the crime. In the opinion of the court the arrest was lawful and the subsequent search of defendants legal.

'The petition to suppress is denied.'

The defendants assert that the search and seizure of the evidence was contrary to their constitutional rights, and cite Const. 1963, art. 1, § 11 which provides:

'The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures.'

And U.S.Const. Am. 4 which provides:

'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.'

The defendants cite Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081, in support of their claim that the evidence seized from defendants should have been suppressed. The State of Ohio had followed the rule that evidence obtained by an unlawful search and seizure may be admitted in a criminal prosecution, under the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), 338 U.S. 25, 69 S.Ct. 1359, 93 L.Ed. 1782, which ruled a State was not prevented by the Federal Constitution from adopting this rule. Although the search and seizure in Mapp was concededly unlawful, the Ohio courts affirmed on the basis of Wolf. The United...