People v. Schuitema
| Decision Date | 16 July 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 97,June Term 1925.,97 |
| Citation | 231 Mich. 678,204 N.W. 709 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. SCHUITEMA. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Ottawa County; Orien S. Cross, Judge.
Edward Schuitema was convicted of keeping place where intoxicating liquors were manufactured, stored, and possessed, and he brings exceptions before sentence. Affirmed, and remanded for sentence.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Fred T. Miles, Pros. Atty., of Holland, for the People.
Robinson & Parsons, of Holland, for respondent.
The defendant was convicted of a violation of the prohibitory liquor law, in that he kept a place where moonshine whisky and beer were unlawfully manufactured, stored, and possessed. He brings his case here on exceptions before sentence. All of the testimony was obtained by search warrant. The only question involved is the validity of that warrant.
The affidavit was made on December 9, 1924, before the justice who issued the warrant. On the following day officers searched the dwelling house and farm buildings. They found a still in operation and a large quantity of supplies and a complete equipment for the manufacture of moonshine whisky in one of the outer buildings. In the house they found a quantity of whisky and beer. The defendant says that the affidavit failed to state ‘the exceptional conditions specified in the statute which authorize the search of a private dwelling or residence occupied as such’; that it did not ‘specifically state that the dwelling house itself is used as a place of public resort or that intoxicating liquors are manufactured and sold in the dwelling itself’; and that it does not state ‘facts and circumstances sufficient to make it appear that there was probable cause for issuing the warrant.’
We think a recital of the material parts of the affidavit will show that the defendant's objections are without merit.
After reciting that intoxicating liquors are manufactured, possessed, sold, furnished, or given away on certain described premises, the affidavit states:
‘That said buildings include a private dwelling house occupied as such, but the place is one of public resort, and intoxicating liquors are being manufactured and sold there. That he, the said affiant, believes and has good reason to believe that the aforenamed intoxicating liquors, together with vessels, containers, implements, furniture used in the illegal manufacture,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kerwin
...issue the warrant. People v. Warner, 221 Mich. 657, 192 N. W. 566;People v. Schregardus, 226 Mich. 279, 197 N. W. 573;People v. Schuitema, 231 Mich. 678, 204 N. W. 709. Counsel rely on People v. Mitroff, 231 Mich. 661, 204 N. W. 726. There was no averment in the affidavit in that case as to......
-
Jordan v. Miller
... ... Beachboard, 68 Mich. 401, 36 N. W. 192;Shipman v. Seymour, 40 Mich. 274;Shrimpton & Sons v. Rosenbaum, 106 Mich. 68, 63 N. W. 1011;People v. Seaman, 107 Mich. 348, 65 N. W. 203,61 Am. St. Rep. 326;French v. Ryan, 104 Mich. 625, 62 N. W. 1016;J. B. Millet Co. v. Andrews, 175 Mich. 350, ... ...
-
People v. Ziamkowski
...657, 192 N. W. 566;People v. Schregardus, 226 Mich. 279, 197 N. W. 573;People v. Kerwin, 234 Mich. 686, 209 N. W. 157;People v. Schuitema, 231 Mich. 678, 204 N. W. 709;People v. Willis, 243 Mich. 164, 219 N. W. 609;People v. Mushlock, 233 Mich. 559, 207 N. W. 834. These cases are each and a......
-
People v. Willis
...506, 190 N. W. 236;People v. Schregardus, 226 Mich. 279, 197 N. W. 573; People v. Kerwin, 234 Mich. 686, 209 N. W. 157;People v. Schuitema, 231 Mich. 678, 204 N. W. 709. The record does not permit consideration of the other grounds assigned in the motion to suppress. The motion was not supp......