People v. Smith
| Decision Date | 23 March 1972 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 11073,No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 39 Mich.App. 337,197 N.W.2d 528 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Edward SMITH, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Paul A. Williams, Marcus, McCroskey, Libner, Reamon & Williams, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., James K. Miller, Pros. Atty., Donald A. Johnson, III, Chief Appellate Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before FITZGERALD, P.J., an R. B. BURNS and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendant was charged with carrying an unlicensed pistol in an automobile. 1
Considerable prior history precedes the instant submission. The issue is admissibility of the pistol into evidence. The district court judge held that the evidence was unlawfully seized and inadmissible. The Kent County Circuit Court, on superintending control, reversed, and defendant was bound over for trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Kent County Circuit Court. Subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court brings the case before this Court through remand and order for determination.
The facts, crucial to this decision, are as follows:
State Police officers stopped defendant's automobile as he drove through Cedar Springs because one headlight was out and defendant failed to signal either by hand or turn signal when making a left hand turn. Defendant was asked if he had any guns, narcotics, knives, or anything else he should not have in the car. The answer was no. The police then requested permission to look. The defendant answered, 'Well you know how it is, I'd rather not.' The arresting officer then testified:
The gun was seized and defendant charged. The following two issues are raised on this appeal:
1. Where officers stop a vehicle due to a failure to signal a turn and, having evidence that a headlight is defective, request permission to search a vehicle for narcotics and firearms, are refused permission, and then discover a firearm while allegedly checking for equipment violations, is the search and seizure illegal?
2. Where the district court concludes at preliminary examination that there was no probable cause to support the search of an auto and that the vehicle was not properly searched for defective vehicular equipment, is the circuit court in error in reversing the district court's dismissal of the complaint and warrant?
Defendant contends that the discovering officer did not have probable cause or reasonable grounds to enter defendant's vehicle and even if he did, this was not a routine inspection permitted under statute but an excuse to search for evidence of other crimes.
On the face of the facts, we are at first inclined to agree with defendant, though his position weakens when examined closely. The search was conducted on very technical grounds. The defective headlight required no entry of defendant's car to be detected. The fact that no directional turn flasher was operated could have been simply and easily checked by asking defendant to flip the signal control. There was no purpose for checking the brakes from the reasons originally given for halting the car.
Notwithstanding the somewhat tenuous reason for entering the car, we are constrained to rule that the officer was acting within the law in entering the car to check the equipment since defective equipment was the reason for stopping defendant in the first place. An added factor is that the automobile, a foreign make, carried a turn signal on the right hand side of the steering column, making it all but inaccessible from the outside, had the officer reached through the window rather than enter.
M.C.L.A. § 257.683; M.S.A. § 9.2383 provides:
'Any police officer shall be authorized on reasonable grounds shown to stop any motor vehicle and inspect the same, and if any defects in equipment are found, to arrest the driver in the manner provided in this chapter.'
The left turn flasher did not operate when defendant executed a left turn. The reasonable grounds to enter were supplied by the suspected equipment failure. The statutory requirements necessary to permit entry and observation were met. The statute authorizes entry with or without permission and the fact that the police had no reason to believe the defendant was carrying a weapon does not bar entry and has no legal significance. The officer had a right to be in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. McCoy
...correctly ruled that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the charges against defendant McCoy. See People v. Smith, 39 Mich.App. 337, 197 N.W.2d 528 (1972); People v. Flint Municipal Judge, supra; People v. Karcher, 322 Mich. 158, 33 N.W.2d 744 (1948); People v. Bommarito,......
-
People v. Parisi
...States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); People v. Tisi, 384 Mich. 214, 180 N.W.2d 801 (1970); People v. Carl Smith, 39 Mich.App. 337, 197 N.W.2d 528 (1972). Finally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in not crediting his sentence in the instant case with the ......
-
People v. Hutton
...States, 390 U.S. 234, 88 S.Ct. 992, 19 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1968); People v. Tisi, 384 Mich. 214, 180 N.W.2d 801 (1970); People v. Smith, 39 Mich.App. 337, 197 N.W.2d 528 (1972). Regarding defendant Townsend's statements to the officers to the effect that the equipment belonged to him, defendants ......
-
People v. Blachura
...of such an appeal unless there is cogent evidence that he will not abide by the judgment of the appellate court.'3 Cf. People v. Smith, 39 Mich.App. 337, 197 N.W.2d 528 (1972).4 The Court of Appeals early recognized that the superintending control power conferred on it differs from the gene......