People v. Stewart
Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
Docket Number | No. 135,Oct. Term.,135 |
Citation | 232 Mich. 670,206 N.W. 337 |
Parties | PEOPLE v. STEWART. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Shiawassee County; Joseph H. Collins, Judge.
Jay Stewart was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor, and he brings error. Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. John R. Clarke, of Flint, for appellant.
Leon F. Miner, Pros. Atty., of Owosso, for the People.
Defendant was convicted of possessing intoxicating liquor. On error he contends that he was arrested unlawfully; that the officer, without warrant, had no reasonable and probable cause to believe that a felony had been or was being committed by him; and that the motion to quash, to suppress, and for discharge, timely made, ought not to have been overruled.
Of the arrest the officer testified:
‘About a month ago I saw Mr. Stewart upon the streets of Owosso. He came out of the National Hotel, and went south on South Washington street, and went down as far as No. 206, if I am not mistaken. That would be in the second block, in front of a little restaurant and soft drink parlor, as they call them. He was standing in the doorway. I arrested the gentleman, thinking he had some liquor on him. A man named Walter Nimphie was also standing in this same doorway. I think this was on the 11th day of April, 1925. I was standing just south of the door on Washington street when he came out of the National Hotel. We had been watching him for quite a while.
‘Q. Were you there that night, standing where you were, for the purpose of looking and watching for Mr. Stewart? A. Not any more so than any one else.
‘Q. After he came out of the hotel, what, if anything, did you do? A. It looked to me as though there was something that wasn't just right, which we often form ideas that are not correct. * * * I told Mr. Stewart he could consider himself under arrest. He stood there a minute; then we started to the jail, or the city hall.
‘Q. What was your object of following him on this particular night? A. Well, sir, I followed him because I thought that he was handling liquor.
‘Q. You thought he was handling liquor? A. Yes, sir. He had been under our eyes for quite a while.
‘Q. What information did you have at that particular time, at the time you started to follow him, which led you to believe that he had liquor? A. His actions.
‘Q. Why did you allow him to proceed a distance of a block and a half before you made the arrest? A. I wanted to satisfy myself, in my own mind, that he had it.
‘Q. Did you have a warrant for his arrest? A. No, sir.
‘Q. Had any complaint been made to you in writing at that time? A. No, sir.
‘Q. Had any complaint been given to you orally regarding his actions on this particular day and night, or this nighttime? A. Please state that again.
‘(Question read.) A. Orally, what do you mean?
‘The Court: By word of mouth, spoken to you? A. May I have the question once more?
‘(Question read.) A. No, sir.
‘Q. And you didn't have any information or complaint, either written or oral, at that particular time? A. No, sir.
‘Q. Then this idea that you had about Mr. Stewart dealing with liquor in any way at all was purely a guess on your part, wasn't it? A. A guess. We had had complaints coming in.
‘Q. I am talking about this particular night. A. Yes, sir.
‘Q. What did he do that led you to believe that he had liquor? A. He came out and walked down the street. I see another party walking down the street ahead of him.
‘Q. How far was this party ahead of Mr. Stewart? A. Well, that would be very hard for me to give that distance.
‘Q. That is, he was on the same side of the street? A. Yes, sir.
‘Q. And they both were walking on the sidewalk? A. Yes, sir.
‘Q. Would that set of facts justify you at any time, a man following another man down the street, or another man preceding him, that there was liquor involved in any way? A. It looked very suspicious to me.
‘Q. What were the grounds that you based your suspicion on as to his having liquor? A. The grounds would be that he was going down that way, and we had him under our supervision. We had been watching this man for quite a while, and watching every move that he made.
‘Q. There are other men that you watch, too, aren't there? A. Yes, sir.
‘Q. Would the fact that he should come out of a place of business at 10:20 at night, and follow another man down the street, raise the same presumption that one of them had liquor? A. Yes, sir. It would to me, if they were watching him.
‘Q. These words you used, I believe; on your direct examination, I think you used these words, possibly you recall them, ‘it looked to me as though there was something wrong and I followed.’ What I am attempting to get at, Officer, what was the particular thing that looked wrong that caused you to follow him? A. Just his general actions.
‘
‘
This testimony does not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Oliver
...that a defendant has committed a felony must be based on facts which are present at the moment of the arrest. E.g., People v. Stewart, 232 Mich. 670, 206 N.W. 337 (1925). Thus, this Court laid down the following standard to be employed by Michigan appellate courts when applying these two ru......
-
People v. Summers
...196 N.W. 971 (1924). Furthermore, the facts upon which such belief is based must be present at the moment of arrest. People v. Stewart, 232 Mich. 670, 206 N.W. 337 (1925). Therefore, in reviewing a claim that a police officer lacked probable cause to arrest, the reviewing court must determi......
-
People v. Stewart
...v. United States, 251 U.S. 385, 392, 40 S.Ct. 182, 64 L.Ed. 319; People v. Berger, 44 Cal.2d 459, 462, 282 P.2d 509; People v. Stewart, 232 Mich. 670, 206 N.W. 337, 338.) Similarly, in Gascon v. Superior Court, 169 Cal.App.2d 356, 337 P.2d 201, police officers stopped the petitioner on the ......
-
People v. Coward
...196 N.W. 971 (1924). Furthermore, the facts upon which such belief is based must be present at the moment of arrest. People v. Stewart, 232 Mich. 670, 206 N.W. 337 (1925). "Therefore, in reviewing a claim that a police officer lacked probable cause to arrest, the reviewing court must determ......