People v. Tetts
| Decision Date | 14 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,Docket No. 900,3 |
| Citation | 6 Mich.App. 254,148 N.W.2d 877 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter F. TETTS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
William E. Peters, Bay City, for appellant.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Martin B. Legatz, Pros. Atty., Bay County, Bay City, for appellee.
Before QUINN, P.J., and FITZGERALD and HOLBROOK, JJ.
Defendant and his wife were living at the Delta Motel in Bay City in August 1964, having earlier register under the alias of Mr. and Mrs. C. R. Lauderback. Several days after they had checked in, the proprietress of the establishment became suspicious of their automobile because of a change in the licence plates and notified Michigan State Police.
Records there disclosed that the defendant's automobile was listed as stolen from Indiana and that defendant, Walter F. Tetts, was wanted for auto conversion. Detective Sergeant Chandler of the Michigan State Police and FBI Special Agent William Saucier went to the motel on August 11 to investigate, knowing of a valid warrant for defendant's arrest in Kokomo, Indiana.
The officers knocked on the door of the motel room and asked if C. R. Lauderback was there. Defendant answered in the affirmative but declined to again open the door after slamming it in their face. Agent Saucier went to the rear of the motel and Sergeant Chandler waited while defendant said he was getting dressed. During this time, scraping noises and toilet flashings were heard from inside. In the meantime, Agent Saucier saw defendant escaping through a back window and heading away across on open field. Defendant was stopped following a chase and taken around to the front of the motel where he was handcuffed and told that he was being arrested under a felony warrant from Indiana. In bringing him to the front of the motel, the officers noticed that defendant's arms contained puncture scars and that his speech was incoherent. Shortly thereafter, defendant's wife, dressed only in pajamas, opened the door and was informed that she, too, was under arrest.
Upon entering the room, the officers saw a number of bottles containing powdery substances and clear liquid and bottles containing small tablets. In addition to these items were hypodermic syringes, an eye dropper, needles and other narcotics containers. Defendant and his wife were thereupon arrested for illegal possession of narcotics and the contraband seized.
A complaint was filed and warrant issued against defendant on August 11, 1964, charging him with the crime of unlawfully having narcotics in his possession under C.L.1961 Supp. § 335.153 (Stat.Ann. § 18.1123). Defendant was bound over for trial after preliminary examination and stood mute and a plea of not guilty was entered for him.
On September 14, defendant requested a hearing and thereupon changed his plea to guilty, which plea was accepted by the court. Thereafter, on October 8, the court allowed the defendant to again withdraw his plea of guilty and reinstated the original plea. On November 17, a trial was held in circuit court and upon close of the People's proofs defendant again changed his plea to guilty. The items seized in the room had been admitted into evidence.
It is this conviction and the subsequent sentence of 5 to 10 years from which defendant appeals, contending that the State's exhibits, namely the materials and objects found in and about the motel room, should have been excluded from the trial upon the defendant's motion to suppress.
We find little, if any, encouragement for defendant's position in any of the reported State or Federal cases. U.S. Supreme Court decisions have often recognized that there is a permissible area of search beyond the person proper and, though circumscribed in some degree by recent cases, the latitude does not vary from the statement made in Agnello v. United States (1925), 269 U.S. 20, 46 S.Ct. 4, 70 L.Ed. 145:
'The right without a search warrant contemporaneously to search persons lawfully arrested while committing crime and to search the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Earegood, Docket No. 2755
...v. People (1879), 42 Mich. 142, 144, 3 N.W. 305; People v. Pate (1965), 2 Mich.App. 66, 68, 138 N.W.2d 553; People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 259, 148 N.W.2d 877. It was not always thus. In People v. Murray (1888), 72 Mich. 10, 40 N.W. 29, at a time when Michigan did not have an inde......
-
People v. Mason, Docket No. 6884
...entered the room in the first place. Such cases as People v. Panknin (1966), 4 Mich.App. 19, 143 N.W.2d 806, and People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 148 N.W.2d 877, clearly indicate that when the evidence was observed the officer was 'in a place where he has a lawful right to be.' Pank......
-
People v. Eddington
...See People v. Orlando (1943), 305 Mich. 686, 9 N.W.2d 893; People v. Kuntze (1963), 371 Mich. 419, 124 N.W.2d 269; People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 148 N.W.2d 877; People v. McDonald (1968), 13 Mich.App. 226, 163 N.W.2d 796; People v. Tisi (1969), 16 Mich.App. 316, 167 N.W.2d 795. T......
-
People v. Cook
...People v. Orlando (1943), 305 Mich. 686, 9 N.W.2d 893; People v. Kuntze (1963), 371 Mich. 419, 124 N.W.2d 269; People v. Tetts (1967), 6 Mich.App. 254, 148 N.W.2d 877; People v. Hopper (1970), 21 Mich.App. 276, 175 N.W.2d 889; People v. McDonald, It is undisputed that defendant's car was in......