People v. Urban
| Decision Date | 24 July 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 91.,91. |
| Citation | 199 N.W. 701,228 Mich. 30 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. URBAN et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Circuit Court, Lapeer County; William B. Williams, Judge.
Joseph Urban and Anna Urban were convicted of an offense under the Prohibition Law, and they except before sentence. Conviction affirmed. Cause remanded for judgment.
Argued before CLARK, C. J., and McDONALD, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ.Geo. W. DesJardins, Pros., Atty., of Lapeer, for the People.
Albert H. Perkins, of Lapeer, for respondents.
On exceptions before sentence, reversal of conviction of Joseph Urban under the Prohibition Law (Pub. Acts 1917, No. 338) is sought, on the ground that the search warrant, under which search was made and intoxicating liquor seized, was void, and that the evidence so procured was therefore inadmissible. An affidavit was filed with a magistrate for warrant to search--
The warrant issued to search--
‘dwelling house, barns, outbuildings, and premises described as the east 50 acres of the west half of the northwest quarter of section 16 of the said Joseph Urban and situated in the township of Mayfield in the county aforesaid.’
Defendant's dwelling was located in section 16 of said township. It was upon the particular description set forth in the affidavit, and not upon the particular description set forth in the warrant. In principle, the case is ruled by People v. Flemming, 221 Mich. 609, 192 N. W. 625. In that case there was an error in describing the lot by number, but there was a particular description of the dwelling itself, because of which the warrant was sustained. In rural communities, homes are known commonly by the name of the owner or occupant, not by street number, lot number, or technical description. The dwelling of Joseph Urban in section 16 in the township of Mayfield, Lapeer county, to the people of that community was a known place. There such description designated a definitely ascertainable place in terms of reasonable...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Stough
... ... them introduced in evidence, although they were used to ... illustrate the witness's testimony. State v ... Allen, 23 Idaho 772; People v. Durrant, 116 ... Cal. 210 (b); Hughes v. State, 126 Tenn. 71. (4) ... Defendant's application for a change of venue was ... properly overruled: ... State ... v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400; Olson v. Haggerty, 69 ... Wash. 48; Little v. Comm., 205 Ky. 55; People v ... Urban, 228 Mich. 30 ... Henwood, ... C. Higbee and Davis, CC., concur ... ... HENWOOD ... [2 ... ...
-
Chruscicki v. Hinrichs
...have been held to particularly describe the place to be searched within the meaning of the constitutional provision. People v. Urban, 228 Mich. 30, 31, 199 N. W. 701;State v. Whitecotten, 101 W. Va. 492, 133 S. E. 106, 108;State v. Leonard, 162 La. 357, 110 So. 557, 558;Little v. Commonweal......
-
People v. Hampton
...was located. The Court held that suppression of the evidence was not required under the circumstances of the case: In [People v. Urban, 228 Mich. 30, 199 N.W. 701 (1924) ], the warrant description, although inaccurate, when taken together with the affidavit and the knowledge of the police o......
-
State v. Stough
...to show the possibility of any mistake. State v. Lock, 302 Mo. 400; Olson v. Haggerty, 69 Wash. 48; Little v. Comm., 205 Ky. 55; People v. Urban, 228 Mich. 30. HENWOOD, By an information filed in the Circuit Court of Phelps County, appellant was charged with the unlawful manufacture of hoot......