People v. Wade

• Decision Date: 31 March 1970
• Docket Number: Docket No. 7765,No. 1,1
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston WADE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 139

178 N.W.2d 139

23 Mich.App. 132

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Preston WADE, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 7765.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 1.

March 31, 1970.

Released for Publication July 8, 1970.

Lee R. Franklin, Haggerty & Franklin, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., William L. Cahalan, Pros. Atty., Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief Appellate Div., Luvenia D. Dockett, Asst. Pros. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before T. M. BURNS, P.J., and HOLBROOK and BRONSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

In the early morning hours of June 12, 1968, Ernest Anderson was relieved of his watch and wallet by two men.

At approximately the same time, a patrol sergeant with the Highland Park Police Department was driving an unmarked patrol car south on Woodward avenue. The officer observed the defendant and a companion attempting to cross Woodward avenue on foot against the light. As the officer drew up to the cross walk, he heard the complainant, Ernest Anderson, repeatedly cry for help. The policeman noted that the defendant and his companion had been walking briskly from the general vicinity of the calls for help. The policeman stopped the patrol car, got out, and ordered the pair to stop. The complainant was approximately 15 feet from the place where the two men were ordered to halt.

After the policeman asked the men to stop, he saw the defendant's compensation throw a watch and wallet to the ground. The defendant started to walk around to the back of the patrol car but was ordered by the policeman to come back. The officer then radioed for assistance and was joined by two fellow officers within a minute. One of these assisting officers conducted a search of the defendant and discovered a pistol tucked down in the back of his pants.

The defendant went to trial October 14, 1968, and was convicted by the court, sitting without a jury, of robbery unarmed and of carrying a concealed weapon. ¹ Following a motion for a new trial, the conviction on the first count was set aside but a motion to set aside the conviction on the second count was denied.

On appeal, the defendant argues that: the policeman lacked probable cause to make the arrest; the search was too extensive; and the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the requisite elements of intent and lack of license to carry a concealed weapon as required by C.L.1948 § 750.227 (Stat.Ann.1962 Rev. § 28.424).

In reviewing the defendant's claim that the policeman lacked probable cause, it is the function of this Court to determine whether the facts available to the officer at the moment of arrest would warrant a fair-minded person of average intelligence and judgment in believing that the suspected person had committed a felony. People v. Sansoni (1968), 10 Mich.App. 558, 159 N.W.2d 858; People v. Wolfe (1967) 5 Mich.App. 543, 147 N.W.2d 447; People v. Livermore (1967), 9 Mich.App. 47, 155 N.W.2d 711; People v. Harper (1962), 365 Mich. 494, 113 N.W.2d 808. The conduct of a suspect when detained for inquiry is one of the factual circumstances which may justify a warrantless arrest, as where the defendant seeks to avoid apprehension and destroy what would be evidence against him. People v. Jackson (1968), 98 Ill.App.2d 238, 240 N.E.2d 421; People v. Cruz (1964), 61 Cal.2d 861, 40 Cal.Rptr. 841, 395 P.2d 889.

Looking at all the facts available to the officer at the time of his order to defendant and his companion to stop: the lateness of the hour; the cries for help; the rapid pace of walking from the vicinity of the complainant; and the attempt to cross Woodward against the light, justified the detaining of the pair by the officer for inquiry.

'Relying primarily upon Rios v. United States, 364 U.S. 253, 262, 80 S.Ct. 1431, 4 L.Ed.2d 1688 (1960) we have recently held that 'there is nothing ipso facto unconstitutional in the brief detention of citizens under circumstances not justifying an arrest, for purposes of limited inquiry in the course of routine police investigations'; and that the test of the validity of such a brief detention is whether 'from the totality of the circumstances' it appears that the detention was based upon 'reasonable grounds' and 'was not arbitrary or harassing.' Wilson v. Porter (CA 9, 1966), 361 F.2d 412. Supporting authority from this court includes Davis v. Peopl of State of California (CA 9, 1965), 341 F.2d 982, 986; Lipton v. United States (CA 9, 1965), 348 F.2d 591, 593; Busby v. United States (CA, 9, 1961), 296 F.2d 328, 331.' ² Gilbert v. United States (CA 9, 1966), 366 F.2d 923, 928.

Added to the facts justifying the detaining of the defendant and his companion for inquiry, the officer observed the discarding of the wallet and the watch by one of the pair. At this point we conclude that the policeman had probable cause to make the arrest.

This being so, the officer making the lawful arrest had authority to search the person of his prisoner and to take from him dangerous weapons. We see no reason why an assisting officer relying upon the directions of the arresting officer could not make the search when made reasonably contemporaneous with the arrest. State v. Pokini (1961), 45 Haw. 295, 367 P.2d 499; People v. Richardson (1959), 51 Cal.2d 445, 334 P.2d 573; Broussard v. State (1958), 166 Tex.Cr.R. 224, 312 S.W.2d 664.

The claim of defendant that the search was too extensive is without merit. When probable cause is present justifying a lawful arrest without a warrant, the subsequent search may be thorough to the...