People v. Waleed

• Decision Date: 30 December 1992
• Docket Number: No. 94355,No. 125946,94355,125946
• Citation: 496 N.W.2d 284,441 Mich. 902
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Khalid Bin WALEED, Defendant-Appellee. COA
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 284

496 N.W.2d 284

441 Mich. 902

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Khalid Bin WALEED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 94355.

COA No. 125946.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 30, 1992.

ORDER

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the judgment of the trial court. The trial court did not err in concluding that the warrant was valid. See, generally, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987).

LEVIN, J., dissents as follows:

I would deny or grant leave to appeal, and dissent from the peremptory reversal of the Court of Appeals.

I adhere to the view that peremptory reversal should be reserved for cases in which the law is settled and no factual assessment is required. ¹ In the instant case factual and legal assessment is required. Peremptory disposition is not appropriate.

Further, this Court's peremptory disposition does not comply with the requirements of Const. 1963, art. 6 Sec. 6, which requires that "[d]ecisions of the supreme court, including all decisions on prerogative writs, shall be in writing and shall contain a concise statement of the facts and reasons for each decision...." The order of peremptory reversal of the Court of Appeals does not contain a statement of facts or any reasons for decision. The opinion of the Court of Appeals is unreported. ²

The statement in the Court's order that the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed "because the trial court did not err in concluding that the warrant was valid, see, generally, Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 107 S.Ct. 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 (1987)," does not set forth the competing contentions of the parties, nor does it adequately address the analysis of the Court of Appeals. The Court's statement is conclusory, and does not adequately inform Waleed, his counsel, the public, the profession, and the Court of Appeals of the reasons for this Court's decision reversing the Court of appeals. The Court's statement is misleading because Maryland v. Garrison does not concern the sufficiency of the information on the basis of which the warrant was issued, or whether there was probable cause to issue a warrant. ³

I would, again, deny or grant leave to appeal.

1 People v. Wright, 439 Mich. 914, 914-915, 479 N.W.2d 631 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Roek v. Chippewa Valley Bd. of Ed., 430 Mich. 314, 322, 422 N.W.2d 680 (1988) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Grames v. Amerisure Ins. Co., 434 Mich. 867, 868-875, 451 N.W.2d 304 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v. Little, 434 Mich. 752, 769-770, 456 N.W.2d 237 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v. Wrenn, 434 Mich. 885, 885-886, 452 N.W.2d 469 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Harkins v. Northwest Activity Ctr., Inc., 434 Mich. 896, 899, 453 N.W.2d 677 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Dep't of Social Services v. American Commercial Liability Ins. Co., 435 Mich. 508, 515, 460 N.W.2d 194 (1990) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Yahr v. Garcia, 436 Mich. 872, 461 N.W.2d 363 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); Universal Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Vallejo, 436 Mich. 873, 873-874, 461 N.W.2d 364 (1990) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v. Stephens, 437 Mich. 903, 903-910, 465 N.W.2d 561 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); People v. Berkey, 437 Mich. 40, 54, 467 N.W.2d 6 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); Turner v. Washtenaw Co. Road Comm., 437 Mich. 35, 38-39, 467 N.W.2d 4 (1991) (Levin, J., separate opinion); Lepior v. Venice Twp., 437 Mich. 955, 956-966, 467 N.W.2d 811 (1991) (Levin, J., dissenting); Rochester Hills v. Southeastern Oakland Co. Resource Recovery Authority, 440 Mich. 852, 852-856, 486 N.W.2d 678 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); In re Reinstatement of Eston (Grievance Administrator v. Eston ), 440 Mich. 1205, 1206-1207, 487 N.W.2d 755 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); In re Reinstatement of Callanan, 440 Mich. 1207, 1207-1209, 487 N.W.2d 750 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); McFadden v. Civil Service Comm., 440 Mich. 888, 888-889, 487 N.W.2d 763 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting); Holly Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources (Holly Twp. v. Holly Disposal, Inc ), 440 Mich. 889, 890-891, 487 N.W.2d 753 (1992) (Levin, J., dissenting).

See Schweiker v. Hansen, 450 U.S. 785, 791, 101 S.Ct. 1468, 1472, 67 L.Ed.2d 685 (1981) (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("A summary reversal is a rare disposition, usually reserved by this Court for situations in which the law is settled and stable, the facts are not in dispute, and the decision below is clearly in error"); Leis v. Flynt, 439 U.S. 438, 457-458, 99 S.Ct. 698, 708-709, 58 L.Ed.2d 717 (1979) (Stevens, J., dissenting) ("Summary reversal 'should be reserved for palpably clear cases of ... error.' Eaton v. Tulsa, 415 US 697, 707 [94 S.Ct. 1228, 1234, 39 L.Ed.2d 693 (1974) ] [Rehnquist, J., dissenting]").

2 The defendant, Waleed, was convicted of possession of less than twenty-five grams of heroin, possession of a short-barrelled shotgun and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.

The Court of Appeals, in an unreported opinion, remanded for an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecutor would be required to produce an informant who had furnished information that formed the basis for a search warrant and search that provided the evidence of possession of drugs and firearms. The Court of Appeals said that the trial court could not "determine if the information was fictitious or untruthful, or...