People v. Willis
| Decision Date | 04 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 167.,167. |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. WILLIS. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Bay County; Sam'l G. Houghton, Judge.
Guy Willis was convicted of the unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor, and he brings error. Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench, except POTTER, J.
Collins & Thompson, of Bay City, for appellant.
Wilber Brucker, Atty. Gen., and Frank C. Patterson, Pros. Atty., of Bay City, for the People.
On September 26, 1927, defendant, upon trial before the court without a jury, was convicted of unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors, principally upon evidence obtained by virtue of a search warrant, without which it is evident and is conceded the conviction cannot be sustained. Defendant did not testify, but relied solely upon the claim that the search was illegal.
In due time before the trial, counsel for defendant made a motion to suppress the evidence obtained by virtue of the search warrant on the grounds: (a) That the reasons given in the complaint for the search warrant for belief that intoxicating liquor was then possessed at the place designated in the warrant were insufficient to show probable cause for the search; (b) that the place searched was a garage building not designated in the complaint or warrant; and (c) that the search was made without a search warrant and without authority.
The grounds for belief that intoxicating liquor was possessed at the premises described are stated in the complaint for the search warrant:
‘Affiant has personally observed several persons enter said building and premises in a sober condition and later leave in a drunken condition, all of which observation and acts occurred within four days next preceding the day of making this affidavit.’
In addition to these averments, the affiant also made the unequivocal charge of fact, not upon information and belief, that the premises consisted of a private dwelling which was being used as a place of public resort and for the unlawful manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. The complaint warranted the belief that liquors were unlawfully possessed at the place named and the affidavit and warrant were not insufficient as a matter of law. People v. Christiansen, 220 Mich. 506, 190 N. W. 236;People v. Schregardus, 226 Mich. 279, 197 N. W. 573; People v. Kerwin, 234 Mich. 686, 209 N. W. 157;People v. Schuitema, 231 Mich. 678, 204 N. W. 709.
The record does not permit consideration of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Kaigler
...1, Gillespie, Michigan Criminal Law and Procedure, § 718, pp. 867-869; People v. Kerwin, 234 Mich. 686, 209 N.W. 157; People v. Willis, 243 Mich. 164, 219 N.W. 609; Prople v. Miller, 245 Mich. 115, 222 N.W. 151; People v. Kramer, 260 Mich. 94, 244 N.W. 243; People v. Zeigler, 358 Mich. 355,......
-
People v. Gillam, Docket No. 78-3423
...600, 198 N.W. 203 (1924). Certainly the passage of time is a consideration in judging a search warrant's vitality. See People v. Willis, 243 Mich. 164, 219 N.W. 609 (1928); People v. Mayes, 78 Mich.App. 618, 261 N.W.2d 22 (1977); People v. Gould, 61 Mich.App. 614, 233 N.W.2d 109 (1975). One......
-
People v. Williams, 54
...of the search, may not be considered by the Supreme Court in reviewing denial of the motions.' Syllabus 1. In People v. Willis, 243 Mich. 164, 219 N.W. 609, the second syllabus contains the 'Where the matter of the search and its legality was gone into before the trial, upon motion to suppr......
-
People v. Ziamkowski
...Mich. 279, 197 N. W. 573;People v. Kerwin, 234 Mich. 686, 209 N. W. 157;People v. Schuitema, 231 Mich. 678, 204 N. W. 709;People v. Willis, 243 Mich. 164, 219 N. W. 609;People v. Mushlock, 233 Mich. 559, 207 N. W. 834. These cases are each and all distinguishable from the instant case. In t......