People v. Winkle
| Decision Date | 04 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 83,83 |
| Citation | 358 Mich. 551,100 N.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George H. WINKLE, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Baker & Durst, Adrian, for defendant and appellant.
Paul L. Adams, Atty. Gen., Samuel J. Torina, Sol. Gen., Lansing, Kenneth B. Glaser, Jr., Pros. Atty. of Lenawee County, Adrian, for appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Appellant Winkle was found guilty following his trial below under a single information containing 2 counts charging the crime of carrying a concealed weapon and the crime of possession of burglar tools. Trial was had before the circuit judge, a jury having been waived. The offending articles, all of which were admitted into evidence at the trial, were discovered and seized by 2 state police officers following a search made by them of a car driven by Winkle after he was stopped along the highway by the officers for a traffic violation which the officers had just observed and to which Winkle subsequently pleaded guilty. In the present case the defendant timely moved to suppress all the evidence obtained by the search, which motion was overruled, all the articles admitted, and the convictions resulted. Upon leave granted the defendant has appealed here, urging 3 propositions: that he was never actually arrested by the officers; that in any event an arrest for the traffic offense (driving through a red light) did not warrant the search of the car and admission in evidence in the present case of the articles thus obtained and, finally, that article 2, § 10, of the Michigan Constitution (1908), as amended in 1936 and again in 1952, offends against and is repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.
Article 2, § 10, of the Michigan Constitution (1908), as last amended, reads as follows:
(Matter added by the amendments is italicized.)
The search of the car which is complained of here turned up a loaded .38 calibre revolver, a quantity of nitroglycerin, certain wood and metal cutting and burining implements, an electric drill, 2 pry bars, 1 pair of 10-inch wire cutters, 7 assorted chisels, 3 lock picks, an assortment of skeleton keys, 1 large sledge hammer, 2 gas masks, and a generous supply of detonator caps, besides numerous other professional adjuncts and accessories of the complete burglar. All of these articles were admitted in evidence over objection. It should be added that none of these articles could be seen by the officers when they stopped the Winkle car for the noted traffic offense nor had the officers any information or knowledge that any felony had been, was being, or was about to be committed. so far as it may be relevant to a decision in this case, the main reason for the officers making the search appears to have been the unsatisfactory and conflicting answers Winkle and a fellow passenger gave the officers in response to questions put by the officers to them about who they were, where they were from, and whither they were bound.
The revolver was described and set forth in the first count of the information, which charged the carrying of a concealed weapon; the nitroglycerin and detonator caps as well as all the other articles above set forth (except the revolver) were described and included in the second count of the information, which count charged in the usual form possession of burglar tools.
In People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, 97 N.W.2d 16, 22, this Court recently unanimously held (except for Mr. Justice Kavanagh, who did not sit) that the noted amendment to our Constitution did not offend the United States Constitution or any of its amendments. It will further be observed that the amendment to our State Constitution includes both the words 'revolver' and 'explosive' among the articles there enumerated. We also note that the 'burglar tool' statute (C.L.1948, § 750.116 [Stat.Ann. § 28.311]) specifically includes 'nitroglycerine, or other explosive.'
Since our decision in Gonzales it appears that once it has been determined that the search and seizure has occurred, in the words of the amendment, 'outside the curtilage of any dwelling house in this state' and once it has further been determined that the articles seized and offered in evidence in a criminal proceeding are among those enumerated in that amendment (both of which are so here) then the circumstances of the arrest and of any search or seizure, or the frequently prickly question of whether or not the search and seizure was 'unreasonable,' appear to become totally irrelevant in any phase of the criminal case. As Mr. Justice Smith tersely wrote in Gonzales (356 Mich. at page 264, 97 N.W.2d at page 24): 'When we conclude that * * * [the amendment] is not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, we have disposed of the case before us.' The question is whether there are circumstances in this case, properly brought before us by the records and briefs, which take it without the broad rule of Gonzales. We think there are none.
Before prosecutors and police go dance in the streets, a word or two of warning is in order. The question nevertheless still persists whether there are no possible situations in these or similar circumstances where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Winkle v. Bannan, 58
...on the possession of burglar tools count. The conviction and sentences were affirmed on January 4, 1960, by this Court in People v. Winkle 358 Mich. 551, 100 N.W.2d 309. Thereafter Winkle filed for habeas corpus and certiorari in this Court, and the petition was denied. A petition for certi......
-
Sitz v. Department of State Police
...the search and seizure was "unreasonable," appear to become totally irrelevant in any phase of the criminal case. [People v. Winkle, 358 Mich. 551, 554, 100 N.W.2d 309 (1960).]While Winkle was interpreting Const 1908, art. 2, § 10, as amended in 1936 and 1952, and not Const.1963, art. 1, § ......
-
People v. Goldston
...more restrictive than its federal counterpart. See, e.g., People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, 97 N.W.2d 16 (1959); People v. Winkle, 358 Mich. 551, 556, 100 N.W.2d 309 (1960).22 Moreover, this relationship was sought to be continued by the 1963 constitution in which, two years after Mapp, it......
-
People v. Nash
...4, 1952. This Court enforced the people's will in People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich. 247, 97 N.W.2d 16 (1959), and People v. Winkle, 358 Mich. 551, 100 N.W.2d 309 (1960), and allowed the admission of weapons into evidence even though they were unconstitutionally seized. Thus, as of 1960, it is r......