People v. Wright

• Decision Date: 10 September 1962
• Docket Number: No. 56,56
• Citation: 116 N.W.2d 786,367 Mich. 611
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 786

116 N.W.2d 786

367 Mich. 611

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. George WRIGHT, Defendant and Appellee.

No. 56.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Sept. 10, 1962.

James C. Fleming, Pros. Atty. of Jackson County, William C. Ghesquiere, Asst. Pros. Atty. of Jackson County, Jackson, for plaintiff and appellant.

Owen Dudley, Jackson, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except ADAMS, J.

SOURIS, Justice (for affirmance).

The question presented in this case is whether a search warrant properly may be issued based only upon facts disclosed by affidavit as they existed six days earlier.

Defendant was charged with maintaining and operating a gaming room and a place where liquor was served without a license. The police seized liquor and gambling paraphernalia in search of the premises authorized by warrant. Defendant moved to quash the informations based in part upon the claim that the affidavit upon which the search warrant was issued referred to facts too remote in time from the date the warrant was issued. Judge Simpson, of the Jackson circuit, granted defendant's motion and the people, on leave granted, now appeal.

Walter Powell made an affidavit that on February 18, 1961, he entered defendant's premises, known as the 'Big Four Club' or the Child's Welfare Building, and purchased alcoholic liquor and observed others doing the same and gambling on the premises. The affidavit was submitted to a justice of the peace, in support of a request for a search warrant, on February 24. With that affidavit there was submitted another by a police officer in which it was stated that the police officer had investigated Powell's complaint and had conducted a surveillance of the premises, but that affidavit does not contain any factual statement of the results of such investigation or surveillance. In short, the justice of the peace had nothing before him upon which he could conclude that the situation disclosed by Powell's affidavit to have existed on February 18 continued to exist during the intervening period to the date request was made for issuance of the search warrant.

Judge Simpson was correct in quashing the information. In People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 326, 197 N.W. 539, this Court said:

'The right to issue a search warrant rests upon facts existing at the time the showing is made for the warrant. This is made clear by the Constitution and every statutory provision with reference to search warrants. If Mr. Burdeno, in his dwelling, sold Mr. Forsyth a pint of whisky on April 15, 1923, he may be prosecuted for doing so, but such sale alone afforded no ground for a finding of reasonable cause to believe that on June 21, 1923, whisky 'is being kept, possessed, and stored (in such dwelling) for the purpose of being sold, furnished, or given away as a beverage.' Cause 66 days old, without any intervening facts disclosing continuing cause, will not justify a search warrant. A search warrant must issue, if at all, upon an existing cause. A search warrant is no general arm for ferreting out crime, but a special proceeding, based on present cause, hedged by strict constitutional provisions, must be speedily executed, and cannot be issued on a...