*1 754 v DANIELS PEOPLE 1. Arrest —Probable Cause —Statute. suspect he may without warrant when arrest a A officer any positive information broadcast from such has received governmental recognized police radio station as or other felony that a has been cause believe him reasonable afford person that such cause believe and reasonable committed specification it; of a a radio run’s when has committed alley specific entering garage on near a breaking an coupled observance of defend- with the officer’s location is running coming when the car’s ant on, probable cause sufficient turned this constitutes felony to believe that a of reasonable caution to warrant a man it; the defendant committed and that had been committed (MCLA764.15[f]). therefore, the arrest was valid 2. Cause— Warrant —Probable Searches and Seizures —Without Exigent Circumstances. requires proba- justification of a warrantless search
The minimal factor, plus sometimes denominated an additional ble cause sanctioning circumstances”, "exigent the substitution searching for of a determination officer’s magistrate. neutral 3. Cause— Seizures —Without Warrant —Probable Searches Exigent Circumstances. and seizure warrant invalidated a search
Failure to secure a where the search the defendant’s automobile nor there to the arrest neither incident arrest, and at the time of to search the automobile ble cause automobile the defendant’s where coupled not and was than two hours after the arrest arose more exigent warrant- circumstance which would [2, [4] [1] 3, 68 Am Jur Am 5] Jur Am 2d, 2d, Jur Eeferences Arrest Searches and 2d, Searches and Seizures § §§ 24, for 32. Seizures Points in Headnotes §§ 87. 41 et seq. Daniels search, accomplice less because the defendant and his were in police custody. *2 4. Searches and Seizures —Evidence—Harmless Error. illegal
Admitting fruits of an and seizure into evidence error, at a trial was and the conviction of the beyond defendant must be reversed where cannot said be a illegally doubt reasonable seized evidence did not conviction, though to the even contribute there was sufficient evidence, apart evidence, illegally from the obtained to convict him. by Danhof, Warrant—Exigent 5. Searches and Seizures — Circumstances. A search and seizure warrantless of a defendant’s automo- immediately bile two hours after a defendant’s arrest and after learning goods may that stolen have been contained in the automobile, public and where the automobile was on a street, justified, is no since there constitutional difference in degree carrying intrusion between out an immedi- pending ate without and a magistrate’s determination of cause. Appeal Joseph Detroit, from Recorder’s Court of August Maher, E. 7, 1973, J. Submitted Division 2 15813.) (Docket at Detroit. No. Decided December appeal applied 6, 1973. Leave for. breaking Russell J. Daniels was convicted of and
entering a business establishment with intent larceny. appeals. to commit Defendant Reversed and for remanded new trial. Kelley, Attorney General,
Frank J. Robert A. Derengoski, General, Cahalan, Solicitor L. William Prosecuting Attorney, Carnovale, Dominick R. Appellate Department, Angelo Chief, A. and Pen- Prosecuting Attorney, tolino, Assistant for the people.
Hoffa, Robiner, & Chodak for the defendant. App J., C. Lesinski,
Before: Danhof Bash- ara, JJ. was convicted Defendant C. J. Lesinski, breaking entering jury of
Recorder’s intent to commit lar- business establishment appeals ceny. 750.110; 28.305. He MCLA MSA right. appeal challenge on raised concerns the The first argues that there was insuf- He defendant’s arrest. arrest. cause to ficient alerting arresting responded run to a radio officer entering breaking on him that a occurring alley near intersection of an officer Tillman Streets. The Butternut and driving he in the with his off when saw area garage adjacent light to a a approximately in a Butternut address *3 away the block from inter-
one-half
seeing
Tillman. After
the
Butternut and
section of
companion
ga-
walk out of the
a
defendant and
rage,
whereupon
on,
turned his
the officer
began
companion
his
to run.
defendant and
the
gave
the
chase on foot and made
arrest.
The officer
prescribed
Legislature
police officer’s
has
a
response
power
to a
to arrest without a warrant
may
He
radio run.
arrest:
positive information
he has received such
"[w]hen
recognized
govern-
police
other
broadcast
from
or
* * *
him
reasona-
mental radio station
afford
felony has
committed
ble
that a
been
believe
person
has
cause to believe
such
and reasonable
28.874(f).
764.15(f);
committed it.” MCLA
MSA
arresting
Court has held that where the
This
glass
aof
information
radio
officers received
person
breaking,
only
on
was the
defendant
plate
coming
from
in which
the street
the store
glass
had
and defendant
door had been smashed
People
v Daniels
the
responded negatively
to the officer’s
as to
glass breaking,
heard
whether he had
such facts
arrest
constituted
Jones, 37
v Daniel
In the the radio instant run’s garage, alley, coupled location, with the coming officer’s observance of the defendant garage running the lights when the car’s on,
were turned constitute sufficient ble cause to warrant a man of reasonable caution felony had believe that been committed and Thus, the had committed it. arrest was valid. admissibility next
Defendant contests of evi- dence obtained from a search of his cár. approximately
Defendant’s arrest occurred at p.m. being 11:30 After taken to station, simultaneously a codeferidant who was arrested with the defendant made statement at 2 a.m. fishing that the defendant had taken a box out of garage placed the The the trunk of his car. keys then removed the to the defend- inventory ant’s car without his consent from the picked property, up car, and searched the immediately upon its arrival at the station. fishing tooling The search disclosed a accessories and other tools box full of
appropriate for use in a shop, machine nature busi- property ness on located was inci- *4 dent to.
Upon learning of the search of the car at the objected trial, the to admission of the items, above but the trial court allowed fruits of the trunk search into evidence.
Automobile searches and been seizures have popular topic of review before the United States App 754 of early
Supreme as the Court made Court. As requirements in automobile that warrant clear in those home or from office differed situations States, 132; 267 US United Carroll v situations. (1925). However, the articu- L Ed 543 S Ct precisely these differences are has what lation recently the Court as "some- described been Cady thing v web”. Dombrow- than a seamless less 2523, 2527; 433, 440; 93 Ct 37 L Ed ski, S 706, 714 2d principle difficulty,
Granting con- this the course of most of case threads the instant trols Supreme on automobile decisions simply principle that the mini- is That searches. requires justification of a warrantless mal probable plus factor, some- an additional "exigent circumstances”, times denominated sanctioning searching of the offi- the substitution for that of a determination cer’s magistrate. factor has This additional neutral ranged open mobility road of a car on the Maroney, supra, Carroll, and Chambers in (1970), L Ed 2d 419 auto- involvement with official noncriminal local mobiles enunciated supra, Cady, 441- at 413 US 714-715. 2528; 37 L Ed 2d 442; 93 S Ct applied principle station searches This supra. if Carroll Chambers, held that Chambers applies contact, is, if there at the scene plus an additional cause at the scene justifying warrant, then the of a the lack factor This and searched. to the station be taken supported by ratio- sense the common greater intrusion at there is nale at the scene. there would have been than station principles application the instant of these the search a conclusion that dictates case *5 People v Daniels defendant’s car without was invalid. At arrest, the scene of the defendant’s there was no to probable cause whatsoever search the defend- ant’s car. The did not know that the car was accomplice’s involved until the statement at the Therefore, station two hours after the arrest. this lack of cause at prevents scene Chambers justification of the station search. accomplice
Once the made the statement placed fishing defendant had box from the complainant’s trunk, into premises the car there is point no that at this probable cause ex- However, isted to automobile. we find failure of the to obtain a warrant was inexcusable. Both the defendant and his ac- complice in custody. There is appearance on the record of additional factor which when coupled with probable cause would justify the warrantless search. subsequent appearance probable cause at the station cannot alone justify the warrantless search. "Here there was cause, exigent but no circumstances justified proceeding Coolidge warrant.” Hampshire, v New 443, 464; 2022, 91 S Ct 2037; 29 L Ed 2d As stated in Carroll, supra, at 267 US 69 L Ed 552-553: "In cases where the securing of a war- it must be used”. rant is reasonably practicable, (Emphasis supplied.)
This case is distinguishable
from this Court’s
Bukoski,
decision in
41 Mich App
(1972),
circumstance "fleeting” search without a accomplice were in Here the custody *6 fleeting opportu- no similar was and there nity to search. to secure thus invali-
Since the failure seizure, the trial court erred the search dated in dence. admitting fruits of that search into evi- apart clearly sufficient evidence
There was
in the trunk to convict
fruits discovered
from the
the defendant.
beyond
However, it cannot be said
the excluded evidence
doubt that
did
reasonable
a
not contribute
of the defendant.
to the conviction
Harrington
California,
S Ct
v
(1969); People Timmons,
34 Mich
Danhof, disposition majority’s of the automobile upon Coolidge v New issue and its reliance search Hampshire, 443; 29 L Ed 2d opinion majority no in Cool- There is Coolidge idge. judgment of the Court in was The opinion) (part the war- I Stewart’s of Justice authorizing Coolidge’s was the search of rant (in part opinion) that, DII of that invalid and weeks of the authorities had known for 2-1/2 since planned Coolidge’s presence had exigent all car and along it, circum- to seize there were failure to obtain a valid stances Coolidge in is to be of the search The context In Cool- instant case. contrasted with that idge, parked car was seized when private driveway. Here, was defendant’s car v Daniels by Danhof, public alley near in a the scene of the Coolidge, the arrest and In crime. made at original suspi- time remote wrong-doing. Here, the cions of immediately arrest was made the search conducted two hours Coolidge, only prolonged later. In after a analysis findings of the car and positively the authorities were able to conclude that Here, the car had a connection with the crime.
given compan- the statement of defendant’s ion, there to believe that de- goods fendant’s car contained stolen that same evening. question presented in this case is where present
does the factual situation here fit within spectrum repre- of search and seizure law Coolidge, supra, sented the decisions in *7 Maroney, Chambers v 90 S Ct L Ed 2d 419 If the had known at the presence scene of defendant’s arrest of the of his they car crime, and its connection with the could immediately upon have searched it there or ar- rival at the station house. When the learned they of the car arrest, two hours after the certainly justified seizing it. Between the availa- seizing holding ble alternatives of either pending magistrate’s determination of carrying ble cause or out an immediate search warrant, there is no constitutional dif- degree ference in the intrusion. As was said in Chambers: "Arguably, preference magis- because of for a judgment,
trate’s
only the immobilization of the car
permitted
should
obtained;
be
until a search warrant
arguably, only
permissible
the 'lesser’ intrusion is
until
magistrate
is,
'greater.’
the
the
authorizes
But which
'greater’
and which is the 'lesser’ intrusion is itself
by Danhof,
debatable
and the
answer
depend on a
variety of circumstances. For
purposes,
constitutional
we see no difference between on the one hand seizing
presenting
a car before
magistrate
issue to a
and on the other hand carrying
out an immediate search without a warrant. Given
search,
cause to
either course is reasonable
under the Fourth
51-52;
Amendment.” 399 US
1981;
I, therefore, vote to affirm.