People v. Galnt

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Galnt

209 N.W. 915, 235 Mich. 646, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 769

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 22, 1926

DocketDocket No. 123.

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 209 N.W. 915 (People v. Galnt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Galnt, 209 N.W. 915, 235 Mich. 646, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 769 (Mich. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Clakk, J.

Defendant, charged with and convicted of manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquor, seeks review on exceptions before sentence. The evidence against him was obtained by a search of his private dwelling house, initiated by an affidavit sufficient both in form and substance. But the warrant on which the search was made was void for the reason that in it the material facts alleged in the affidavit were “neither recited by quotation nor stated in substance,” as required by People v. Moten, 233 Mich. 169, and Act No. 338, Pub. Acts 1917, § 27 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 7079 [27]). This matter was raised by motion to suppress and discharge, timely made. The motion was denied, the court saying:

“In view of the fact that there is no affidavit of the respondent or any showing whatever that the liquor belongs to him, it is my opinion that the motion, there *648 fore, should not be granted. My opinion is based on the case of People v. Ninehouse, 227 Mich. 480."

We think the case cited not in point. Defendant might possess or manufacture liquor unlawfully without being the owner of it. The evidence against defendant was procured by a search of his private dwelling house. The search warrant was void — the search unlawful, a violation of his constitutional right (art. 2, § 10) that his house shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. All this appeared on the face of the record and was presented by the motion to suppress and discharge. The motion must prevail.

Reversed. Defendant discharged.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clakk, J.

Defendant, charged with and convicted of manufacturing and possessing intoxicating liquor, seeks review on exceptions before sentence. The evidence against him was obtained by a search of his private dwelling house, initiated by an affidavit sufficient both in form and substance. But the warrant on which the search was made was void for the reason that in it the material facts alleged in the affidavit were “neither recited by quotation nor stated in substance,” as required by People v. Moten, 233 Mich. 169, and Act No. 338, Pub. Acts 1917, § 27 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 7079 [27]). This matter was raised by motion to suppress and discharge, timely made. The motion was denied, the court saying:

“In view of the fact that there is no affidavit of the respondent or any showing whatever that the liquor belongs to him, it is my opinion that the motion, there *648 fore, should not be granted. My opinion is based on the case of People v. Ninehouse, 227 Mich. 480."

We think the case cited not in point. Defendant might possess or manufacture liquor unlawfully without being the owner of it. The evidence against defendant was procured by a search of his private dwelling house. The search warrant was void — the search unlawful, a violation of his constitutional right (art. 2, § 10) that his house shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. All this appeared on the face of the record and was presented by the motion to suppress and discharge. The motion must prevail.

Reversed. Defendant discharged.

Bird, C. J., and Sharpe, Snow, Steere, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

209 N.W. 915, 235 Mich. 646, 1926 Mich. LEXIS 769, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-galnt-mich-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack