People v. Howell

Michigan Supreme Court

People v. Howell

231 N.W.2d 650, 394 Mich. 445, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 244

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1975

DocketDocket 56682

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 231 N.W.2d 650 (People v. Howell) 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. Howell, 231 N.W.2d 650, 394 Mich. 445, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 244 (Mich. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum Opinion. Willie A. Howell was found guilty by a jury of receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction. 58 Mich App 152; 227 NW2d 266 (1975). The prosecution sought leave to appeal in this Court. We grant leave and under GCR 1963, 865.1(7), reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the conviction of Howell.

The salient issue concerns a search and seizure, in Detroit, of jewelry stolen four days before in a Grand Rapids burglary.

Defendant was a passenger in an automobile stopped for a traffic violation. One police officer at the scene of the arrest said he observed, in plain sight, a small pouch-type bag in the car which he could see contained chains, watches and rings. After this initial observation, upon which the officer predicated no action, the officer returned to his own vehicle and, looking back to the stopped vehicle, observed one man in the stopped vehicle hand something from the front seat to the back where another man leaned down. The officer re-approached the automobile and asked what had happened to the bag. The response was, "What bag?” The bag was found hidden in a stepwell.

The officers then proceeded to make arrests and make further checks as to the true ownership of the jewelry.

On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the officers had probable cause to proceed as they did. The following facts were in evidence: (1) The *447 bag was bulging and the jewelry was in plain view. An officer saw a variety and quantity of jewelry more akin to the results of a theft than to property likely to be the personal belongings of an occupant of the automobile; (2) the bag was not the kind that a jewelry salesman would normally use; (3) the furtive behavior observed by the police officers; (4) the response, "What bag?” While furtive behavior by itself does not justify a search, furtive behavior may be considered as a factor, and, as in this case, in combination with other factors, may help establish probable cause.

T. G. Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, M. S. Coleman, J. W. Fitzgerald, and Lindemer, JJ., concurred. Swainson, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

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

Memorandum Opinion. Willie A. Howell was found guilty by a jury of receiving and concealing stolen property over the value of $100, MCLA 750.535; MSA 28.803. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction. 58 Mich App 152; 227 NW2d 266 (1975). The prosecution sought leave to appeal in this Court. We grant leave and under GCR 1963, 865.1(7), reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the conviction of Howell.

The salient issue concerns a search and seizure, in Detroit, of jewelry stolen four days before in a Grand Rapids burglary.

Defendant was a passenger in an automobile stopped for a traffic violation. One police officer at the scene of the arrest said he observed, in plain sight, a small pouch-type bag in the car which he could see contained chains, watches and rings. After this initial observation, upon which the officer predicated no action, the officer returned to his own vehicle and, looking back to the stopped vehicle, observed one man in the stopped vehicle hand something from the front seat to the back where another man leaned down. The officer re-approached the automobile and asked what had happened to the bag. The response was, "What bag?” The bag was found hidden in a stepwell.

The officers then proceeded to make arrests and make further checks as to the true ownership of the jewelry.

On these facts, this Court is of the opinion that the officers had probable cause to proceed as they did. The following facts were in evidence: (1) The *447 bag was bulging and the jewelry was in plain view. An officer saw a variety and quantity of jewelry more akin to the results of a theft than to property likely to be the personal belongings of an occupant of the automobile; (2) the bag was not the kind that a jewelry salesman would normally use; (3) the furtive behavior observed by the police officers; (4) the response, "What bag?” While furtive behavior by itself does not justify a search, furtive behavior may be considered as a factor, and, as in this case, in combination with other factors, may help establish probable cause.

T. G. Kavanagh, C. J., and Williams, Levin, M. S. Coleman, J. W. Fitzgerald, and Lindemer, JJ., concurred. Swainson, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 N.W.2d 650, 394 Mich. 445, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-howell-mich-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack