People v. Lavine

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Lavine

290 N.W.2d 413, 95 Mich. App. 200, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 2452

Michigan Court of Appeals·Decided January 25, 1980·No. Docket 78-4293·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Defendant áppéals from the circdit court’s denial of his petition for the return of an assortment of chattels and approximately $2,000 in cash removed from his bedroom by police officers executing a valid search warrant. Defendant previously won an acquittal by directed verdict ori a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, which arose out of the same search.

The question to be decided in a case of this type is "the superior right of possession as between the seizing authority a.nd the one from whoin the property was seizéd”. People v Rosa, 11 Mich App 157, 161; 160 NW2d 747 (1968), aff'd 382 Mich 163; 169 NW2d 297 (1969). See also, Oakland County v Bice, 386 Mich 143; 191 NW2d 338 (1971);

However, defendant has not claimed that the property in question waS seized from his possession: Nor does he allege that he exercised over the property that dominion and control which is the hallmark of possession. Seé 73 CJS, Property, § 14(a), pp 196-197. He merely claims that the property was found in his room and that he gave no one else permission to put it there. Those [202]*202allegations are insufficient to establish even a prima facie right to possession. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s petition.

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant áppéals from the circdit court’s denial of his petition for the return of an assortment of chattels and approximately $2,000 in cash removed from his bedroom by police officers executing a valid search warrant. Defendant previously won an acquittal by directed verdict ori a charge of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, which arose out of the same search.

The question to be decided in a case of this type is "the superior right of possession as between the seizing authority a.nd the one from whoin the property was seizéd”. People v Rosa, 11 Mich App 157, 161; 160 NW2d 747 (1968), aff'd 382 Mich 163; 169 NW2d 297 (1969). See also, Oakland County v Bice, 386 Mich 143; 191 NW2d 338 (1971);

However, defendant has not claimed that the property in question waS seized from his possession: Nor does he allege that he exercised over the property that dominion and control which is the hallmark of possession. Seé 73 CJS, Property, § 14(a), pp 196-197. He merely claims that the property was found in his room and that he gave no one else permission to put it there. Those [202]*202allegations are insufficient to establish even a prima facie right to possession. The trial court correctly denied defendant’s petition.

Affirmed.

People v. Lavine, 290 N.W.2d 413, 95 Mich. App. 200, 1980 Mich. App. LEXIS 2452 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

290 N.W.2d 413 (People v. Lavine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related