People v. Perry

Michigan Court of Appeals

People v. Perry

282 N.W.2d 14, 91 Mich. App. 79, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2229

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 1979

DocketDocket 78-620, 78-621

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 282 N.W.2d 14 (People v. Perry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Perry, 282 N.W.2d 14, 91 Mich. App. 79, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2229 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of delivery of a controlled substance, heroin, contrary to MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a). He appeals as of right.

On September 29, 1975, Washtenaw County police officers placed a transmitter and tape recorder on the person of police informant William Bruce O’Neal. O’Neal then went to the 100 block of Ann Street in Ann Arbor where he purchased a small quantity of heroin from defendant. He returned on September 30, 1975, and made another purchase from defendant.. These tapes were played at defendant’s trials, over his objections.

In People v Hall, 88 Mich App 324; 276 NW2d 897 (1979), this Court relied on People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), cert den 423 US 878; 96 S Ct 152; 46 L Ed 2d 111 (1975), and People v Livingston, 64 Mich App 247; 236 NW2d 63 (1975), to hold that a search warrant is required where an informant records a conversation with a defendant. The intrusion of privacy incurred where a participant transmits a conversation to a third party is equally present as where a participant records the conversation. Thus, defendant is entitled to the same protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Const 1963, art 1, § 11.

Since no search warrant was procured in this *81 case, it was reversible error to play the tape recordings into evidence. The defendant’s convictions must be reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of delivery of a controlled substance, heroin, contrary to MCL 335.341(l)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(a). He appeals as of right.

On September 29, 1975, Washtenaw County police officers placed a transmitter and tape recorder on the person of police informant William Bruce O’Neal. O’Neal then went to the 100 block of Ann Street in Ann Arbor where he purchased a small quantity of heroin from defendant. He returned on September 30, 1975, and made another purchase from defendant.. These tapes were played at defendant’s trials, over his objections.

In People v Hall, 88 Mich App 324; 276 NW2d 897 (1979), this Court relied on People v Beavers, 393 Mich 554; 227 NW2d 511 (1975), cert den 423 US 878; 96 S Ct 152; 46 L Ed 2d 111 (1975), and People v Livingston, 64 Mich App 247; 236 NW2d 63 (1975), to hold that a search warrant is required where an informant records a conversation with a defendant. The intrusion of privacy incurred where a participant transmits a conversation to a third party is equally present as where a participant records the conversation. Thus, defendant is entitled to the same protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Const 1963, art 1, § 11.

Since no search warrant was procured in this *81 case, it was reversible error to play the tape recordings into evidence. The defendant’s convictions must be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 N.W.2d 14, 91 Mich. App. 79, 1979 Mich. App. LEXIS 2229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perry-michctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack