Case Name: PEOPLE v. OROZCO
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-03-29
Citations: 74 Mich. App. 428
Docket Number: Docket No. 26419
Parties: PEOPLE v OROZCO
Judges: Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. C. Riley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 74
Pages: 428–439

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v OROZCO
Opinion of the Court
1. Appeal and Error—Motions—Quashing Information—Denial of Motion—Review—Evidence—Renewal at Trial.
Appellate review of denial of a motion to quash an information is restricted to the evidence presented to the magistrate, without regard to evidence presented at trial, unless the defendant has reopened the suppression issue by a renewed motion during the trial.
2. Criminal Law-—Arrest—Searches and Seizures—Probable Cause—Informant Tips—Specific Showing.
Information from an unidentified informant may be used to establish probable cause to arrest only where the prosecution makes a specific showing that there was reason to conclude that the informant was credible and that his information was acquired in a reliable manner; corroboration of physical detail supplied by an informant does not alone give rise to an inference that the informant learned of the suspect’s criminal plans in a reliable manner.
3. Criminal Law—Transportation of Contraband—Automobiles— Inferences.
Loading an automobile’s trunk and driving it away are as consistent with innocent departure as they are with transportation of contraband.
Dissent by Bashara, P. J.
4. Searches and Seizures—Probable Cause—Arrest—Underlying Circumstances.
The legality of a search without a warrant depends upon the existence of probable cause to arrest at the time of the search; for an informant’s tip to be sufficient to establish probable cause for a search and arrest, the government is ordinarily required to establish (1) some of the underlying circumstances from which the police concluded the informant was credible or his information reliable, and (2) some of the underlying circumstances from which the informant drew his conclusion.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 599.
[2, 5, 6, 8] 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest § 46.
[3] 25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons § 37.
[4, 7] 5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest §§ 24, 32.
5. Searches and Seizures—Arrest—Probable Cause—Past Information—Informant Tips—Detailed Activity—Corroborating Information—Independent Information.
Probable cause for a search and arrest based on an informant’s tip was sufficiently established where a police officer testiñed that he had received information from this source in the past "which worked out pretty good’’, and where the tip described the accused’s criminal activity in sufficient detail that it could be concluded that the informant was not relying on casual rumor circulating in the underworld or on an accusation based merely on the accused’s general reputation, and where the information in the tip was corroborated at the scene prior to the arrest and supported by information from independent police sources.
6. Arrest—Probable Cause—Informant Tips—Corroborating Information.
Information gathered by an arresting officer corroborating an informant’s tip may be used to sustain a ñnding of probable cause for an arrest which could not adequately be supported by the tip alone.
7. Arrest—Searches and Seizures—Automobiles—Probable Cause —Suspicious Driving.
A suspicious driving pattern may be considered in determining probable cause to arrest and search.
8. Arrest-Probable Cause—Information of Illegal Activities.
Information from law enforcement agencies regarding a suspect’s illegal activities may properly be considered in determining probable cause to arrest.
Appeal from Oakland, Arthur E. Moore, J.
Submitted November 8, 1976, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 26419.)
Decided March 29, 1977.
Leave to appeal applied for.
John H. Orozco was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. Defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, L. Brooks Patterson, Prosecuting Attorney, Robert C. Williams, Chief Appellate Counsel, and Thomas S. Richards, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Lynn V Hooe, Jr., (Owen P. O’Neill, of counsel), for defendant.
Before: Bashara, P. J., and M. F. Cavanagh and D. C. Riley, JJ.

Opinion:
M. F. Cavanagh, J.
The defendant appeals his bench trial conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. MCLA 335.341(l)(b); MSA 18.1070(41)(l)(b). We reverse because the principal evidence underlying the charge was unconstitutionally seized.
We adopt the statement of facts of the dissenting opinion with but one exception. We disagree with the dissent's assertion that our review of the evidence includes the trial testimony of Detective Parks. Defendant's timely motion to suppress was denied by the district court. When he moved to quash the information in the circuit court, the case was remanded for further testimony by Detective Lester. Upon completion of the district court hearing, the circuit court reviewed the district court record and denied the motion to quash. People v Olajos, 397 Mich 629; 246 NW2d 828 (1976), does not change the well established rule that appellate review of the circuit court's denial of a defendant's motion to quash the information is restricted to the evidence presented to the magistrate, regardless of the nature of evidence pre sented at trial. People v Charles D Walker, 385 Mich 565; 189 NW2d 234 (1971), People v Hall, 375 Mich 187; 134 NW2d 173 (1965), People v White, 276 Mich 29; 267 NW 777 (1936).
While we agree that the only manner in which this search could be upheld would be as incident to an arrest, we cannot agree that the authorities had probable cause to arrest.
The informant's tip was the crux of the authorities' belief that a crime had been committed and that the defendant had participated in it. The cases from Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108; 84 S Ct 1509; 12 L Ed 2d 723 (1964), through United States v Harris, 403 US 573; 91 S Ct 2075; 29 L Ed 2d 723 (1971), lay down a double requirement for information from anonymous informants. There must be reason to conclude that the informant was credible and that his information was acquired in a reliable manner. Contrary to the dissenting opinion, we believe that this tip failed both requirements.
The only evidence on the district court record that the informant was a credible source was the police detective's statement, "[i]t worked out pretty good before, sir". There are no specifics whatsoever. It is only a translated version of "reliable source". While the informant may in fact have provided much reliable information in the past, the prosecutor failed to make the necessary showing._
Moreover, there is nothing in the tip, nor in Detective Parks' additional testimony at trial, to indicate that the information was gained in a reliable fashion. The corroborated details suggest that the informant may have seen the car and known of its destination, but none of these details indicate how the informant could forecast that the defendant made the trip to engage in a criminal transaction or more importantly, who the driver of the vehicle or defendant would be. While corroboration of many physical details would lend credence to a tip that a suspect was carrying contraband, since it would infer that the informant had gained the information by personal observation, cf. People v Chaney, 52 Mich App 474; 218 NW2d 121 (1973), lv den, 390 Mich 813 (1973), corroboration of physical detail does not infer that the informant learned of the suspect's criminal plans in a reliable manner. Indeed, the dissenting opinion admits that the part of the tip which remained uncorroborated was the only part of the tip which indicated that a criminal transaction was contemplated.
Nor did the observations of the police furnish sufficient other reason to arrest the defendant. Loading an automobile's trunk and driving away are as consistent with innocent departure as they are with transportation of contraband.
We find the facts in People v Walker, 64 Mich App 138; 235 NW2d 85 (1975), lv granted, 396 Mich 812 (1976), indistinguishable, and agree with that result. The evidence should have been suppressed and the charge dismissed.
D. C. Riley, J., concurred.
People v Olajos, 397 Mich 629; 246 NW2d 828 (1976), allows reference to trial testimony only if the trial court has allowed the defendant to reopen the suppression issue by a renewed motion during the trial. In this case, Detective Parks' trial testimony was not in response to a renewed suppression motion; it came about merely as part of the prosecution's case.
It should be further noted that the basis of the informant's reliability was even a further step removed from the arresting officer. This "reliable tip" was received by a detective of the Genesee County Sheriffs Department, who, in turn, phoned the Oakland County Sheriffs Department, the arresting agency.
Although the people claim probable cause to arrest based upon the given facts, it is interesting to note that the wife of the defendant was with him at all times and, in fact, was the driver of the vehicle. There apparently was hot, however, sufficient probable cause to arrest her as she was released at the scene and not subsequently charged.