Case Name: PEOPLE v. HOPKINS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1977-11-22
Citations: 79 Mich. App. 723
Docket Number: Docket No. 77-2069
Parties: PEOPLE v HOPKINS
Judges: Before: Quinn, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and C. L. Bosman, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 79
Pages: 723–724

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v HOPKINS
Searches and Seizures — Search Warrants — Description of Premises — Affidavit—Curing op Defects.
An affidavit on which a search warrant is based should be read along with the warrant in judging alleged defects in the warrant; a defective description in a warrant may be cured by the description contained in the affidavit.
Reference for Points in Headnote
68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures § 73.
Appeal from Ingham, Ray C. Hotchkiss, J.
Submitted November 8, 1977, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 77-2069.)
Decided November 22, 1977.
Ralph D. Hopkins was charged with possession of heroin. Defendant’s motion to quash a search warrant and to suppress evidence seized pursuant thereto was granted. The people appeal.
Reversed and remanded.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Peter D. Houk, Prosecuting Attorney, and Lee W. Atkinson, Chief Appellate Attorney, for the people.
Scodeller, Wilson, DeLuca & Vogel, for defendant.
Before: Quinn, P. J., and V. J. Brennan and C. L. Bosman, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Quinn, P. J.
The people appeal from the trial court's grant of defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence. The trial court found that the search warrant under which the evidence was seized was defective. We reverse and remand.
The alleged defect was in the description of the place to be searched. That description reads: "A two and one-half story house gray in color converted to multiple dwelling and the persons of people therein including Dennis Hopkins located at 600 South Walnut, Apartment 5, in the City of Lansing, in Ingham County, State, of Michigan."
We find that this description is not defective, although a better statement would be, "Apartment #5 on the _ floor of a two and one-half story house, gray in color converted to multiple dwelling."
Additionally, the affidavit on which the warrant was based contained a description, "Apartment number 5, 600 South Walnut City of Lansing." If the description in the warrant is defective, that defect is cured by the affidavit which is to be read with the warrant in judging alleged defects, Ellison v State, 186 Tenn 581; 212 SW2d 387 (1948), Thompson v State, 198 Ind 496; 154 NE 278 (1926), Frey v State, 3 Md App 38; 237 A2d 774 (1968), United States v Moore, 263 A2d 652 (DC App, 1970), Moore v United States, 149 US App DC 150; 461 F2d 1236 (1972).
Reversed and remanded.