Case Name: WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR v. RECORDER'S COURT JUDGE; (PEOPLE v. LEWIS)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-10-07
Citations: 100 Mich. App. 518
Docket Number: Docket No. 45668
Parties: WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR v RECORDER’S COURT JUDGE (PEOPLE v LEWIS)
Judges: Before: Bronson, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and T. M. Burns, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 100
Pages: 518–522

Head Matter:
WAYNE COUNTY PROSECUTOR v RECORDER’S COURT JUDGE (PEOPLE v LEWIS)
Docket No. 45668.
Submitted March 10, 1980, at Detroit.
Decided October 7, 1980.
Richard C. Lewis was charged with possession of heroin with intent to deliver. A magistrate, upon conclusion of a preliminary examination, suppressed the sole incriminating piece of evidence against defendant and dismissed the charge. The prosecutor brought a complaint for an order of superintending control, seeking to vacate the magistrate’s decision. Wayne Circuit Court, Richard D. Dunn, J., denied relief. The people appeal. Held:
The magistrate’s decision to suppress the evidence was clearly erroneous. Based on the testimony presented, the officer had probable cause to seize the evidence.
Reversed.
T. M. Burns, J., dissented. He would hold that the police officer’s actions were unreasonable in that his confiscation of and search for the evidence was not based on probable cause, but on mere suspicion. Thus, the magistrate did not clearly abuse his discretion in holding that the evidence was illegally obtained and in dismissing the case. He would affirm.
Opinion of the Court
1. Criminal Law — Searches and Seizures — Probable Cause — Narcotics.
A police officer’s knowledge based on past experience that tinfoil packets or coin envelopes often contain narcotics provides the strongest support for the finding of probable cause to seize such a packet or coin envelope.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 4] 68 Am Jur 2d, Searches and Seizures § 43.
5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 797.
25 Am Jur 2d, Drugs, Narcotics, and Poisons §§ 44-47.
Dissent by T. M. Burns, J.
2. Appeal — Suppression op Evidence — Standard op Review.
The Court of Appeals will not reverse a ruling by a trial court suppressing evidence unless that ruling is found to be clearly erroneous.
3. Criminal Law — Narcotics — Reasonable Belief of Possession.
The mere possession of coin envelopes does not give rise to a reasonable belief that the possessor is using them to store narcotics.
4. Criminal Law — Searches and Seizures — Suspicion op Criminal Activity — Probable Cause.
The mere observance by a police officer of coin envelopes in the possession of a suspect, with nothing more, may give rise to some suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot, but not the probable cause required by the Constitution for confscation and search of the envelopes.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Edward Reilly Wilson, Principal Attorney, Appeals, and Timothy C. Scallen, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Before: Bronson, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and T. M. Burns, JJ.

Opinion:
Bronson, P.J.
The facts are well stated in the dissenting opinion and need not be repeated here. The issue in this case is whether the magistrate's decision to suppress the sole incriminating evidence in this case was clearly erroneous. In this regard, we believe the point on which this case turns is the testimony of the arresting officer, who stated that he had encountered coin envelopes of the type seized here 800 or 900 times in the same general area during his experience as a police officer and that such envelopes usually contained heroin. Based on this testimony, which is additionally supported by a countless number of cases yearly confronting both the trial and appellate bench, it is or should be clear by now that coin envelopes of the sort seized from the defendant are not simply innocuous, folded pieces of paper.
This Court stated in People v Ridgeway, 74 Mich App 306; 253 NW2d 743 (1977), lv den 401 Mich 831 (1977), that an officer's knowledge that tinfoil packets often contained narcotics provided the strongest support for a finding of probable cause to seize such a packet. Although it is true that the officers in Ridgeway also smelled the odor of burning marijuana, the significance of this added factor' was slight. Id., 313-314. See People v Young, 89 Mich App 753, 764-766; 282 NW2d 211 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 877 (1979) (Gillis, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, we hold the magistrate's decision to suppress the evidence to be clearly erroneous. Based on the testimony presented, the officer had probable cause to seize the coin envelopes.
Reversed.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.