Case Name: PEOPLE v. WOODWARD
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1925-07-16
Citations: 231 Mich. 559
Docket Number: Docket No. 130
Parties: PEOPLE v. WOODWARD.
Judges: McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred with Sharpe, J.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 231
Pages: 559–563

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. WOODWARD.
1. Searches and Seizures — Description of Premises Not Indefinite.
A warrant authorizing the search of premises described as “the two two-story houses, one brown, the other green, on the premises situate, known and numbered as No. 704 Elizabeth street,” in a certain city, was not void for indefiniteness, where the buildings apparently were occupied as one place of abode, and were used together as a place of public resort; the officer not being required .to exercise any discretion in determining where the search should be made.
2. Intoxicating Liquors — Affidavit for Search Warrant — Sufficiency.
An affidavit stating that for a week preceding date of affidavit affiant had watched the premises and had seen many men enter sober and come out drunk, and had seen men go into the place and later come out and produce bottles of moonshine whisky and drink from them, stated sufficient grounds to authorize the issuance of a search warrant.
3. Same — Trial—Instruction—Pouring Out Liquid to Prevent Seizure Prima Facie Evidence of Intoxicating Nature.
In a prosecution for the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, where one of the officers executing the search warrant testified that when he entered the kitchen the defendant had a tea pot or coffee pot in his hand from which there was moonshine whisky dropping on the floor, an instruction that, if the defendant was pouring out a liquid for the purpose of preventing its seizure, the jury might find his action to be prima facie evidence of the intoxicating nature of the fluid, was justified under section 28, Act No. 338, Pub. Acts 1917.
Exceptions before judgment from Jackson; Parkin son (James A.), J.
Submitted January 15, 1925.
(Docket No. 130.)
Decided July 16, 1925.
Frank Woodward was convicted of violating the liquor law.
Affirmed.
John F. Berry and Charles W. Patch, for appellant.
Andrew B. Dougherty, Attorney General, John Simpson, Prosecuting Attorney, and Harry E. Barnard, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Searches and Seizures, 35 Cyc. p. 1266;
Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. § 371;
Criminal Law, 16 C. J. § 1025; Intoxicating Liquors, 33 C. J. § 501.

Opinion:
Sharpe, J.
Defendant reviews his conviction, on a charge of unlawfully having intoxicating liquors in his possession, on exceptions before sentence.
1. It is urged that the search warrant, under which certain evidence was secured, was issued without authority of law. The warrant described the premises as—
"the two two-story houses, one brown, the other green, on the premises situate, known and numbered as No. 704'Elizabeth street, in the city of Jackson."
It was held in People v. Musk, 221 Mich. 578, that the description in a search warrant must point to a definitely ascertainable place. It is apparent from reading the entire warrant and the affidavit on which it was based that there was a community of occupation of the premises described in the warrant. The names of the occupants were unknown to the affiant, and were stated to be "one John Doe and Richard Roe."
The grounds for the belief of the affiant were thus stated:
"For about a week preceding the date of this affidavit, I have watched the above places. Many men have entered the place sober, only to later come out drunk. I have seen men go into the place to come out later and go down to the railroad tracks near there where they produce bottles of moonshine whisky and drink from them. I have seen this happen from places less than 40 feet distant from them. This latter arrangement I have seen occur at least three or four times in the past week."
Under the warrant, the officer was vested with authority to search the premises described therein. The description was definite* He was .not required to exercise any discretion in determining where the search should be made. The buildings apparently were occupied as one place of abode, and were used together as a place of public resort. In our opinion the warrant was properly issued, and authorized the search made. People v. Bawiec, 228 Mich. 32; People v. Flaczinski, 223 Mich. 650; People v. Flemming, 221 Mich. 609, and cases cited. The quotation from Meek v. Pierce, 19 Wis. 300, appearing in the Bawiec Case, is instructive.
2. The grounds for the belief of the affiant above quoted were clearly sufficient. People v. Starkweather, 224 Mich. 137; People v. Schregardus, 226 Mich. 279; People v. Flemming, supra.
3. One of the officers who executed the search warrant testified that when he entered the kitchen the defendant—
"had a tea pot or coffee pot in his hand from which there was moonshine whisky dropping onto the floor."
The trial court read to the jury section 28 of Act No. 338, Pub. Acts 1917 (Comp. Laws Supp. 1922, § 7079 [28]), and instructed them that if the defendant was pouring out a liquid when the officer entered for the purpose of preventing its seizure, they might find his action to be prima facie evidence of the intoxicating nature of the fluid. The charge in this respect was fully justified under the statute.
The record discloses no prejudicial error. The trial court will proceed to sentence.
McDonald, C. J., and Clark, Moore, Steere, Fellows, and Wiest, JJ., concurred with Sharpe, J.