Case Name: PEOPLE v. THATCHER
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1978-05-23
Citations: 83 Mich. App. 527
Docket Number: Docket Nos. 77-4281, 77-4282
Parties: PEOPLE v THATCHER
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and D. C. Riley, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 83
Pages: 527–533

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v THATCHER
Docket Nos. 77-4281, 77-4282.
Submitted April 3, 1978 at Grand Rapids.
Decided May 23, 1978.
Fred Thatcher was charged with possession of heroin and carrying a concealed weapon. Prior to that charge he was arrested as he was entering an automobile and a search of the defendant and the vehicle revealed a tinfoil packet containing heroin and an automatic pistol. Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence on the basis of an invalid arrest and illegal search and seizure. The motion was denied by Thomas C. Megargle, J., Branch Circuit Court. Defendant appeals. Held:
The facts and circumstances of this case would lead a reasonably prudent person to the honest belief that a felony had been committed and that defendant participated therein; therefore, there was probable cause to arrest and the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
Affirmed.
D. C. Riley, J., dissents on the ground that the evidence leads to the conclusion that the police officers had no more than a mere suspicion that defendant was involved in a drug transaction and suspicion is not probable cause; furthermore, because the arrest was invalid and the search illegal, it was an abuse of trial court discretion to deny defendant’s motion to suppress evidence.
Opinion of the Court
1. Appeal and Error—Arrest—Criminal Law—Probable Cause— Discretion.
Once a trial court has found probable cause for an arrest the Court of Appeals will overturn such a ruling only where an abuse of discretion is shown.
References for Points in Headnotes
5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest § 49.
What constitutes probable cause for arrest—Supreme Court cases. 28 L Ed 2d 978.
5 Am Jur 2d, Arrest §§ 16, 24, 32, 44 et seq.
29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 415, 531.
Modern status of rule governing admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure. 50 ALR2d 531.
2. Arrest—Criminal Law—Searches and Seizures—Probable Cause—Prudent Person Test.
Probable cause for a police officer to arrest and seize evidence exists where facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to the honest belief that a felony had been committed and that the defendant participated therein.
Dissent by D. C. Riley, J.
3. Arrest—Criminal Law—Probable Cause—Legality—Facts of Case.
Probable cause and the legality of an arrest is a determination which relies heavily on the facts of a particular case.
4. Arrest—Without Warrant—Probable Cause—Valid Arrest— Searches and Seizures—Poisonous Tree—Plain View Rule —Evidence—Admissibility.
An arrest without a warrant cannot be sustained on suspicions not amounting to probable cause; if an arrest is invalid, evidence found in a search incident to that arrest must be suppressed as a ’’fruit of the poisonous tree”; in an instance where the arresting officers are not in a place where they have a right to be, the evidence seized under the ’’plain view” exception to the warrant requirement is inadmissible because the arrest is illegal.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and John L. Livesay, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Kenneth A. Birch, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and D. C. Riley, JJ.

Opinion:
J. H. Gillis, J.
Defendant was arrested on October 14, 1976, as he was entering an automobile in a municipal parking lot in Coldwater, Michigan. A search of the defendant and the vehicle he was about to enter revealed a tinfoil packet containing heroin and an automatic pistol. Defendant was charged with possession of a controlled substance, to-wit: heroin, contrary to MCL 355.341(4)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(4)(a), and carrying a concealed weapon, contrary to MCL 750.227; MSA 28.424.
Before trial, defendant filed a motion to suppress the heroin and the pistol on the basis that the police officers lacked probable cause to arrest defendant and, therefore, the evidence seized pursuant to the unlawful arrest was inadmissible at trial. This motion was denied. Defendant now appeals by leave granted challenging the validity of this ruling.
The crux of defendant's argument on appeal can be set forth in one rather simple sentence. Did the police officers have probable cause to arrest defendant?
Our review of the record leads us to answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative. Admittedly, the factual situation in the instant matter presents a close case as to the existence of probable cause. However, once the trial court has found probable cause for an arrest, we will only overturn such a ruling when an abuse of discretion is shown. People v Langston, 57 Mich App 666; 226 NW2d 686(1975).
In the instant case, defendant was driving an automobile which had been used in an "undercover" drug buy earlier in the day. The undercover officers were still attempting to locate the money they had used to purchase the drugs. Defendant reacted in a suspicious manner when passing the officers' vehicle. The arresting officers had sufficient information to believe that the missing money was in the car.
These facts and circumstances would lead a reasonably prudent person to the honest belief that a felony had been committed and that defendant participated therein. See People v Langston, supra, at 675.
Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence.
Affirmed.
R. B. Burns, P. J., concurred.