Case Name: PEOPLE v. JOSHUA
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-04-22
Citations: 32 Mich. App. 581
Docket Number: Docket No. 9117
Parties: PEOPLE v. JOSHUA
Judges: Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Levin and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 32
Pages: 581–590

Head Matter:
PEOPLE v. JOSHUA
Opinion op the Court
1. Search and Seizure — Immunity prom Illegal Search — Nature op Immunity.
The immunity from illegal searches and seizures is a personal privilege; no rights, constitutional or otherwise, are involved when property not under the defendant’s control is searched.
2. Searches and Seizures — Automobiles—Standing.
Defendant had no standing to argue the constitutionality of a search of an automobile and the seizure of a gun from the occupants of the car where the defendant had been riding in the car searched, the defendant was arrested for a traffic violation, after a routine check showed the defendant was wanted for parole violation, the defendant was taken to the police station, a search revealed defendant was wearing an empty shoulder holster, a police dispatch was sent to stop the car in which the defendant had been riding, and a search of the occupants produced the gun.
References for Points in Headnotes
'1] 47 Am Jur, Searches and Seizures §§ 7, 8, 11.
2] 47 Am Jur, Searches and Seizures § 18.
3-5] 21 Am Jur 2d, Criminal Law § 368.
[6] 53 Am Jur, Trial § 457.
[7,8,10,11] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§ 418-424.
[9] 29 Am Jur 2d, Evidence §§410-412.
3. Criminal Law — Illegal Lineup — Appeal and Error.
Defendant’s claim of a prejudicial lineup procedure was heard on appeal, even though the defendant did not timely object to the lineup procedure, where the guidelines for the preservation of an illegal lineup issue were not available at the time of the defendant’s trial, 1967, and where a complete record makes remanding for an evidentiary hearing unnecessary.
4. Criminal Law — Lineups—Prejudicial Lineup — Participants’ Resemblance to Dependant.
A lineup in which the defendant, charged with armed robbery, was identified was not prejudicial where the members of the lineup fairly resembled the witnesses’ description of the robber and several members of the lineup resembled the defendant.
5. Criminal Law — Lineups-—-Right to Counsel — Pre-Wade Cases.
Defendant’s not being represented by counsel at lineup did not, in itself, deny defendant due process where the lineups were conducted prior to the United States Supreme Court decision establishing a right to counsel at that stage of the proceedings and holding that the decision was to be given prospective application only.
6. Robbery — Armed Robbery — Prosecutor’s Remarks — Opening Statement — Failure to Prove — Bad Faith.
Prosecutor’s opening statement references to a hooded sweatshirt and canvas money bags found in the defendant’s car did not constitute reversible error even though the prosecutor failed to produce the exhibits, in defendant’s trial for armed robbery and witnesses to the robbery had stated that the robber wore-a hooded sweatshirt and put the stolen money in canvas money bags where the defendant has not shown nor has an examination of the record revealed bad faith on the part of the prosecutor.
Concurrence by Levin, J.
7. Searches and Seizures — Exclusionary Rule — Purpose.
The rule excluding illegally-seized evidence seeks to discourage unlawful police procedures by depriving the State of the fruit of illegal behavior; the objective of the rule is undermined by allowing illegally-seized evidence to be admitted so long as it is used against someone other than the person from whom it was illegally taken.
8. Searches and Seizures — Exclusionary Rule — Standing — Search op Third Party.
The rule that a defendant has the right to object to the use against him of evidence illegally seized from another should be adopted in this state.
9. Searches and Seizures — Fourth Amendment — Scope op Protection — Meaning.
The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places; a core meaning of the Fourth Amendment is that a citizen’s primacy shall be respected by the State.
10. Searches and Seizures — Exclusionary Rule — “No Standing” Rule — Effect.
The rule allowing illegally-seized evidence to be used against anyone except the person from whom the evidence was illegally taken does not respect or protect the primacy of the citizen; such a rule, in “no standing” cases, rewards the police for intruding on a citizen’s primacy and encourages offensive and lawless procedures.
11. Searches and Seizures — -Standing.
A defendant had standing to contest the legality of a search of an automobile and the seizure of a pistol from one of the occupants of the car where the defendant had been driving the ear searched, the car had been leased by the defendant, the defendant, when stopped by the police for a traffic violation, threw the gun on the back seat of the car, a female occupant of the car subsequently put the gun in her purse, the defendant was taken to the police station when a routine check revealed he was wanted for parole violation, the police searched the defendant and found an empty shoulder holster, the police dispatched a message calling for the stopping of the car and the other occupants were still in the ear when the search occurred, because the defendant had possessory interests in the car and the gun, because he was legitimately “on the premises” of the car when he placed the gun on the back seat, and because the investigation had focused on and the search aimed at the defendant.
Appeal from Recorder’s Court of Detroit, Robert E. DeMascio, J.
Submitted Division 1 December 7, 1970, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 9117.)
Decided April 22, 1971.
Leave to appeal denied, 386 Mich 758.
Alfonso Joshua was convicted of armed robbery. Defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, William L. Cahalan, Prosecuting Attorney, Dominick R. Carnovale, Chief, Appellate Department, and Patricia J. Boyle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
Ralph Musilli, for defendant on appeal.
Before: Lesinski, C. J., and Levin and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Lesinski, C. J.
Defendant, Alfonso Joshua, was convicted by a jury of armed robbery, MCLA § 750.529 (Stat Ann 1971 Cum Supp § 28.797). He appeals as of right alleging illegal search and seizure, prejudicial lineup procedures, and trial error.
Defendant was arrested for a traffic violation. After a routine check at the police station, it was found he was wanted for violation of probation. When a personal search revealed defendant was wearing an empty shoulder holster, the police radioed a call to stop the car and the two occupants with defendant when he was apprehended. A search of the occupants produced a .32-caliber pistol alleged to have been given them by defendant immediately before his arrest.
Defendant was identified as the man who had robbed a shoe store at gunpoint three weeks earlier in three separate lineups by the manager of the store and two witnesses.
Defendant's first claim of error is that the pistol was improperly admitted into evidence as the fruit of an illegal search of the occupants of the car. Defendant has no standing to complain of the search of the occupants. The immunity from illegal searches and seizures is a personal privilege. "No rights, constitutional or otherwise, are involved when property not under the control of defendant is searched." People v. Hale (1967), 7 Mich App 127, 132; People v. Goeppner (1969), 20 Mich App 425. We find no error.
Despite the absence of timely objection, we proceed to consider the merits of defendant's claim that the conduct of the lineup was prejudicial. The guidelines for preservation of this issue below were not available at the time of defendant's trial in 1967, and the presence of a complete record makes remand for an evidentiary hearing unnecessary. See People v. Childers (1969), 20 Mich App 639, 646.
The conduct of the lineup was not prejudicial. The record reveals that the members of the lineup fairly resembled the description of the robber given by the witnesses. Descriptions of the participants in the showup reveal several members resembled defendant. We conclude that the lineups were not unnecessarily suggestive or conducive to mistaken identification as to deny him due process of law. Stovall v. Denno (1967), 388 US 293 (87 S Ct 1967, 18 L Ed 2d 1199).
The fact that defendant was not represented by counsel at these lineups did not deprive him of due process of law. The rule establishing the right to counsel at that stage of the proceedings was announced in United States v. Wade (1967), 388 US 218 (87 S Ct 1926, 18 L Ed 2d 1149). That decision was only given prospective application. Stovall v. Denno, supra. Since the lineups in the instant case occurred prior to Wade, denial of counsel did not, alone, establish lack of due process.
The suspect described by the witnesses to the robbery wore a blue hooded sweatshirt and put the stolen money into canvas money bags. The prosecutor, in his opening statement, made reference to the fact the search of the vehicle produced a blue hooded sweatshirt and several canvas money bags. At trial these exhibits were not available as evidence and the prosecutor was not permitted to question witnesses regarding these exhibits. No objection to the prosecutor's remarks was raised at the close of proofs, nor in the motion for new trial. In People v. Fowler (1895), 104 Mich 449, 452, it was said:
"If this statement was made in good faith by the prosecuting officer, and on the trial he found that the proofs did not substantiate the statement, we do not think that, for that reason alone, the conviction should be reversed. The prosecuting attorney may not always find that the proofs will meet the case he expects to make when he makes his opening statement to the jury, and it is not every failure of proof, under such circumstances, that warrants a reversal. In this case the fact was not proved and the jury must be presumed to have based their verdict upon the evidence and not upon the statement of counsel."
Defendant has not shown, nor has a thorough examination of the record revealed, bad faith on the part of the prosecutor.
The prosecutor's remark in closing argument that a man who points a gun at another with a demand for money infers, "Your money or your life", was a reasonable inference from the facts in evidence. The prosecutor is entitled to comment on the evi denee and draw reasonable inferences therefrom. People v. Morlock (1925), 233 Mich 284. We find no error.
Affirmed.
O'Hara, J., concurred.