Opinion ID: 2092304
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the defendant's valid consent of October 11 carry over to authorize the seizure on October 12?

Text: On October 12, 1967, Fred Ritchie of the Calhoun County Sheriff Department and Detective Leroy Steinbacher of the Michigan State Police returned to the Chism home. Mrs. Chism was at home and admitted the officers into the house. They told Mrs. Chism that there was a notebook of defendant's and some of his cancelled checks that they would like to have. They told her these items were in the bedroom. (On the previous day's search one of the officers had found a notebook of defendant's and some of his cancelled checks in the bedroom in a drawer but had failed to seize them. The officer then informed Officer Ritchie of this fact after they had left the house.) Officer Ritchie then asked if Mrs. Chism would get those specific items and turn them over. Mrs. Chism then left the room and returned with the items to the waiting officers. [17] The Court of Appeals declined to hold that the consent given by defendant for the October 11 search was sufficient to render constitutional the seizure the following day. It stated: When consent is given to search an area, it does not mean the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures has been waived forever. Indeed, we think there is a difference between a continuing or subsequent search on the same day as in People v Nawrocki (1967), 6 Mich App 46 [150 NW2d 516], cert den 389 US 942 (88 S Ct 304, 19 L Ed 2d 296 [1967]), and one on a subsequent day. Thus, the checkbook and notebook seized in the second search were improperly seized and not admissible as evidence. Mapp v Ohio (1961), 367 US 643 (81 S Ct 1684, 6 L Ed 2d 1081, 84 ALR2d 933). 32 Mich App 610, 632. In deciding whether this second seizure resulted in admissible evidence, the actual scope of the written consent must be determined. The consent, freely and voluntarily made by defendant, authorized Detective Leroy Steinbacher of the Michigan State Police and the Postal Inspector M.L. Myers to conduct a complete search of my residence    to take from my residence any letters, papers, materials or other property which they may desire. Although defendant was not informed that handwriting samples would be looked for, he was informed that anything found as a result of the search would be used against him in evidence. Defendant's reply to this was that he had nothing to hide. Thus the officers went to the house on October 11 with the purpose of finding something that would be pertinent to the crime. Therefore the consent was broad in the sense that it authorized a complete search    of any    property. The items seized on October 12 had been found in the search on October 11 and could have then been seized. There was no general search on October 12 as the officers knew where the items were to be found. The officers were merely completing the search which had begun on the previous day. The defendant's consent, under these narrow facts, might be construed to be broad enough to authorize the seizure on October 12, but it is unnecessary for this Court to so hold, because it is clear that the wife had the power to consent to, and did consent to, the second search.