Court Opinion

ID: 9571028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:28:31.28732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:14.870447
License: Public Domain

Quinn, J.
(dissenting). My reading of the record discloses facts which fully support the holdings of the trial court that the arrest was legal and that the evidence sought to be suppressed was within the "clear view” of the officer who seized it.
A peace officer may arrest without a warrant, "when he has reasonable cause to believe that a felony has been committed and reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed it;”, MCLA 764.15(d); MSA 28.874(d).
. This statutory provision was before the Supreme Court in People v Harper, 365 Mich 494 (1962). At pages 500, 501, speaking to the determination of the existence of probable cause to arrest without a warrant, a unanimous Court said:
" * * * we will not isolate facts or beliefs from their surrounding circumstances in determining the existence of what has come to be called probable cause for arrest without a warrant.
"Its existence depends in every case upon the peculiar circumstances confronting the arresting officer. [Citing a case.] He makes his determination, and we review it, not as a legal scholar determines the existence of consideration in support of a promise, but as a man of reasonable prudence and caution would deter*202mine whether the person arrested has committed a felony.”
This Court applied the same test in People v Surles, 29 Mich App 132 (1970).
What did Officer Schaub know' at the time of the arrest in question? He knew that merchants in Vassar had been plagued with a series of bad checks cashed by Negro males. He knew that the merchants had been warned of the situation and that they had been advised to obtain positive identification from strangers attempting to cash checks, and to notify the police in the event of suspicious circumstances.
On the night of the arrest and within about two hours of the arrest, Officer Schaub knew that two Negro males attempted to purchase groceries at Uncle Ray’s by check, and that when the cashier requested further identification, they left the store and the -groceries and never returned. Thereafter, Officer Schaub knew that Negro males attempted to cash checks at several other places of business, including; the Sunoco station. From the station operator' Officer Schaub learned the description and license number of a yellow Cadillac containing three Negro males who had attempted to cash a check at the station.
At the gas station where the arrest occurred and prior thereto, Officer Schaub was advised by the operator of the gas station that defendant had attempted to cash a check. Prior to arrest, Officer Schaub requested registration for the Cadillac which fit the description received at the Sunoco station. In response to this request, defendant handed Officer Schaub a registration which matched the physical description of the vehicle, but the license plate number on the registration *203was different than the one license plate number on the vehicle.
In my opinion, with this knowledge and under these circumstances Officer Schaub acted as a man of reasonable prudence and caution in making the questioned arrest.
Officer Samdal, who saw a corner of a check protruding from the back of the front seat and retrieved it and the driver’s license in question, had had nine years experience with the state police. He had a right to be in the position from which he viewed the protruding check. He also knew that they were looking for checks. Search was not involved and the seizure was reasonable, People v Tisi, 384 Mich 214 (1970); People v Potts, 44 Mich App 722 (1973).
I would affirm.