Court Opinion

ID: 9662006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:57:03.84703+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:35.790759
License: Public Domain

*143Holbrook, J.
(dissenting). In this case in order for the seizure of the radio from the possession of the defendant to be valid, it was necessary for the people to show that the officer at the time had probable cause to believe defendant had committed a felony. The officer apparently did not have such probable cause at either time he stopped her because he did not arrest the defendant on either occasion but awaited further developments to connect her to the crime before making an arrest. The defendant, a woman, was not a man who was sought as having perpetrated the crime in question. The only connecting link was the possibility that the radio in defendant’s car might be the radio that was taken during the commission of the crime. Although the officer had strong suspicions concerning the possibility of the radio being connected with the crime, lie did not have probable cause to believe defendant had committed or was committing a felony. The mere fact that defendant had a radio in the car similar to the radio taken was not sufficient probable cause under the circumstances. People v Kuntze, 371 Mich 419 (1963).
The motion to suppress the radio should have been granted.