Court Opinion

ID: 9721821
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:10:25.090258+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.816693
License: Public Domain

Bronson, P.J.
The facts are well stated in the dissenting opinion and need not be repeated here. The issue in this case is whether the magistrate’s decision to suppress the sole incriminating evidence in this case was clearly erroneous. In this regard, we believe the point on which this case turns is the testimony of the arresting officer, who stated that he had encountered coin envelopes of the type seized here 800 or 900 times in the same general area during his experience as a police officer and that such envelopes usually contained heroin. Based on this testimony, which is additionally supported by a countless number of cases yearly confronting both the trial and appellate bench, it is or should be clear by now that coin *520envelopes of the sort seized from the defendant are not simply innocuous, folded pieces of paper.
This Court stated in People v Ridgeway, 74 Mich App 306; 253 NW2d 743 (1977), lv den 401 Mich 831 (1977), that an officer’s knowledge that tinfoil packets often contained narcotics provided the strongest support for a finding of probable cause to seize such a packet. Although it is true that the officers in Ridgeway also smelled the odor of burning marijuana, the significance of this added factor' was slight. Id., 313-314. See People v Young, 89 Mich App 753, 764-766; 282 NW2d 211 (1979), lv den 407 Mich 877 (1979) (Gillis, J., dissenting).
Accordingly, we hold the magistrate’s decision to suppress the evidence to be clearly erroneous. Based on the testimony presented, the officer had probable cause to seize the coin envelopes.
Reversed.
V. J. Brennan, J., concurred.