Court Opinion

ID: 9661379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:37:31.927234+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:28.037453
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(concurring). In Cole v. City of Battle Creek, 298 Mich 98, 104, appears the following :
“In Township of Warren v. Raymond, 291 Mich 426, 429, we said:
“ ‘This court has repeatedly held that constitutional questions will not be passed upon where other questions are raised which dispose of the case. Smith v. Curran, 267 Mich 413 (94 ALR 766); Stewart v. Algonac Savings Bank, 263 Mich 272; Brown v. Hill, 216 Mich 520; North Michigan Water Co. v. City of Escanaba, 199 Mich 286; People v. Quider, 172 Mich 280, and authorities therein cited.’ ”
*326In People v. Bissonette, 327 Mich 349, this Court declined to pass on the constitutionality, under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, of the very search and seizure proviso of the Michigan Constitution here attacked by petitioner, for the announced reason that it was not essential to decision of the case. Neither is it essential to decision here.
For the reasons stated in the first portion of Mr. Justice Kelly’s opinion, holding that the search and seizure were not unreasonable or unlawful for tho reason that they were based upon probable cause on the part of the officers to believe that there was in the automobile, or might be, evidence that a crime had been or was being committed*, I concur in affirmance of this Court’s order of April 26, 1961, denying petition for writs of habeas corpus and certiorari.
Black, J., concurred in result.

 In People v. Gonzales, 356 Mich 247, 253, the following appears:
“A lawful arrest is not a necessary condition precedent to a lawful search and seizure without warrant. Pacts which indicate probable cause to believe a felony is being committed have many times been held to render ‘reasonable’ within constitutional terms a search and seizure without warrant. People v. Licavoli, 245 Mich 202; People v. Miller, 245 Mich 115; People v. Orlando, 305 Mich 686; Scher v. United States, 305 US 251 (59 S Ct 174, 83 L ed 151).”
To same effect, see Carroll v. United States, 267 US 132 (45 S Ct 280, 69 L ed 543, 39 ALR 790), and Brinegar v. United States, 338-US 160 (69 S Ct 1302, 93 L ed 1879).