Court Opinion

ID: 9738602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:57:58.045351+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:07.251920
License: Public Domain

Mackenzie, J.
(dissenting). I dissent. As stated by the majority, the property seized belongs to the party with the superior right of possession. See People v Rosa, 11 Mich App 157; 160 NW2d 747 (1968). I believe that defendant has the superior right in this case.
According to 63 Am Jur 2d, Property, § 39, p 323:
"One may have possession of a chattel, even in the absence of actual personal custody, if the chattel is under his control and in a place where it must have been put by his act or in his behalf, or where the chattel is within his power in such a sense that he can and does command its use.”
In his petition for return of personal property, defendant stated that on November 24, 1976, $2,-046 was seized from his room in Apartment A-59 in the Centaur Apartment building complex. He further stated that no other person had his permission to store any currency in his room or in the premises. It is my opinion that such allegations allege a possessory interest.
It is important to keep in mind that no other party is alleging a possessory interest in the money. Since the prosecution against defendant resulted in his acquittal, I do not believe the state can be considered to have a possessor right superior to that of defendant. In order to be lawful, a search warrant need only be based upon probable cause. If the state can retain the money although *203there is insufficient evidence to convict the defendant, the result, I believe, effectively amounts to a confiscatory fine based upon mere probable cause.
I would reverse.