Court Opinion

ID: 9704550
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:39:35.371279+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:02.400713
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, J.
(dissenting). The people appeal from the grant of defendant’s motion to quash the information and suppress his confession. I would affirm.
The preliminary examination testimony of Sergeant Davies, the arresting officer, reveals the information upon which he effected defendant’s arrest. He testified that on February 16, 1975, at 8 a.m. he learned of a robbery murder which had occurred 5-1/2 hours before, at 2:30 a.m. Eyewitness information revealed that the perpetrators had fled in a Ford Pinto, license number TYK-552. Sergeant Davies testified as to the general description of the perpetrators as contained in the police report: "[0]ne of the men, that was a black male in his twenties, one of them was approximately six foot, one, medium build, medium afro, medium complexion and the other man was *317the same age, a little shorter than the six foot one man.”
Sergeant Davies further testified that he learned from the Secretary of State that the car was registered to a Donald Thomas, at the address of 58 Tyler, Highland Park. He went to the address and spoke to a citizen who informed him that Donald Thomas did not live there. He then proceeded to the Highland Park Police Station in an effort to locate Donald Thomas and to learn the identity of his associate. An acquaintance of Donald Thomas was incarcerated in the police station at that time, and he informed the officer that Thomas lived at 224 Cortland. The acquaintance further informed the officer that Thomas was "currently running with a man named Edmond Green”.
Officers proceeded immediately to this address and observed the suspect Ford Pinto. Their knock on the apartment door was answered by a man, later identified as Ronald Thomas, who indicated that Donald Thomas was there. Inside,.the officers observed Donald Thomas standing in his underclothes and defendant, also in his underclothes, lying on the couch. .The officers also observed two pistols lying on a bed immediately to the left of the door. Sergeant Davies testified that he had prior knowledge that two pistols had been used in the robbery-murder.
Sergeant Davies testified that all three men matched the general description that he had received. All three men were arrested and taken to police headquarters. Defendant was informed of his constitutional rights prior to questioning at headquarters. He then confessed to commission of the crime.
I cannot find probable cause for the arrest of *318defendant. As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Wong Sun v United States, 371 US 471; 83 S Ct 407; 9 L Ed 2d 441 (1963), "It is basic that an arrest with or without a warrant must stand upon firmer ground than mere suspicion.” 371 US at 479. Even if the police had probable cause to believe that Donald Thomas perpetrated the robbery-murder with another individual, this fact alone would provide insufficient justification for arresting anyone who happened to be in his apartment without some evidence linking that individual to the crime. The additional fact that the police heard that defendant was "running with” Donald Thomas does not supply probable cause. One’s known acquaintance with a person suspected of a criminal activity would not "create an honest belief in the mind of a reasonably prudent man that an offense has been committed and that the person arrested committed it”. People v Gunn, 48 Mich App 772, 777; 211 NW2d 84 (1973).
Neither does the sole additional fact that the three persons arrested fit the general description of the two people who committed the crime supply probable cause for arrest. That extremely general description would fit a sizable portion of the population of the City of Detroit.
In Wong Sun, supra, the Court further noted that:
"Whether or not the requirements of reliability and particularity of the information on which an officer may act are more stringent where an arrest warrant is absent, they surely cannot be less stringent than where an arrest warrant is obtained. Otherwise, a principal incentive now existing for the procurement of arrest warrants would be destroyed.” 371 US at 479-480.
Sergeant Davies could not have obtained an arrest warrant for defendant on the information that he then had. I find no probable cause, and affirm.