Court Opinion

ID: 9543897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:50:16.692034+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:25.518429
License: Public Domain

N. J. Kaufman, J.
(concurring). A prisoner’s *254right to habeas corpus is granted by Const 1963, art 1, § 12. As noted in People v McCager, 367 Mich 116, 121; 116 NW2d 205 (1962):
"Habeas corpus is a civil proceeding the main purpose of which is to cause the release of persons illegally confined, to inquire into the authority of law by which a person is deprived of his liberty.”
Nowhere in the constitution is there mention of a "reverse writ”, used to accomplish exactly what the constitutional provision protects against. In this case, the "reverse writ” was used to hold defendant in derogation of his rights under MCL 764.26; MSA 28.885. This is wrong and I certainly do not condone the procedure.
Nevertheless, as the question presented for appelláte review was narrow, "whether [the] statement should be suppressed solely because of a statutory violation,” I concur separately from the majority opinion. See People v White, 392 Mich 404; 221 NW2d 357 (1974), People v Hamilton, 359 Mich 410; 102 NW2d 738 (1960).