Court Opinion

ID: 9544102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:52:01.223443+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:59.493760
License: Public Domain

*282Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. This writer does not find two men running at 5 a.m. to be a common sight, especially in an area of many recent early morning break-ins. Even the majority agrees that the police were justified in stopping the two individuals.
In Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1; 88 S Ct 1868; 20 L Ed 2d 889 (1968), the United States Supreme Court indicated their approval of restrained and legitimate investigative conduct. As pointed out in Adams v Williams, 407 US 143; 92 S Ct 1921; 32 L Ed 2d 612 (1972), the police are not required to allow a crime to occur or a criminal to escape because the level of probable cause does not meet the Fourth Amendment mandates. "On the contrary, Terry recognizes that it may be the essence of good police work to adopt an intermediate response”. Adams at 145.
From the time defendants were first spotted running to the time of the message concerning the armed robbery only 17 minutes elapsed. Actual detention time was undoubtedly less.
In view of the suspicious circumstances, the short time of detention can rightfully be considered a legitimate extension of the officers’ investigation, which is a fundamental police function. People v Rivers, 42 Mich App 561, 564; 202 NW2d 498 (1972), United States v Lee, 271 A2d 566, 567-568 (DC, 1970).
*283The main inquiry necessary under the Fourth Amendment is the reasonableness of the governmental action in light of all the circumstances. Terry, supra, People v Harold Williams, 63 Mich App 398, 403; 234 NW2d 541 (1975).
Considering the particular facts of this case, I cannot find that the defendant was illegally detained so as to necessitate exclusion from evidence of the knife and stolen money.
I must also disagree with the finding that defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel by being returned to the scene of the crime for immediate identification. This procedure has been sanctioned by our Supreme Court in People v Anderson, 389 Mich 155; 205 NW2d 461 (1973). The case of People v Patskan, 387 Mich 701; 199 NW2d 458 (1972), on which the majority relies, was decided prior to the Anderson case.
I would affirm.