Court Opinion

ID: 9517918
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:36:57.065505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:25:58.784173
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
DeBbuler, J.
While I concur in the disposition of this case made by the majority, I would resolve the search and seizure issue raised by appellant in a different manner. Appellant claims that his arrest, the search of his car, and the seizure of the rifle and cartridges, occurring in Niles, Michigan were effectuated without probable cause and that the rifle and cartridges should have been excluded upon his objection at trial. Appellant was arrested upon the basis of an area radio broadcast received from the Mishawaka, Indiana police. Appellant contends that this broadcast could not have supplied the Niles police with probable cause to arrest him and therefore the search of his car incident thereto violated his rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Mapp v. Ohio (1960), 367 U.S. 643, 81 S. Ct. 1684, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1081. The appellant argues that the State failed to show that the Mishawaka police who initiated the radio broadcast possessed information which was of such a nature and quality as would support an independent judicial assessment of probable cause. Whiteley v. Warden (1971), 401 U.S. 560, 91 S. Ct. 1031, 28 L. Ed. 2d 306. While it is true that there is no identifiable portion of the trial in which the State focused on sustaining this burden, the record of the trial does contain testimony that supports the conclusion that the Mishawaka police did have such information prior to the radio broadcast. The State’s witness Young was present in the house when the shooting occurred and was herself shot at by the appellant. She did give a report of the crime to the Mishawaka police within minutes after it occurred.
Note.—Reported in 295 N. E. 2d 814.