Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEOPLE v. PERRY

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted in two separate trials of delivery of a controlled substance, heroin, contrary to MCL 335.341(1)(a); MSA 18.1070(41)(1)(a). He appeals as of right.

On September 29, 1975, Washtenaw County police officers placed a transmitter and tape recorder on the person of police informant William Bruce O'Neal. O'Neal then went to the 100 block of Ann Street in Ann Arbor where he purchased a small quantity of heroin from defendant. He returned on September 30, 1975, and made another purchase from defendant. These tapes were played at defendant's trials, over his objections.

In People v Hall, 88 Mich. App. 324; 276 N.W.2d 897 (1979), this Court relied on People v Beavers, 393 Mich. 554; 227 N.W.2d 511 (1975), cert den 423 U.S. 878; 96 S Ct 152; 46 L Ed 2d 111 (1975), and People v Livingston, 64 Mich. App. 247; 236 N.W.2d 63 (1975), to hold that a search warrant is required where an informant records a conversation with a defendant. The intrusion of privacy incurred where a participant transmits a conversation to a third party is equally present as where a participant records the conversation. Thus, defendant is entitled to the same protection from unreasonable searches and seizures. Const 1963, art 1, § 11.

Since no search warrant was procured in this case, it was reversible error to play the tape recordings into evidence. The defendant's convictions must be reversed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. PERRY
(Jun 20, 1979)