Upload a complaint or brief to quickly find on-point case law.
CARA A.I. uses the facts and legal issues in your document to find relevant authorities.
Drag a complaint or brief hereUpload a complaint or briefPDF documentWORD documentTXT documentOr, choose a document to uploadChoose DocumentSecure
Find on-point cases faster with CARA A.I.
§

People v. Mushlock

226 Mich. 600 (Mich. 1924)
Depth of Treatment
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newest
Cite Count
People v. Mushlock

13 Citing cases

  1. People v. Russo

    185 Mich. App. 422 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Russo, this Court considered the applicability of an amendment to the statute of limitations which extended the deadline for bringing criminal sexual conduct charges.

    There is no bright-line rule as to how much time may intervene between obtaining the facts and formulating the affidavit upon which the warrant is based. People v Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600, 602; 198 N.W. 203 (1924). The measure of a search warrant's staleness rests not on whether there is recent information to confirm that a crime is being committed, but on whether probable cause is sufficiently fresh to presume that the items sought remain on the premises.

  2. People v. Sundling

    153 Mich. App. 277 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)   Cited 30 times
    Noting that adoption of a good faith exception "`would, in effect, remove the probable cause requirement from the Fourth Amendment'" (quoting People v. David, 326 N.W.2d 485, 488 (Mich.Ct.App. 1982))

    "There is no hard and fast rule as to how much time may intervene between the obtaining of the facts and the making of the affidavit upon which the search warrant is based." People v Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600, 602; 198 N.W. 203 (1924), quoted in People v Gillam, supra. If a pattern of violations is established by a history of criminal activity, the lapse of time is less critical, especially where information has been received which confirms the basic information supporting the warrant.

  3. People v. Gillam

    93 Mich. App. 548 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 15 times

    United States v Townsend, 394 F. Supp. 736 (ED Mich, 1975). "There is no hard and fast rule as to how much time may intervene between the obtaining of the facts and the making of the affidavit upon which the search warrant is based" People v Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600; 198 N.W. 203 (1924). Certainly the passage of time is a consideration in judging a search warrant's vitality.

  4. People v. Wright

    116 N.W.2d 786 (Mich. 1962)   Cited 13 times
    In People v. Wright, 367 Mich. 611, decided September 10, 1962, we affirmed an order of the circuit court quashing an information because it was based upon evidence seized by authority of a search warrant issued upon affidavit reciting observation of facts 6 days prior to its making.

    People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge involved a case in which the search warrant issued was based on facts 66 days old. In People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600, we said, at p 602: "There is no hard and fast rule as to how much time may intervene between the obtaining of the facts and the making of the affidavit upon which the search warrant is based, but it may be stated that the time should not be remote.

  5. Welchance v. State

    173 Tenn. 26 (Tenn. 1938)   Cited 22 times
    Stating the date of the alleged offense was "essential" in order for the magistrate to determine whether probable cause existed

    No hard and fast rule concerning the time within which the complaint should be made can be established, except that it should not be too remote. People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600, 198 N.W. 203; People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 326, 197 N.W. 539. It was unnecessary to state in the complaint the date on which the liquor was bought. People v. Shields, 309 Ill. 142, 140 N.E. 850.

  6. Garza v. State

    120 Tex. Crim. 147 (Tex. Crim. App. 1932)   Cited 24 times
    Holding an affidavit was inadequate to support a search warrant where the statements in the affidavit did not "convey any definite idea as to when the incident [the affiant] describe[d] took place"

    This is made clear by the Constitution and every statutory provision with reference to search warrants." See, also, People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600, 198 N.W. 203. The point is also illustrated by the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in the case of Commonwealth v. Dincler, 201 Ky. 129, 255 S.W. 1042, from which we quote the affidavit for the search warrant and the comment of the court thereon as follows:

  7. State v. Miller

    329 Mo. 855 (Mo. 1932)   Cited 9 times
    In Miller, there was evidence that probable cause ceased to exist, and the officer was not allowed to wait for new cause to come into existence.

    In both State v. Guthrie and People v. Wiedeman, supra, it is correctly said that there is nothing in the law concerning search warrants which indicates that such warrant may be held by the officer as a weapon to be used at his discretion. The views above expressed also find support in principle in the following cases: People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 Mich. 326; People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600; Link v. Commonwealth, 199 Ky. 778, 251 S.W. 1016; State v. Pachesa (W. Va.), 135 S.E. 908. In Hiller v. State (Wis.), 208 N.W. 260, it was held that a delay of three days in executing the warrant did not render the search invalid.

  8. The People v. Simmons

    161 N.E. 716 (Ill. 1928)

    No hard and fast rule concerning the time within which the complaint should be made can be established except that it should not be too remote. ( People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600; People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 id. 326.) It was unnecessary to state in the complaint the date on which the liquor was bought. ( People v. Shields, 309 Ill. 142.) The fact that plaintiff in error had sold intoxicating liquor to the affiant constituted just and reasonable ground to believe that he would continue to do so for a short period thereafter, and the affiant was not required to go to the home of plaintiff in error repeatedly to ascertain whether he had ceased to make such sales.

  9. People v. Brown

    214 N.W. 935 (Mich. 1927)   Cited 4 times

    The time was not too remote. People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600. It is also urged that the warrant contains no sufficient finding of the justice to justify its issue. It recites:

  10. The People v. Holton

    158 N.E. 134 (Ill. 1927)   Cited 28 times
    In People v. Holton, 326 Ill. 481, it is said: "The search warrant, it is asserted, was void because the complaint failed to show probable cause for its issuance, since it stated that Miller bought liquor from plaintiff in error on December 14, 1925, and the complaint was not verified until ten days later.

    No hard and fast rule concerning the time within which the complaint should be made can be established except that it should not be too remote. ( People v. Mushlock, 226 Mich. 600; People v. Chippewa Circuit Judge, 226 id. 326.) It was unnecessary to state in the complaint the date on which the liquor was bought. ( People v. Shields, supra.)