From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kinsley

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jan 25, 1972
38 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)

Opinion

Docket No. 11053.

Decided January 25, 1972.

Appeal from Bay, Leon R. Dardas, J. Submitted Division 3 January 7, 1972, at Grand Rapids. (Docket No. 11053.) Decided January 25, 1972.

Bobby Kinsley was convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, Eugene C. Penzien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Jack E. Frost, Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.

James G. Orford, for defendant on appeal.

Before: FITZGERALD, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and TARGONSKI, JJ.

Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.


The defendant was convicted of unlawful possession of a narcotic drug, contrary to MCLA 335.153; MSA 18.1123.

The defendant was arrested for violation of parole. Prior to incarceration all persons are searched and an inventory is made of their belongings. During such a procedure in this case, marijuana was discovered on the defendant.

Defendant moved to suppress the evidence and the motion was denied. He claims the trial court erred in denying the motion.

The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches. A search of a prisoner to inventory his possessions prior to incarceration is not an unreasonable search. Charles v. United States, 278 F.2d 386 (CA 9, 1960); State v. Stevens, 26 Wis.2d 451; 132 N.W.2d 502 (1965). See concurring opinion of Judge LEVIN in People v. Henry Robinson, 37 Mich. App. 115, 119 (1971).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Kinsley

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jan 25, 1972
38 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
Case details for

People v. Kinsley

Case Details

Full title:PEOPLE v. KINSLEY

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jan 25, 1972

Citations

38 Mich. App. 191 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972)
196 N.W.2d 27

Citing Cases

People v. Dixon

The Michigan Supreme Court and this Court have previously refused to suppress evidence uncovered by routine…