<<  <  >  >>

Page 38

46. Quoted in Wallace v. State, 157 N.E. 657, 660 (1927).

47. Quoted in ibid. at 658.

48. Ibid. at 660-661.

49. In Veeder v. United States, 252 Fed. 414, 418 (1918),

a federal appellate court stated, "If the facts afford the

legal basis for the search warrant, the accused must take

the consequences.  But equally there must be consequences

for the accuser to face.  If the sworn accusation is based

on fiction, the accuser must take the chance of punishment

for perjury."

50. Of course, the potential risk of a subsequent perjury

prosecution will depend on the circumstances of each case.

Since perjury is a knowing lie, an accuser who tells what

he believes to be the truth assumes little risk--even if a

more extensive investigation fails to confirm his belief.

On the other hand, an accuser who swears out a complaint

containing blatant falsehoods runs a substantial risk of a

perjury prosecution--even if a more extensive investigation

happens to confirm his allegation.  Some allegations lend

themselves to subsequent perjury actions; others do not

but still may be sufficient, in the circumstances, to

establish "probable cause" to believe a crime has been

committed.

51. "[The] true test of sufficiency of complaint or

affidavit to warrant issuance is whether it has been drawn

in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon if

any material allegation contained therein is false."

Simon v. State, 515 P.2d 1161, 1165 (1973).  See also

People v. Sullivan, 437 N.E.2d 1130, 1133 (1982).

52. The Supreme Court of Michigan, led by Thomas Cooley,

recognized the danger of diluting the oath requirement in

Swart v. Kimball 5 N.W. 635, 640 (1880).  Judge Cooley

observed that "[t]he man most free from any reasonable

suspicion of guilt [will not be] safe if he holds his

freedom at the mercy of any man 300 miles off who will

swear that he has been informed and believes in his guilt.

It is easy to tell falsehoods, and those who are least

fitted to judge of their credibility are generally the

very persons who will believe them because they are told.

But to substantiate charges within the meaning of the law,

evidence is required, and not merely suspicions or infor-

mation or beliefs."  Judge Cooley concluded that a warrant

based solely on the belief of an accuser was inconsistent

with the Michigan Constitution.