
    PEOPLE v. DU SHANE.
    1. Arrest — Without Warrant — Intoxication in Public Place.
    Where police officers found defendant intoxicated in a public place, they were justified in arresting him. without' a warrant.
    2. Intoxicating Liquors — Searches and Seizures — Motion to* Suppress Properly Denied.
    Intoxicating liquor, found on defendant’s person when he was arrested without a warrant for intoxication in a public place, was not obtained in violation of his constitutional rights, and therefore a motion to suppress same as evidence of his violation of the prohibition law was properly denied.
    3. Same — Criminal Law — Harmless Error.
    In a prosecution for illegal possession of intoxicating liquors, where it is undisputed that liquor was found on defendant’s person and the court might well have instructed the jury that it was their duty to convict, the admission of incompetent testimony is held,' not prejudicial.
    Arrest, 5 C. J. § 31; 2 R. C. L. 454; "Id., 5 C. J. § 74; Criminal Law, 16 C. J. § 1110; "Criminal Law, 17 C. J. § 3663.
    Exceptions before judgment from Ottawa; Cross (Orien S.), J.
    Submitted June 16, 1927.
    (Docket No. 101.)
    Decided July 29, 1927.
    Charles Du Shane was convicted of violating the liquor law.
    Affirmed.
    
      Alexis J. Rogoski, for appellant.
    
      William W. Potter, Attorney General, and Clarence A. Lokker, Prosecuting Attorney, for the people.
   Clark, J.

Defendant, -on exceptions before sentence, contends that his conviction of possessing intoxicating liquor should be set aside for two reasons:

• 1. That his arrest and the incidental search of his person violated his constitutional right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the court, on motion, ought to have suppressed the evidence. The arresting officers testified that they found defendant intoxicated in a public place. Defendant denied having been intoxicated. The court found the truth to be with the officers. The denial of the motion, so supported, must stand. That an officer, in such circumstances, may arrest without warrant and may make the incidental search, needs mo citation of authority.

2. That prejudicial testimony was admitted. Admittedly defendant possessed the intoxicating liquor. The court might well have instructed the jury that it was their duty to convict, as indicated in People v. Heikkala, 226 Mich. 332. Therefore the testimony is held to be without prejudice.

Judgment advised.

Shaepe, C. J., and Bied, Snow, Steeee, Fellows, Wiest, and McDonald, JJ., concurred.  