Appellant Cosselin, one of four defendants, was convicted by a jury of breaking and entering. 1

On the night in question, June 30, 1967, the four had rented a motel room next to the site of the breaking and entering where a quantity of cigarettes was taken. "When they left the motel, the linens in the room disappeared. A police officer investigating the breaking and entering checked the motel, learned of the missing linens, and also that a codefendant, Littke, who was known to the officer, had registered for the room. He also learned the identity of the car registered to this room. A day later, the officer saw the car and, upon looking through its window, saw a pillowcase inside bearing the name of the motel. A search of the car without warrant revealed a quantity of cigarettes. Pie arrested the occupants, being two of the defendants, and charged them with the breaking and entering and with larceny in a building 2 for the taking of the linens. Later, the four defendants were charged with breaking and entering.

Defendants’ appeal raised 2 principal questions:

1) Was the arrest illegal, thereby making the search and seizure illegal and rendering inadmissible those things that were the fruit of that search and seizure?

*300 2) "Was the trial court in error in charging the jury that sharing in the proceeds of a crime, 3 in this case breaking and entering, constitutes sufficient basis for conviction as a principal? 4

Answering the first question, this Court in People v. Wolfe (1967), 5 Mich App 543, has established the standard for a lawful search and seizure without a warrant. As in that case, the officer here had reasonable cause to believe that the occupants of the automobile had been involved in a felony (breaking and entering).

Answering the second question, a review of the record reveals that the trial court in its instructions specifically ruled out a conviction as principal based solely on sharing in the proceeds.

Affirmed.