People v. Franklin

500 Mich. 92

894 N.W.2d 561

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v.Darius Lamarr FRANKLIN, Defendant–Appellant.

No. 152840

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued January 12, 2017

Decided May 12, 2017

Markman, C.J.

This case concerns whether a trial court in its discretion may hold an evidentiary hearing to collaterally review a magistrate's finding of probable cause on the basis of a defendant's challenge to the veracity of a warrant affidavit in light of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Franks v. Delaware , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667 (1978). Franks held that "where the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit, and ... the allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request." Id . at 155–156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. The Court of Appeals interpreted Franks as barring a trial court from granting a defendant an evidentiary hearing to challenge the veracity of a search warrant affidavit following the warrant's execution "unless the defendant makes ‘[the] substantial preliminary showing’ " as set forth in Franks . People v. Franklin , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued October 20, 2015 (Docket No. 322655), p. 2, 2015 WL 6161786 (emphasis added), quoting Franks , 438 U.S. at 155–156, 98 S.Ct. 2674. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we hold that Franks controls the circumstances under which "the Fourth Amendment requires that a hearing be held at the defendant's request," Franks , 438 U.S. at 156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, but Franks does not bar a trial court from exercising its discretion to grant evidentiary hearings concerning the veracity of search warrant affidavits under other circumstances. (Emphasis added.) Because the prosecutor did not appeal the trial court's conclusion that the warrant affidavit was not supported by probable cause, the only issue before the Court is whether the trial court abused its discretion by holding the evidentiary hearing. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it granted defendant's motion for an evidentiary hearing.

I. FACTS AND HISTORY

On March 21, 2014, Police Officer Lynn Moore signed an affidavit in support of a search warrant for defendant Darius Franklin's house, alleging illegal drug activity based on both Moore's own surveillance earlier that day and information from a confidential informant (CI). The affidavit stated in relevant part:

3.) On 03/11/2014 , Affiant was contacted by an unregistered confidential informant, whom Affiant has used numerous time[s] prior, advising Affiant on the location of [address omitted] being involved in a high amount of marijuana trafficking. Affiant has used this informant numerous (over 10 times) in the past resulting in confiscations of narcotics, weapons and multiple felony arrests.

4.) Upon Affiant researching the Narcotics Complaint Data Base, Affiant found no open Narcotics Complaints stemming from this location.

5.) On 03/21/2014 Affiant set up a surveillance operation on the above location mentioned. At this time Affiant observed 5 unknown individuals within a (30) minute period walk up to the above described location front main entry door. These unknown individuals were then met by the above mentioned seller from inside of the above location by opening the front main entry door and security gate. After a brief conversation with each unknown individual, the above mentioned seller would then let these individuals inside of the location. The above mentioned individuals would then exit the location and walk off in different directions. Each transaction took less than (1) minute to complete. Upon the last individual leaving the area Affiant engaged this person in conversation. Affiant questioned if the above location was open for sales of marijuana. Unknown individual then stated "Yah, they up right now just go to the front door and they will hook you up". Unknown individual then walked away. Affiant ended surveillance operation.^{[1 ]}

The proposed search warrant described the alleged seller as a 25- to 27-year-old black male. After reviewing the affidavit, the magistrate determined that there was probable cause to believe that defendant's home contained illegal drugs, and the magistrate issued a search warrant. During the subsequent search of defendant's home, the police found a handgun and two bags of marijuana (about 350 grams in total), but they did not find a scale, baggies, or packaging equipment. Defendant was the only person home. He was charged with possession with intent to deliver marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(iii ), carrying a firearm during the commission of a felony, MCL 750.224f, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, MCL 750.227b(1).

Before trial, defendant moved for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks , 438 U.S. 154, 98 S.Ct. 2674, 57 L.Ed.2d 667, to quash the search warrant, and to suppress the evidence seized. Under Franks , a defendant is constitutionally entitled to an evidentiary hearing to attack the veracity of a warrant affidavit when the defendant offers a "substantial preliminary showing" that the affiant allegedly acted with "deliberate falsehood or [with] reckless disregard for the truth...." Id . at 171, 98 S.Ct. 2674. Defendant's offer of proof in this case consisted of his own affidavit stating that his front door had a locked security gate that required a key and had not been used in approximately six months.²

At the hearing held on defendant's motion for a Franks hearing, the trial court denied defendant's motion to quash the search warrant, concluding that the information in Paragraph 5 was sufficient to demonstrate probable cause; the court nonetheless granted the motion to hold a Franks hearing. The court opined that the affiant had failed to supply sufficient information to demonstrate that the CI was credible. At the conclusion of the motion hearing the court ordered the prosecutor to provide more detailed information in preparation for the Franks hearing regarding the CI, including "all the times [the] affiant has used this unregistered [CI] on search warrants and ... whatever field notes that are used so that this Court can be assured that the unregistered [CI] is the same one." The prosecutor objected to the Franks hearing, arguing that defendant had not made the requisite showing to merit the hearing.

At the evidentiary hearing, the affiant testified that he generally does not keep logs or records of his unnamed and unregistered informants and that he pays them an undisclosed amount of money from his personal funds. In addition, the affiant acknowledged that he never witnessed an exchange of money or drugs at defendant's house despite referring in his affidavit to a "seller" and "transactions." Defendant also provided photographs of the front of his house taken from the vantage point of his next door neighbor's house, and his neighbor testified that visitors did not frequently come and go from defendant's home at short intervals and that she never saw anyone "go in and out" of his front door. Defendant testified that there is a locked steel gate in front of his front door and that no one uses his front door. He further testified that he was 41 years old, that he lived alone, and that no young man had ever stayed in his home.

Following the hearing, the trial court granted defendant's motion to suppress, finding that the information in support of the affidavit for the search warrant was not credible. More specifically, the court found that there was no evidence that the unregistered CI had provided information from his personal knowledge. The trial court concluded that the affiant had acted with "reckless disregard for the truth" when he included the CI's information in his affidavit without confirming its reliability or otherwise corroborating it. The trial court ultimately dismissed all charges against defendant.

The prosecutor appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering an evidentiary hearing when defendant had failed to make an adequate showing under the standard set out in Franks , 438 U.S. at 155–156, 98 S.Ct. 2674, that is, a substantial preliminary showing that a hearing was necessary. Franklin , unpub. op. at 4. The prosecutor did not appeal the suppression order issued at the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing. Rather, she argued only that the decision to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding the warrant affidavit constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order dismissing the charges but did not address the substance of the trial court's decision concerning defendant's motion to suppress. Id . Defendant then appealed in this Court, and we directed that oral argument be heard on defendant's application for leave to appeal. People v. Franklin , 499 Mich. 886, 876 N.W.2d 572 (2016). Having heard oral argument on January 12, 2017, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

"A trial court's decision to hold an evidentiary hearing is generally reviewed for an abuse of discretion." People v. Danto , 294 Mich.App. 596, 613, 822 N.W.2d 600 (2011). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision "falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes." People v. Duncan , 494 Mich. 713, 723, 835 N.W.2d 399 (2013). "A trial court necessarily abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law." Pirgu v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n , 499 Mich. 269, 274, 884 N.W.2d 257 (2016). The facts supporting the grant or denial of an evidentiary hearing are reviewed for clear error, and the application of...