People v. Paladino
| Decision Date | 05 April 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 163133 |
| Citation | 204 Mich.App. 505,516 N.W.2d 113 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael PALADINO, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., Richard Thompson, Pros. Atty., and Daniel A. O'Brien, Asst. Pros. Atty., for the People.
Richard M. Lustig, Birmingham, for defendant.
Before TAYLOR, P.J., and WEAVER and SMOLENSKI, * JJ.
In 1987, Drug Enforcement Administration Special Agent Marie Pikiell conducted an investigation of defendant. On the basis of the information obtained from her investigation, Pikiell obtained a search warrant for defendant's residence from a federal magistrate. The search warrant commanded that the search be conducted on or before June 15, 1987. A search was executed by several DEA agents, with a courtesy representative of the Oakland County Sheriff's Department, at approximately 3:00 p.m. on June 15, 1987. As a result of the search, defendant was arrested and prosecution was started in federal court. That prosecution was voluntarily dismissed by the federal district attorney, and the case was referred to the Oakland County Prosecutor's Office for prosecution.
In the state court, defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver more than 650 grams of cocaine, M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(a)(i); M.S.A. § 14.15(7401)(2)(a)(i), and possession with intent to deliver marijuana, M.C.L. § 333.7401(2)(c); M.S.A. § 14.15(7401)(2)(c). Defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant, alleging that the affidavit did not state sufficient probable cause. The court granted defendant's motion to suppress and denied the prosecution's motion for reconsideration. The court then dismissed the case. The prosecution appeals as of right. We reverse and remand.
The prosecution asks us to apply the "good-faith" exception to the search warrant requirement to the circumstances of this case, as in United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984). A panel of this Court has rejected application of the good-faith rule, People v. Hill, 192 Mich.App. 54, 480 N.W.2d 594 (1991), and we are compelled to follow that holding under Supreme Court Administrative Order No. 1990-6. Were we not so compelled, we would reach the opposite conclusion.
The prosecution next argues the court should have determined the sufficiency of the search warrant and affidavit under federal law, not state. In support of this, the prosecution points to the fact that the investigation, the affidavit, the warrant, and the search were all handled by federal officers under federal law.
This Court has previously held that when evidence challenged in a state prosecution is obtained in a search involving the joint activity of state and federal officers, the search is scrutinized under state standards. People v. Pipok (After Remand), 191 Mich.App. 669, 479 N.W.2d 359 (1991). This ruling was based on the need to preserve state court integrity and to govern the conduct of state officers. People v. Pipok, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided March 7, 1991 (Docket No. 126052).
The question before us is whether, in order to satisfy these goals, it is necessary to scrutinize a search...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sobczak-Obetts
...495, 496-504, 606 N.W.2d 658 (1999). In the lead opinion, Judge Hoekstra noted first that, pursuant to People v. Paladino, 204 Mich.App. 505, 507-508, 516 N.W.2d 113 (1994), in a joint operation between the state and federal governments, state law governs the validity of a search warrant in......
-
People v. Hellis
...warrant requirement where the police acted pursuant to a search warrant they believed was valid. Finally, in People v. Paladino, 204 Mich.App. 505, 507, 516 N.W.2d 113 (1994), this Court rejected the application of the good-faith rule where the police acted on a warrant that was later ruled......
-
People v. Sobczak-Obetts
...warrant in a state court." Sobczak-Obetts, supra, 238 Mich.App. at 498-499,606 N.W.2d 658 (1999) citing People v. Paladino, 204 Mich.App. 505, 507-508, 516 N.W.2d 113 (1994).4 Before remand, the prosecutor had conceded that state law governed the validity of the search. The prosecutor now a......
-
People v. Sobczak-Obetts, Docket No. 214787.
...the state and federal government, state law governs the validity of a search warrant in a state court. People v. Paladino, 204 Mich.App. 505, 507-508, 516 N.W.2d 113 (1994). Under Michigan law, the application for a search warrant must be supported by an affidavit "made on oath to a magistr......