People v. Sloan, Docket No. 168967

• Decision Date: 16 August 1994
• Docket Number: Docket No. 168967
• Citation: 206 Mich.App. 484,522 N.W.2d 684
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leonard SLOAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 684

522 N.W.2d 684

206 Mich.App. 484

PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Leonard SLOAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 168967.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted July 7, 1994, at Detroit.

Decided Aug. 16, 1994, at 9:05 a.m.

Released for Publication Oct. 31, 1994.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Thomas L. Casey, Sol. Gen., John D. O'Hair, Pros. Atty., and Timothy A. Baughman, Chief of Research, Training, and Appeals, for the People.

Thomas V. Wilhelm, Bloomfield Hills, for defendant.

Before GRIBBS, P.J., and REILLY and BROWN, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal. Defendant appeals by leave granted a Recorder's Court order denying his motion to suppress blood test results. We reverse.

On March 13, 1993, defendant was involved in an automobile accident that resulted in a fatality. Defendant and his passenger were injured and taken to the hospital. While at the hospital, a blood sample was drawn from defendant pursuant to a search warrant. The affidavit on which the warrant was based stated in pertinent part:

On 3-13-93 on or about 11:40 p.m. (2340 hrs) Robert Leonard Sloan operating a vehicle in the City of Southgate in area of Pennsylvania & Walter. Collision occurred & appears Robert Leonard Sloan under influence of intoxicating liquor, transported to Wyandotte Hospital & Medical Center. Request blood sample be taken. Robert Leonard Sloan involved in accident causing death.

Defendant was subsequently arrested and bound over on charges of manslaughter with a motor vehicle, M.C.L. § 750.321; M.S.A. § 28.553, operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor causing a death, M.C.L. § 257.625(4); M.S.A. § 9.2325(4), and felonious driving, M.C.L. § 752.191; M.S.A. § 28.661. In the trial court, defendant moved to suppress the results of the blood test, arguing that the affidavit was insufficient because it did not allege facts on which probable cause could be based. The trial court allowed the parties to take the testimony of the magistrate who issued the warrant to determine what facts the magistrate had relied upon in issuing the warrant. The magistrate testified that he had questioned the officer about defendant's condition. The trial court noted that the procedure used in this case, where the warrant was issued after the magistrate read the affidavit and questioned the officer, under oath, followed by the trial court's taking testimony of the magistrate, was not ideal. However, the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the blood test results.

A search warrant may not be issued unless justified by probable cause. People v. Cooper, 166 Mich.App. 638, 652, 421 N.W.2d 177 (1987). Probable cause must be based on facts presented to the magistrate by oath or affirmation. People v. Mitchell, 428 Mich. 364, 367, 408 N.W.2d 798 (1987). The affidavit must contain facts within the knowledge of the affiant rather than mere conclusions or beliefs, and must state facts that justify inferences. People v. Rosborough, 387 Mich. 183, 199, 195 N.W.2d 255 (1972); Cooper, supra 166 Mich.App. at 652, 421 N.W.2d 177. On appeal from a finding of probable cause, the reviewing court must look at the affidavit and determine whether the information contained in the documents could have caused a reasonably cautious person to conclude that there was a substantial basis for the determination that probable cause existed to conclude that the evidence sought might be found in a specific location. People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584, 603-604, 487 N.W.2d 698 (1992). The search warrant and the underlying affidavit are to be read in a common-sense and realistic manner, and the reviewing court should give deference to the magistrate's decision. Id.

In this case, the affidavit contained no facts...