People v. Whitfield
Decision Date | 07 March 2000 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 113934, Calendar No. 6. |
Citation | 461 Mich. 441,607 N.W.2d 61 |
Parties | PEOPLE of the State of Michigan, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Thomas J. WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellee. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, John D. O'Hair, Prosecuting Attorney, Timothy A. Baughman, Chief, Research, Training and Appeals, and Douglas P. Dwyer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, Detroit, MI, for the people.
William F. Branch, Detroit, MI, for the defendant.
The defendant was charged with possessing less than 25 grams of heroin. The trial court suppressed the evidence against him and dismissed the prosecution on the ground that a search warrant had been based on "[m]ere suspicion," instead of probable cause. The Court of Appeals affirmed. We find that the magistrate had a substantial basis for concluding that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing, and we therefore reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court.
On July 10, 1997, a district court magistrate issued a warrant authorizing the search of a home at 18072 Bloom in the city of Detroit. Applying for the warrant, the police had submitted an affidavit that included these paragraphs:
On the basis of evidence produced during the search, the defendant was charged with possession of less than twenty-five grams of heroin. MCL 333.7403(2)(a)(v); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(a)(v). He waived a preliminary examination.
In the trial court, the defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the affidavit did not provide a sufficient basis for issuance of the warrant. At the conclusion of a brief hearing, the trial court granted the motion:
The affidavit itself says an attempt.
The trial court entered an order suppressing the evidence and, on its own motion, a second order dismissing the case.
The prosecutor appealed, but the Court of Appeals affirmed.1 The Court explained:
We granted the prosecutor's application for leave to appeal. 459 Mich. 984, 595 N.W.2d 845 (1999).
In the present case, the heart of the disputed affidavit is this description of an exchange between the police officer and the apparent seller:
On July 09, 1997, Affiant who is assigned to the Detroit Police Narcotic Division attempted a purchase of narcotics from 18072 Bloom. The above described seller asked the Affiant what the Affiant wanted, Affiant replied "one" meaning one (1) pack of heroin. The above described seller produced from his right front pocket a large bundle of blue folded small coin envelopes wrapped in rubbberbands. The seller looked at Affiant and asked Affiant who did Affiant know. Affiant was unable to convince the seller to sell illegal narcotics. The described seller stated come back with someone I know and I'll take care of you.
To provide adequate support for a warrant, the affidavit need not prove anything. As we explained in People v. Russo, supra at 603-604, 487 N.W.2d 698:
In sum, a search warrant and the underlying affidavit are to be read in a common-sense and realistic manner. Affording deference to the magistrate's decision simply requires that reviewing courts ensure that there is a substantial basis for the magistrate's conclusion that there is a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place." [Gates, supra at 238, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527.]
In the present case, a person asked the police officer what the officer wanted. The officer replied "one," without further elaboration. The person then produced a large bundle of envelopes of the sort that are used for packaging heroin.2 However, the person declined to complete the transaction, apparently because the officer was unable to name a common acquaintance. However, the person added that he would be willing to "take care of" the officer, if the officer could return in the company of someone known to the person.
Considering these facts "in a common-sense and realistic manner," 439 Mich. at 604,487 N.W.2d 698, we are certain that the magistrate had a substantial basis for finding probable cause to issue the search warrant because there was a "fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime [would] be found [at the home where this conversation took place.]" 462 U.S. at 238,103 S.Ct. 2317,76 L.Ed.2d 527. The display of envelopes in response to the officer's inquiry regarding heroin, coupled with the officer's statement that he had participated in over one hundred narcotics raids and had "seen heroin in such coin envelopes on numerous occasions, and is very familiar with the appearance of heroin an[d] its packaging," suggests that the envelopes did, in fact, contain narcotics. Although the person would not complete the sale, he effectively promised to sell to the officer in the future, contingent on the officer returning with someone familiar to him. Accordingly, giving due deference to the decision of the magistrate, which both the trial court and the Court of Appeals failed to do, we are satisfied that he did not err in issuing this search warrant.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Waclawski
...finding of probable cause to issue a search warrant. People v. Keller, 479 Mich. 467, 477, 739 N.W.2d 505 (2007); People v. Whitfield, 461 Mich. 441, 446, 607 N.W.2d 61 (2000). Further, the record reveals that Detective Egerer appeared before the magistrate on March 20, 2006, and swore or a......
-
People v. Brown
...exists to conclude that there is a fair probability that the items sought will be found in the stated place.'" People v. Whitfield, 461 Mich. 441, 444, 607 N.W.2d 61 (2000), quoting People v. Whitfield, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued September 25, 1998 (Docke......
-
People v. Mullen
...blood. When reviewing a search warrant affidavit, we must read it in a "common sense and realistic manner," People v. Whitfield, 461 Mich. 441, 444, 607 N.W.2d 61 (2000) (quotation marks and citation omitted), not a crabbed or hypertechnical manner. Defendant was stopped for a traffic viola......
-
State v. Holiday
...the defendant for "one," and the defendant produced a large bundle of envelopes that the officer believed contained heroin. 461 Mich. 441, 607 N.W.2d 61, 64 (2000). The defendant declined to complete the transaction when the officer was unable to name a common acquaintance, but added that h......