Case Title: Michigan v. Franklin (Opinion on Application)

Citation: 

Docket Number: 152840

State: michigan

Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Date: 2017-05-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
PEOPLE v FRANKLIN 
 
 
Docket No. 152840.  Argued on application for leave to appeal January 12, 2017.  
Decided May 12, 2017. 
 
 
Darius L. Franklin was charged in the Wayne Circuit Court 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).  The 
charges against defendant arose after police officers found a handgun and 350 grams of 
marijuana in defendant’s home during the execution of a search warrant.  The search warrant was 
issued on the basis of an affidavit stating that the affiant, a police officer, received information 
from an unregistered confidential informant (CI) that significant drug trafficking was taking 
place at defendant’s home.  According to the affiant’s sworn affidavit, he surveilled defendant’s 
home and observed five unknown individuals approach the home within a 30-minute time span.  
The affiant further averred that a young man let the individuals into defendant’s home and that 
each individual was inside defendant’s home for less than one minute.  The magistrate found that 
there was probable cause to believe that illegal drugs would be found in defendant’s home and 
issued the search warrant.  Before trial, defendant moved to quash the search warrant and for a 
hearing under Franks v Delaware, 438 US 154 (1978), to challenge the veracity of the affidavit 
on which the warrant was based.  The court, Bruce U. Morrow, J., denied defendant’s motion to 
quash the warrant, concluding that the information in the affidavit, if taken as true, supported the 
magistrate’s finding of probable cause.  Notwithstanding this conclusion, the court expressed 
concern regarding the veracity of the information provided to the affiant by the unregistered CI 
and granted defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing.  Ultimately the court found the information 
in the affidavit not credible and the affidavit insufficient to support the warrant.  According to 
the court, the affiant acted with reckless disregard for the truth by including an unregistered CI’s 
information in the affidavit without confirming or corroborating it and without providing 
evidence, in accordance with MCL 780.653, that the CI had personal knowledge of the 
information given to the affiant.  The court granted defendant’s motion to suppress and 
dismissed all charges against defendant.  The prosecution appealed, and the Court of Appeals, 
FORT HOOD, P.J., and CAVANAGH and K. F. KELLY, JJ., reversed the trial court’s order 
dismissing the charges against defendant in an unpublished per curiam opinion issued 
October 20, 2015.  The Court of Appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion by holding 
an evidentiary hearing because defendant had failed to make the substantial preliminary showing 
required under Franks to merit a hearing.  Defendant sought leave to appeal, and the Supreme 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Syllabus 
 
Chief Justice: 
Stephen J. Markman 
 
Justices: 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
Joan L. Larsen 
Kurtis T. Wilder 
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been  
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 
Reporter of Decisions: 
Kathryn L. Loomis 
Court ordered and heard oral argument on whether to grant the application or take other 
peremptory action.  499 Mich 886 (2016). 
 
 
In a unanimous opinion by Chief Justice MARKMAN, the Supreme Court held: 
 
 
The United States and Michigan Constitutions, US Const, Am IV and Const 1963, art 1, 
§ 11, prohibit the issuance of a warrant to search any place or seize any person or property 
without probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.  Under certain circumstances, a 
criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a Franks hearing—an evidentiary hearing to 
review the veracity of an affidavit on which a search warrant is based and determine whether the 
affidavit is sufficient to support a magistrate’s conclusion that probable cause existed to believe 
that evidence of a crime would be found in a particular place.  A trial court must hold a Franks 
hearing at a defendant’s request whenever the defendant’s offered evidence constitutes a 
substantial preliminary showing that the affiant made a false statement—knowingly and 
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth—and the false statement was necessary to 
the finding of probable cause required to issue the warrant.  Franks governs whether the Fourth 
Amendment demands that an evidentiary hearing be held; that is, Franks concerns when a trial 
court may not deny a defendant an evidentiary hearing.  However, nothing prevents a trial court 
from holding a hearing to examine the veracity of a warrant affidavit even without a substantial 
preliminary showing by a defendant.  Given the absence of any identified prohibition in the 
federal Constitution or federal law and the latitude that Michigan trial courts generally have 
regarding motion practice and evidentiary hearings, a trial court may exercise its discretion and 
hold an evidentiary hearing to review the veracity of an affidavit and determine whether a search 
warrant was supported by probable cause.  A trial court’s decision to hold an evidentiary hearing 
is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.  In this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by 
granting defendant’s motion for a hearing, and the prosecution did not challenge the trial court’s 
ruling following the hearing—that the warrant was not supported by probable cause.  
Accordingly, the trial court order dismissing the charges against defendant was reinstated. 
 
 
Reversed.  
 
 
Justice WILDER took no part in the decision of this case. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
©2017 State of Michigan 
 
FILED  May 12, 2017 
 
S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N 
 
SUPREME COURT 
 
 
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
 
 
v 
No. 152840 
 
DARIUS LAMARR FRANKLIN, 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH (except WILDER, J.) 
 
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 US 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 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
OPINION 
 
Chief Justice: 
Stephen J. Markman 
 
 
Justices: 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
Joan L. Larsen 
Kurtis T. Wilder 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
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.  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 (emphasis added), quoting 
Franks, 438 US at 155-156.  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 US at 156, 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 
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), 
                                              
1 We have omitted the street address of defendant’s house from where it appeared in 
several spots in the quoted affidavit. 
 
 
 
4 
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 
US 154, 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.  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 
                                              
2 On the day of defendant’s motion for a Franks hearing, he faxed his own affidavit to the 
court to be attached to his motion.  Whether the trial court reviewed the affidavit before 
making its ruling is unclear.  In defendant’s application for leave to appeal in this Court, 
he asserted that the trial court possessed his affidavit, an affidavit from his neighbor, and 
photographs of the front entrance to defendant’s home before the court granted 
defendant’s motion.  The prosecutor moved under MCR 2.115(B) to strike defendant’s 
application for leave to appeal, alleging breaches of MCR 7.212(C)(6) and MCR 
7.305(A)(1)(d) for failure to accurately portray the facts of the case.  We are not 
convinced that any misrepresentations defendant may have made of the record were 
intentional, and the misrepresentations have not influenced this Court’s evaluation.  We 
therefore deny the prosecutor’s motion to strike. 
 
 
 
5 
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, 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 
 
 
 
6 
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 US at 155-156, 
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 (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 NW2d 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 NW2d 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 NW2d 257 
 
 
 
7 
(2016).  The facts supporting the grant or denial of an evidentiary hearing are reviewed 
for clear error, and the application of the law to those facts is reviewed de novo.  People v 
Martin, 271 Mich App 280, 309; 721 NW2d 815 (2006), aff’d 482 Mich 851 (2008).  A 
trial court’s factual finding “is clearly erroneous if the reviewing court is left with a 
definite and firm conviction that the trial court made a mistake.”  People v Bylsma, 493 
Mich 17, 26; 825 NW2d 543 (2012) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 
III.  ANALYSIS 
“[N]o Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or 
things to be seized.”  US Const, Am IV.  Similarly, the Michigan Constitution provides, 
“No warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall issue without 
describing them, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.”  Const 
1963, art 1, § 11.3   
A magistrate shall only issue a search warrant when he or she finds that “there is a 
fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular 
place.”  Illinois v Gates, 462 US 213, 238; 103 S Ct 2317; 76 L Ed 2d 527 (1983).  A 
magistrate’s finding of probable cause and decision to issue a search warrant are 
reviewed to ensure that the magistrate possessed a “ ‘substantial basis for . . . 
                                              
3 “[T]his Court need not interpret a provision of our Constitution in the same manner as a 
similar or identical federal constitutional provision . . . .”  People v Tanner, 496 Mich 
199, 256; 853 NW2d 653 (2014).  However, neither party argues that the Michigan 
Constitution should be interpreted differently from the federal Constitution in the present 
context. 
 
 
 
8 
conclud[ing]’ that a search would uncover evidence of wrongdoing . . . .”  Id. at 236 
(citation omitted; alteration in original).  A magistrate’s finding of probable cause and his 
or her decision to issue a search warrant should be given great deference and only 
disturbed in limited circumstances.  People v Keller, 479 Mich 467, 474; 739 NW2d 505 
(2007); Johnson v United States, 333 US 10, 14-15; 68 S Ct 367; 92 L Ed 436 (1948) 
(“There are exceptional circumstances in which, on balancing the need for effective law 
enforcement against the right of privacy, it may be contended that a magistrate’s warrant 
for search may be dispensed with.”).  Judicial deference to a magistrate’s issuance of a 
warrant is a legal principle found throughout United States Supreme Court caselaw 
intended to emphasize the magistrate’s role as an independent judicial officer and to 
encourage law enforcement officers to secure warrants.  See Gates, 462 US at 236 
(“[A]fter-the-fact scrutiny by courts of the sufficiency of an affidavit should not take the 
form of de novo review.  A magistrate’s ‘determination of probable cause should be paid 
great deference by reviewing courts.’ ”) (citation omitted); United States v Ventresca, 380 
US 102, 108; 85 S Ct 741; 13 L Ed 2d 684 (1965) (“A grudging or negative attitude by 
reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting 
their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.”). 
Over time, however, the United States Supreme Court has established exceptions 
to this general rule; that is, it has identified “exceptional circumstances” in which a 
magistrate’s warrant for search may be “dispensed with” upon review by the trial court.  
Johnson, 333 US at 14-15.  For example, a warrant affidavit may be defective if it was 
insufficient.  Nathanson v United States, 290 US 41, 46; 54 S Ct 11; 78 L Ed 159 (1933) 
(holding that a warrant cannot be supported by “a mere affirmation of suspicion and 
 
 
 
9 
belief without any statement of adequate supporting facts”).4  The instant case concerns 
another circumstance in which an affidavit may be deemed defective upon review by a 
trial court.  In particular, it concerns when a warrant affidavit may be challenged in the 
manner established by the United States Supreme Court in Franks, 438 US 154. 
A.  FRANKS v DELAWARE 
Franks, 438 US at 155-156, concerned whether an individual may be 
constitutionally entitled to challenge the veracity of a warrant affidavit after the warrant 
has been issued.  Franks concluded that in particular circumstances the Fourth and 
Fourteenth Amendments, and the exclusionary rule derived from those amendments, 
require the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to review the magistrate’s finding of 
probable cause and the warrant affidavit on which it is based.  Id. at 171-172.  The instant 
case concerns the breadth of the Court’s holding in Franks. 
Franks held that a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in order to show 
that the affidavit is void when the defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing of a 
                                              
4 See also Jones v United States, 362 US 257, 269; 80 S Ct 725; 4 L Ed 2d 697 (1960) 
(concluding that a sufficient warrant affidavit may contain hearsay “so long as a 
substantial basis for crediting the hearsay is presented” and the statements are 
“reasonably corroborated by other matters within the [affiant’s] knowledge”), overruled 
on other grounds by United States v Salvucci, 448 US 83, 85; 100 S Ct 2547; 65 L Ed 2d 
619 (1980); Aguilar v Texas, 378 US 108, 114; 84 S Ct 1509; 12 L Ed 2d 723 (1964) 
(stating that a warrant affidavit must provide the magistrate with at least “some of the 
underlying circumstances from which the officer concluded that the informant . . . was 
‘credible’ or his information ‘reliable’ ”), abrogated on other grounds by Gates, 462 US 
at 238; Spinelli v United States, 393 US 410, 418-419; 89 S Ct 584; 21 L Ed 2d 637 
(1969) (holding that the “assertion of police suspicion” cannot save an otherwise 
insufficient warrant affidavit), abrogated on other grounds by Gates, 462 US at 238; 
Gates, 462 US at 236-246 (explaining, on the basis of prior Supreme Court decisions, the 
proper method of examining an affidavit for sufficiency). 
 
 
 
10 
deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth by the affiant.  Id. at 155-156.  
Franks explained the proofs necessary to entitle a defendant to an evidentiary hearing on 
the defendant’s challenge to an affidavit’s veracity: 
There is, of course, a presumption of validity with respect to the affidavit 
supporting the search warrant.  To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the 
challenger’s attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by 
more than a mere desire to cross-examine.  There must be allegations of 
deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those 
allegations must be accompanied by an offer of proof.  They should point 
out specifically the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be 
false; and they should be accompanied by a statement of supporting 
reasons.  Affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses 
should be furnished, or their absence satisfactorily explained.  Allegations 
of negligence or innocent mistake are insufficient.  The deliberate falsity or 
reckless disregard whose impeachment is permitted today is only that of the 
affiant, not of any nongovernmental informant.  Finally, if these 
requirements are met, and if, when material that is the subject of the alleged 
falsity or reckless disregard is set to one side, there remains sufficient 
content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause, no 
hearing is required.  On the other hand, if the remaining content is 
insufficient, the defendant is entitled, under the Fourth and Fourteenth 
Amendments, to his hearing.  Whether he will prevail at that hearing is, of 
course, another issue.  [Id. at 171-172 (emphasis added).] 
Franks further held that “[i]n the event that at that hearing the allegation of perjury or 
reckless disregard is established by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, 
and, with the affidavit’s false material set to one side, the affidavit’s remaining content is 
insufficient to establish probable cause, the search warrant must be voided . . . .”  Id. at 
156.  In sum, Franks created a single basis for both the inquiry concerning an affidavit’s 
veracity and the inquiry into whether the warrant should be voided.  That basis-- when a 
deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth is contained in the affidavit-- 
entitles a defendant to first secure an evidentiary hearing to challenge the veracity of a 
 
 
 
11 
search warrant affidavit (by making a “substantial preliminary showing” of deliberate 
falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth).  Id. at 155-156.  On this same basis, the 
defendant may then be entitled to have the warrant voided (when the deliberate falsehood 
or reckless disregard for the truth is established by a “preponderance of the evidence” and 
the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause).  Id. at 156.  
Significantly, nothing in Franks speaks to when a trial court is prohibited from 
holding an evidentiary hearing to review a warrant affidavit.  Rather, Franks established 
only when a defendant possesses the right to a hearing, i.e., when a trial court may not 
deny a hearing to the defendant.  Id.  When the Court was presented with the Supreme 
Court of Delaware’s prior holding “that a defendant under no circumstances may so 
challenge the veracity of a sworn statement used by police to procure a search warrant,” 
Franks responded 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 if 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. (emphasis added).] 
Franks principally relied on the Fourth Amendment’s pronouncement that “ ‘no Warrants 
shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation . . . .’ ”  Id. at 164, 
quoting US Const, Am IV.  The Court reasoned that an oath or affirmation can only 
logically establish probable cause if it is truthful, meaning that “the information put forth 
is believed or appropriately accepted by the affiant as true.”  Id. at 165.  The Court 
concluded that “it would be an unthinkable imposition upon [a magistrate’s] authority if a 
 
 
 
12 
warrant affidavit, revealed after the fact to contain a deliberately or recklessly false 
statement, were to stand beyond impeachment.”  Id.  
In recognition of the “competing values” at issue-- namely deference to the 
magistrate’s exercise of judgment in issuing a warrant and the need to safeguard Fourth 
Amendment guarantees-- the Court imposed limitations upon a defendant’s constitutional 
right to a Franks veracity hearing.5  Id.  “[A] hearing on allegations of misstatements 
must be accorded” only when the defendant has made the required substantial preliminary 
showing, and “exclusion of the seized evidence is mandated” only if the content of the 
affidavit that has survived the veracity hearing is insufficient to establish probable cause.  
Id. at 167 (emphasis added).  Regarding all other circumstances that might arise in the 
context of a challenge to a warrant affidavit, the Court was silent.  In particular, Franks 
was silent concerning when a trial court might be barred from exercising its own 
discretion to hold a veracity hearing.  In short, the focus of Franks was on the defendant’s 
constitutional right to a hearing and not on limiting the trial court’s discretion to hold a 
veracity hearing.6  
                                              
5 We note that the latter of these “competing values” is firmly grounded in the 
Constitution while the former appears to be rooted in practical policy concerns.  See, e.g., 
Gates, 462 US at 236 (“If the affidavits submitted by police officers are subjected to the 
type of scrutiny some courts have deemed appropriate, police might well resort to 
warrantless searches.”); Ventresca, 380 US at 108 (“A grudging or negative attitude by 
reviewing courts toward warrants will tend to discourage police officers from submitting 
their evidence to a judicial officer before acting.”).  
6 Indeed, we see no language in Franks that purports to impose such a procedural 
limitation on state judiciaries. 
 
 
 
13 
The Tenth Circuit has concluded similarly: “Franks speaks only of the showing a 
defendant must make to ‘mandate’ an evidentiary hearing.  Nothing in the opinion or the 
logic on which it rests suggests that a district court must forswear an evidentiary hearing 
unless the defendant’s motion makes one constitutionally compulsory.”  United States v 
Herrera, 782 F3d 571, 573 (CA 10, 2015) (citation omitted).  Herrera further 
emphasized the discretionary authority of trial courts in motion practice: 
[D]istrict courts generally enjoy a fair amount of discretion in choosing the 
procedures they find most helpful for resolving pretrial motions, including 
whether to take the matter on the briefs, hear oral argument, or hold an 
evidentiary hearing.  And often enough courts will choose to err on the side 
of granting more process than might be strictly necessary in order to ensure 
not only that justice is done but that justice is seen to be done.  [Id. at 573-
574.] 
Similarly, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has stated that a trial court may hold an 
evidentiary hearing on the veracity of a search warrant affidavit at its discretion.  
Commonwealth v Douzanis, 384 Mass 434, 443; 425 NE2d 326 (1981) (“A Franks-type 
hearing was not constitutionally mandated.  The judge could, nevertheless, determine in 
his discretion to hold a Franks-type hearing . . . .”).  These cases closely mirror the legal 
question here and support our understanding of Franks as a constitutional floor 
safeguarding a defendant’s rights rather than a ceiling on trial court discretion.  
Therefore, the Court of Appeals erred when it held that “under Franks, an evidentiary 
hearing challenging the validity of a search warrant may not be granted unless the 
defendant makes a substantial preliminary showing . . . .”  Franklin, unpub op at 2 
(quotation marks omitted; emphasis added). 
 
 
 
14 
B.  OTHER FEDERAL CONSTRAINTS 
We next consider whether federal law in any other regard prohibits states from 
holding veracity hearings concerning warrant affidavits.  Generally, a state is free to act 
as long as the state does not contravene the federal Constitution.  US Const, Am X (“The 
powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”).  See also, e.g., Oregon v 
Hass, 420 US 714, 719; 95 S Ct 1215; 43 L Ed 2d 570 (1975) (“[A] State is free as a 
matter of its own law to impose greater restrictions on police activity than those this 
Court holds to be necessary upon federal constitutional standards.”).  
We are unable to identify any federal constitutional protection that is violated 
when a state trial court allows a defendant an evidentiary hearing on the veracity of a 
search warrant affidavit even when the defendant has not made a substantial preliminary 
showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth pursuant to Franks, nor 
have the parties pointed us to any restraint.  See, e.g., Herrera, 782 F3d at 573-574 
(stating that the government provided no “potential source of authority” or “compelling 
reason” why a trial court’s decision to grant an evidentiary hearing should be limited by 
more than review for an abuse of discretion).  And Michigan, if it chooses, possesses the 
sovereign authority to allow its own trial courts to provide a defendant with additional 
process through an evidentiary hearing held in the reasonable exercise of the trial court’s 
discretion.  Herb v Pitcairn, 324 US 117, 125-126; 65 S Ct 459; 89 L Ed 789 (1945) 
(“[The United States Supreme Court’s] only power over state judgments is to correct 
them to the extent that they incorrectly adjudge federal rights.”) (emphasis added).  
 
 
 
15 
Having failed to identify any federal law that binds Michigan on this question, we turn to 
state law.7   
C.  TRIAL COURT DISCRETION 
In accordance with Franks, Michigan requires trial courts to dispense with the 
offending parts of a search warrant affidavit when, at a Franks hearing, a defendant 
demonstrates “by a preponderance of the evidence that [the affiant] recklessly or 
intentionally made false statements in the affidavit upon which the search warrant was 
based.”  People v Reid, 420 Mich 326, 336; 362 NW2d 655 (1984).  Michigan, however, 
has not addressed under what circumstances a trial court may conduct an evidentiary 
hearing concerning the veracity of a search warrant affidavit following the warrant’s 
execution.   
In general, trial courts in our state possess reasonable discretion regarding whether 
to hold hearings concerning the range of motions that typically come before them.  See, 
e.g., MCR 2.119(F)(2) (authorizing a trial court to hold oral arguments although none are 
ordinarily permitted on a party’s motion for reconsideration); Yee v Shiawassee Co Bd of 
Comm’rs, 251 Mich App 379, 405; 651 NW2d 756 (2002) (“[W]here the party requesting 
relief fails to provide specific allegations of fraud relating to a material fact, the trial court 
need not proceed to an evidentiary hearing.”); Mich Bank-Midwest v D J Reynaert, Inc, 
165 Mich App 630, 643; 419 NW2d 439 (1988) (ruling that a trial court had discretion to 
refuse to hold an evidentiary hearing on a motion to intervene when one might ordinarily 
                                              
7 Neither party argues that the discretionary evidentiary hearings at issue violate the 
Michigan Constitution or Michigan law, and therefore we do not address such arguments. 
 
 
 
16 
be required).  The Court of Appeals has explained why trial courts are best suited to 
determine whether an evidentiary hearing on a given motion should be held:  
[W]e believe that the trial court itself is best equipped to decide whether the 
positions of the parties (as defined by the motion and response, as well as 
by the background of the litigation) mandate a judicial assessment of the 
demeanor of particular witnesses in order to assess credibility as part of the 
fact-finding process.  Some motions undoubtedly will require such an 
assessment, e.g., situations in which “swearing contests” between two or 
more witnesses are involved, with no externally analyzable indicia of truth.  
Other motions will not, e.g., situations in which ascertainable material facts 
are alleged, such as the contents of a bank account on a particular day.  
Where the truth of fraud allegations can be determined without reference to 
demeanor, we do not believe that the law requires a trial court to devote its 
limited resources to an in-person hearing.  [Williams v Williams, 214 Mich 
App 391, 399; 542 NW2d 892 (1995).] 
There are instances in which trial courts are obligated to hold evidentiary hearings.  
See, e.g., MCR 7.208(B) (the trial court shall hear and decide a motion for “a new trial, 
for judgment of acquittal, to withdraw a plea, or to correct an invalid sentence”); MCR 
2.119(E)(1) (“Contested motions should be noticed for hearing . . . .”); Craig v Oakwood 
Hosp, 471 Mich 67, 83; 684 NW2d 296 (2004) (requiring a trial court to conduct a 
hearing to determine whether the expert’s opinion was “based on generally accepted 
methodology”); People v Kaufman, 457 Mich 266, 276; 577 NW2d 466 (1998) (holding 
that while a motion to suppress evidence generally requires an evidentiary hearing, the 
parties may agree to have the motion decided on the basis of the record of a preliminary 
examination); Rapaport v Rapaport, 185 Mich App 12, 16; 460 NW2d 588 (1990) 
(“[W]here a party alleges that a fraud has been committed on the court, it is generally an 
abuse of discretion for the court to decide the motion without first conducting an 
evidentiary hearing into the allegations.”).  Yet, we have not found any Michigan 
 
 
 
17 
constitutional provision, court rule, or caselaw-- nor have the parties pointed us to any 
such authority-- prohibiting a trial court from holding an evidentiary hearing on a motion, 
as long as doing so is not an abuse of the trial court’s discretion.8  See Unger, 278 Mich 
App at 216-217 (“[A] trial court’s decision whether to hold an evidentiary hearing is 
reviewed for an abuse of discretion.”).  Given the absence of any identified prohibition, 
and given the latitude Michigan trial courts enjoy regarding motion practice and 
evidentiary hearings generally, we conclude that trial courts possess the authority to grant 
discretionary evidentiary hearings on the veracity of search warrant affidavits and a trial 
court’s decision to hold a veracity hearing is subject to review only for an abuse of 
discretion. 
Our holding today-- that even in the absence of the substantial preliminary 
showing required by Franks a trial court may conduct an evidentiary hearing concerning 
the veracity of a search warrant affidavit-- does not purport to address Franks’s holding 
regarding when “the search warrant must be voided” after an evidentiary hearing.  
Franks, 438 US at 156.  Rather, the exercise of discretion addressed in this case is simply 
whether to convene an evidentiary hearing concerning the veracity of a search warrant 
affidavit; therefore, our decision does not affect or alter the standards that govern the 
outcome of those hearings.  At an evidentiary hearing, before the court may void the 
warrant pursuant to Franks or order suppression of evidence, the defendant must still 
meet his or her full burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that the 
                                              
8 Even when the parties have agreed to the entry of a proposed order or waived notice and 
hearing, the trial court may decline to enter the order and instead hold a hearing on the 
motion.  See MCR 2.119(D)(3). 
 
 
 
18 
affidavit contains a reckless or deliberate falsehood and that with this material “set to one 
side, the affidavit’s remaining content is insufficient to establish probable cause.”9  
Franks, 438 US at 156.  See also Reid, 420 Mich at 336 (“At a Franks hearing, evidence 
may be suppressed only upon a showing that false material essential to probable cause 
was knowingly or recklessly included.”). 
D.  APPLICATION 
The record demonstrates that the trial court did not rely on, or even refer to, 
defendant’s offer of proof purportedly satisfying the requirements of Franks as a reason 
for its decision.  See Franks, 438 US at 171.  Rather, it stated that it was granting the 
hearing because of its own concern regarding the credibility of the CI and whether the 
CI’s information was based on personal knowledge.  See MCL 780.653 (stating that a 
search warrant affidavit may be based on information supplied by an unnamed CI if it 
contains affirmative allegations that allow a magistrate to conclude that the CI possessed 
personal knowledge of the information and either that the CI is credible or the 
information is reliable).  The trial court in this case stated that, if taken as true, the 
information “contained in number five [of the affidavit] is sufficient for the issuance 
based on there being a fair probability that drugs would be found . . . .”10  The trial court 
granted the hearing nonetheless and directed the affiant to bring further information 
                                              
9 Of course, the defendant could also meet this burden by setting forth other grounds 
established under Michigan law for holding the warrant affidavit defective, such as 
insufficiency.  See, e.g., Keller, 479 Mich 467.   
10 Paragraph 5 of the affidavit pertained to the affiant’s observation of persons coming to 
and going from defendant’s front door for alleged illegal purposes.  
 
 
 
19 
regarding the CI to the hearing because the court was troubled by the credibility and 
reliability of the CI.11  Nothing in the trial court’s reasoning indicated that it relied in any 
way on defendant’s offer of proof as opposed to its own independent concerns.  
Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to grant the hearing without expressly 
deciding that defendant had satisfied the Franks standard.   
The question is whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion by deciding 
to hold a hearing.  As already noted, nothing in federal or Michigan law prevents a trial 
court from exercising its judgment in this manner, short of engaging in an abuse of 
discretion.  Because the Court of Appeals incorrectly assumed that the trial court could 
not conduct an evidentiary hearing on the veracity of the search warrant affidavit absent 
defendant’s making of a substantial preliminary showing under Franks, the Court of 
Appeals incorrectly concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by conducting the 
hearing.  The trial court’s decision to grant an evidentiary hearing was not outside the 
range of reasonable and principled outcomes, i.e., an abuse of discretion, given the 
reasons the trial court articulated for its decision.12  Duncan, 494 Mich at 722-723.  
                                              
11 The trial court also emphasized that despite the affiant’s claimed observation of five 
illegal drug “transactions” earlier in the day, no evidence of drug sales, such as drug 
packaging, a scale, or money, was found during the search.  We make no judgment about 
whether it was proper for the court to give consideration to this lack of evidence.   
12 To facilitate appellate review, we encourage trial courts to state on the record their 
reasons for granting a Franks hearing. 
 
 
 
20 
Further, the prosecutor has not challenged the court’s subsequent ruling that the warrant 
was not supported by probable cause.13   
IV.  CONCLUSION 
The circumstances under which an evidentiary hearing regarding a warrant 
affidavit must be held as directed by Franks are not the only circumstances under which 
such a hearing may be held.  A trial court’s decision to hold an evidentiary hearing on the 
veracity of the search warrant affidavit should be reviewed, as trial court decisions 
regarding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing are reviewed in a wide variety of other 
matters, for an abuse of discretion.  The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, 
and we reinstate the trial court’s order dismissing the charges against defendant.  
 
 
Stephen J. Markman 
 
Brian K. Zahra 
 
Bridget M. McCormack 
 
David F. Viviano 
 
Richard H. Bernstein 
 
Joan L. Larsen 
 
 
WILDER, J., took no part in the decision of this case. 
                                              
13 Given that the warrant affidavit was ultimately deemed defective, we question whether 
there would be a proper remedy that could be afforded the prosecutor if the motion to 
hold the hearing had been granted in error.  See generally People v Yost, 468 Mich 122, 
124 n 2; 659 NW2d 604 (2003) (“If defendant went to trial and were found guilty, any 
subsequent appeal would not consider whether the evidence adduced at the preliminary 
examination was sufficient to warrant a bindover.”); People v Plunkett, 485 Mich 50, 57; 
780 NW2d 280 (2010) (stating that the “standard [of probable cause for a bindover] is 
less rigorous than the requirement to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to convict a 
criminal defendant”).