Opinion ID: 848795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: factual 1 and procedural background

Text: Detective Todd Butler of the Grand Rapids Police 1 These cases have not yet been tried. Our statement of facts is derived from the preliminary examination and motion hearing transcripts and from the documentation contained in the lower court records. 2 Department received tips from two informants that illegal controlled substances were being sold from a residence located at 921 Humbolt, S.E., in Grand Rapids. On the basis of the information provided by these sources, Butler sought a search warrant to search the residence. Butler’s affidavit set forth the following facts in support of the issuance of the warrant:
informant on 10/14/99 that the resident of 921 Humbolt S.E. was involved in the sale of narcotics. The informant stated the residence [sic] is selling the controlled substance crack cocaine. The informant described the resident and seller of the controlled substance as “Chris,” B/M, approx. 20, 5'8, 170 [lbs], medium build/complexion, short hair.
credible informant on 11/3/99. Your affiant was advised that the informant had observed the controlled substance cocaine available for sale from the residence within the past 36 hours.
the entry door to the suspects [sic] apartment has been reinforced to delay a police entry. On November 3, 1999, a judge of the 61st District Court issued the requested warrant, and the residence was searched the same day. During the search, police seized two stolen firearms, approximately 20 grams of cocaine, and other contraband. Defendant, who was not present during the search, was stopped by police while driving his vehicle. Defendant was then arrested and later bound over for trial on several 3 charges.2 Defendant sought suppression of the evidence seized in the execution of the search warrant, arguing that the affidavit in support of the warrant was constitutionally deficient in that it did not support a finding of probable cause, the information it contained was stale, and it did not clearly reveal whether one or two informants had supplied the information. Defendant additionally contended that the affidavit did not meet the requirements of MCL 780.653(B) because it did not include information concerning the credibility of the unnamed informants or the reliability of the information they supplied. The circuit court granted defendant’s motion to suppress the evidence and dismissed the case on the grounds that the affidavit was both constitutionally deficient and in violation of MCL 780.653. The court declined the prosecutor’s invitation to apply the federal “good-faith exception,” under which the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule is not applicable to evidence seized by officers acting in reasonable reliance 2 Defendant was charged with possession with intent to deliver less than 50 grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iv); maintaining a drug house, MCL 333.7405(1)(d); possession of a firearm by a felon, MCL 750.224f; driving with a suspended license, MCL 257.904(3)(b); and two counts of receiving and concealing a stolen firearm, MCL 750.535b. Additionally, defendant was charged with being a second-time drug offender, MCL 333.7413(2), and a fourth-time felony offender, MCL 769.12. 4 on a warrant that is subsequently adjudged constitutionally deficient.3 On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s order to suppress evidence on the sole basis that the affidavit supporting the search warrant did not meet the requirements of MCL 780.653. Slip op at 3. The panel concluded that People v Sloan, 450 Mich 160; 538 NW2d 380 (1995), in which this Court held that evidence obtained under a search warrant issued in violation of § 653 must be suppressed, was dispositive. Slip op at 2. Accordingly, the panel declined to address the constitutionality of the warrant or the prosecution’s argument that the good-faith exception was applicable. Id. at 3. We granted the prosecution’s application for leave to appeal to this Court, limited to the issue whether the exclusionary rule applies to a violation of § 653. 466 Mich 860 (2002).
In a prior case, defendant pleaded guilty of manufacturing with intent to deliver between five and forty­ five kilograms of marijuana in violation of MCL 333.7401(2)(D)(ii) and was sentenced to probation. Defendant 3 See Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1; 115 S Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995); United States v Leon, 468 US 897; 104 S Ct 3405; 82 L Ed 2d 677 (1984). 5 allegedly moved out of Michigan without permission and thereafter failed to report to his probation officer in violation of two of the terms of his probation. Consequently, defendant’s probation officer filed a standard form petition requesting that a bench warrant be issued for his arrest. The petition contained the following statements: Petitioner requests that a bench warrant be issued and Michael Brandon Scherf be arrested and held in contempt of court for the following reason(s): Violation of Rule Number 3: The defendant has failed to report as ordered and his whereabouts are unknown. Violation of Rule Number 4: Failure to notify agent of change of address. The petition contained the statement, “I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief,” and was signed by the probation officer. The district court issued the requested bench warrant. Subsequently, police were interviewing defendant in connection with an unrelated larceny complaint when they discovered, via the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN), the outstanding bench warrant for his arrest. Defendant was arrested pursuant to the warrant. During a search incident to the arrest, police seized several grams of marijuana from defendant’s person. Thereafter, defendant was charged with possession of marijuana in violation of MCL 6 333.7403(2)(d). Defendant sought suppression of evidence of the marijuana on the ground that the bench warrant petition was technically deficient in that it was not supported by affidavits as required by MCR 3.606(A), which governs contempt offenses committed outside the immediate presence of the court. The prosecutor conceded that MCR 3.606(A) was violated because no affidavit was submitted in support of the probation officer’s petition. The prosecutor argued, however, that the district court division of the Isabella County Trial Court should apply the federal “good-faith exception” to the exclusionary rule. The district court division denied defendant’s motion, holding that the bench warrant petition was confirmed by oath or affirmation and was therefore properly issued. Additionally, the district court division noted that it found Arizona v Evans, 514 US 1; 115 S Ct 1185; 131 L Ed 2d 34 (1995), which reaffirmed and applied the good-faith exception, to be persuasive authority. Defendant appealed, and the circuit court reversed the district court division’s order, granted defendant’s motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, and dismissed the case. The court held that although the failure to provide an affidavit with the bench warrant petition was merely “technical,” it rendered the warrant invalid. The court rejected the 7 prosecutor’s argument that the good-faith exception was applicable, stating on the record that the exception was not recognized in Michigan. The prosecutor sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals, asserting that the good-faith exception should be applied under the circumstances. The Court granted the prosecutor’s application and affirmed the circuit court division’s order. 251 Mich App 410. The majority4 noted that the bench warrant petition “was not supported by an affidavit as required by MCR 3.606, id. at 411, and that “it is undisputed that defendant’s arrest, and the resultant search of defendant and seizure of evidence, were based on an invalid bench warrant and, therefore, the arrest and consequential search were unlawful,” id. at 415. The majority indicated that it would have applied the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule and reversed the circuit court division’s decision if it were not obligated under MCR 7.215(I)(1) to follow People v Hill, 192 Mich App 54; 480 NW2d 594 (1991), in which another panel of the Court specifically declined to recognize the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule.5 215 Mich App 415-416. 4 Judge Jessica R. Cooper concurred in the result only. 5 The Court subsequently declined to convene a special panel to resolve the potential conflict with Hill, supra. People v Scherf, 251 Mich App 805 (2002). 8 This Court granted the prosecutor’s application for leave to appeal the judgment of the Court of Appeals. 467 Mich 856 (2002).