Opinion ID: 842342
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: partial suppression

Text: To justify the search under this warrant, the majority adopts a doctrine known as partial suppression or severance. According to this doctrine, invalid portions of a warrant may be severed from valid portions of a warrant; the evidence obtained pursuant to the invalid portion is suppressed, while the evidence obtained through the valid portion is admissible. United States v. Sells, 463 F.3d 1148, 1150 (C.A.10, 2006). Whether Michigan should adopt this rule is a discrete question from whether it should be applied in this case. Unfortunately, in its eagerness to adopt this rule, the majority neglects crucial safeguards that federal circuit courts consider before applying the doctrine. [4] As one circuit court explained: That severance may be appropriate in theory does not mean it is appropriate in a particular case. The doctrine is not available where no part of the warrant is sufficiently particularized, where no portion of the warrant may be meaningfully severed, or where the sufficiently particularized portions make up only an insignificant or tangential part of the warrant. [ United States v. George, 975 F.2d 72, 79-80 (C.A.2, 1992) (citations omitted).] More pertinent to the case at hand, severance may be improper if probable cause existed as to only a few of several items listed. . . . 2 LaFave, supra, § 3.7(d), p. 436 n. 214. The majority errs in adopting and applying the severance doctrine without adequately considering the circumstances of this particular case. I would not apply the severance doctrine to the warrant involved here. A number of jurisdictions limit the use of the doctrine to cases in which a significant portion of the warrant is valid. For example, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applies the doctrine only if `the valid portions of the warrant [are] sufficiently particularized, distinguishable from the invalid portions, and make up the greater part of the warrant.' Sells, supra at 1151, quoting United States v. Naugle, 997 F.2d 819, 822 (C.A.10, 1993). This warrant was disproportionally invalid. This is not a case in which the allegedly valid evidence formed the greater part of the warrant. In fact, evidence of marijuana possession was just one portion of a warrant that also sought other controlled substances, currency, distribution paraphernalia (various forms of which were enumerated at length), papers establishing ownership, and records of drug transactions. It is evident from considering the warrant as a whole that the purpose of this search was to uncover evidence of a drug distribution scheme. [5] That defendants may have also engaged in personal possession and consumption of marijuana was incidental to the greater part of the warrant. The majority conflates Sells' s directive that a court should evaluate the relative scope and invasiveness of the valid and invalid parts of the warrant with the plain view doctrine. Sells, supra at 1160. This approach would foster abuse of the warrant process, as the police would be encouraged to include small, numerous items in a warrant simply to ensure that an otherwise invalid warrant can be salvaged under the severance doctrine. Further, a warrant's scope and invasiveness is not defined merely in terms of the locations that may be searched. Rather, those terms also encompass the types of evidence sought. And clearly the types of evidence justified in a search for marijuana possession make up a lesser portion of the entire types of evidence sought under this warrant. Further, the purportedly valid portion of the warrant is not sufficiently distinguishable from the invalid portions to support severance. In the affidavit, the trash pull and the anonymous tip were used to support a search for the same evidence  evidence of marijuana manufacturing and sale. The warrant did not distinguish between marijuana that was merely in defendants' possession and marijuana that was part of the suspected marijuana distribution operation. Consequently, the purportedly valid portion of the warrant cannot realistically be distinguished from the invalid portions. Thus, this warrant is not suitable for severance. Additionally, as will be addressed further in part III, there is evidence that the affiant acted in bad faith. Most jurisdictions consider the presence of bad faith on the part of the police to preclude the application of the severance doctrine, and I would do the same.