Court Opinion

ID: 9688342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:44:14.159324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:11.409466
License: Public Domain

Holbrook, Jr., P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I would hold that the search and seizure is illegal because the authorizing warrant lacked the constitutionally required degree of particularity as to the scope of the premises subject to search, thereby mandating suppression of the evidence incriminating defendant.
A valid warrant must describe the premises to be searched with particularity. People v Cyr, 113 Mich App 213, 227; 317 NW2d 857 (1982), lv den 414 Mich 888 (1982). The policy effectuated by the particularity requirement is the prevention of discretionary blanket searches by the police beyond the scope of the premises for which probable cause exists. United States v Bedford, 519 F2d 650 (CA 3, 1975), cert den 424 US 917; 96 S Ct 1120; 47 L Ed 2d 323 (1976); People v Toodle, 155 Mich App 539, 547-548; 400 NW2d 670 (1986).
In the case at bar, the warrant encompassed (1) *181a common area owned by defendant and (2) two apartments serving as the residences of persons other than defendant. Probable cause to conduct a search existed only with respect to the common area. The police proceeded to obtain a warrant and to conduct a search pursuant to that warrant, despite their awareness of the separate apartment units, for which probable cause did not exist. Although People v Franks, 54 Mich App 729; 221 NW2d 441 (1974), is not directly controlling, its underlying principle—that "a search warrant which fails to specify a known sub-unit is constitutionally defective”—is violated under these facts. Id., p 732. When the multi-unit character of a building is known to the police, a search of each and every subunit must be separately and independently justified by a showing of probable cause. Id., p 733. Because the overbreadth of this warrant renders it illegal, the entire search conducted under its aegis shares in that illegality. Otherwise, the deterrent policy of the exclusionary rule would not be fully vindicated. The majority holding will not dissuade the police from engaging in similar future searches because they have nothing to lose by expanding the search beyond its legal justification. See generally Perez v State, 249 Ark 1111; 463 SW2d 394 (1971); Anno: Search warrant: sufficiency of description of apartment or room to be searched in multiple-occupancy structure, 11 ALR3d 1330.
Defendant had a possessory or proprietary interest in the common area of the basement. That area was searched pursuant to an illegal warrant. Therefore, defendant had standing to challenge the search. The fact that the police could have obtained a valid warrant limited in scope by the known facts relied upon to establish probable cause does not diminish this standing.
I would reverse.