Court Opinion

ID: 9700798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:49:35.591524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:14.649670
License: Public Domain

McDonald, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). Although I concur with part i of Judge Corrigan’s opinion, I respectfully dissent from the balance of the opinion.
The people concede the affidavit relied on in issuing the search warrant failed to satisfy the requirements of MCL 780.653; MSA 28.1259(3). Although the affidavit contained thorough, specific, and particularized facts, it failed to name the source of the information. Even though it appears obvious the information was obtained from the victim and that the magistrate was so informed, the statutory language is mandatory and unambiguous. It states the finding of probable cause "shall be based upon all the facts related within the affidavit” (emphasis added) and, if the affidavit is based upon information supplied by an unnamed person, it must contain
affirmative allegations from which the magistrate may conclude that the person spoke with personal knowledge of the information and either that the unnamed person is credible or that the information is reliable. [MCL 780.653(b); MSA 28.1259(3) (b)J
Violation of the statute results in suppression of the evidence obtained pursuant to the warrant. *531People v Sherbine, 421 Mich 502; 364 NW2d 658 (1984). Although suppression of the evidence seems to be a harsh remedy in this case, I do not believe we are at liberty to ignore the directives set forth in the opinions of our Supreme Court. I would hold the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion to suppress.