Background
Police obtained a warrant to search an apartment at Grandview Towers after confidential informants linked Matthew Scott Fields to illegal drugs and the apartment complex. Officers also confirmed that Fields’s mother had an address there, observed Fields coming and going from the complex, and saw him return there after each of two controlled drug purchases. During the search, officers recovered methamphetamine from Fields’s shorts, amphetamine pills, drug paraphernalia, and packaging material.
Fields sought suppression and a Franks hearing, arguing that the warrant affidavit improperly omitted an officer’s alleged entry into the apartment earlier that day and inadequately established an informant’s reliability. The trial court denied the motion. A jury later acquitted Fields of possessing methamphetamine with intent to deliver and maintaining a drug house but convicted him of the lesser offense of methamphetamine possession and of amphetamine possession.
At sentencing, the trial court assessed 10 points under Offense Variable 14 after finding that Fields was a leader in a multiple-offender situation. The court relied on its view that Fields supplied methamphetamine to his girlfriend to foster their romantic relationship, despite the jury’s rejection of the possession-with-intent-to-deliver charge. The resulting guidelines range was 19 to 38 months, and Fields received prison terms of 3 to 20 years and 2 to 4 years.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and upheld the denial of suppression and a Franks hearing. The warrant affidavit established probable cause through the informant’s history of accurate information, records connecting Fields’s mother to the apartment, surveillance of Fields at the complex, and two controlled purchases after which Fields returned there. Even assuming an officer entered the apartment before the affidavit was submitted, omitting that visit was not material because probable cause existed independently of it.
The court nevertheless held that the trial court improperly scored OV 14 by relying on acquitted conduct. Because the jury acquitted Fields of possession with intent to deliver, the sentencing court could not base the leadership finding on its own conclusion that he delivered or intended to deliver methamphetamine to his girlfriend. A sentencing court may not rely even partly on acquitted conduct when scoring an offense variable.
Removing the 10 OV 14 points reduced Fields’s total offense-variable score from 15 to 5 and changed his applicable minimum-sentence range from 19 to 38 months to 10 to 23 months. The court therefore vacated both sentences and remanded for resentencing without retaining jurisdiction.
Key Takeaways
- An alleged omission from a warrant affidavit does not justify suppression or a Franks hearing unless it was material to probable cause and made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth.
- Independent police investigation, including records checks, surveillance, and controlled purchases, may corroborate information supplied by a confidential informant.
- A sentencing court may not score OV 14 based on delivery or intent-to-deliver conduct that the jury rejected through an acquittal.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Michigan’s prohibition against using acquitted conduct at sentencing. When a jury convicts a defendant of simple possession but rejects possession with intent to deliver, the sentencing judge cannot revive the rejected delivery theory to increase the guidelines score.
It also illustrates the materiality requirement governing alleged omissions from search-warrant affidavits: an omitted police encounter will not invalidate a warrant when the affidavit’s other, independently corroborated facts already establish probable cause.