Background
Police obtained a warrant to search an apartment at Grandview Towers after confidential informants linked Matthew Scott Fields to drug activity and to the apartment complex. Officers also verified that Fields’s mother had an address there, observed Fields coming and going from the complex, and saw him return there after two controlled drug purchases. Executing the warrant, officers recovered methamphetamine from Fields’s shorts, amphetamine pills, drug paraphernalia, and packaging materials.
Before trial, Fields sought suppression and a hearing under Franks v. Delaware, arguing that the warrant affidavit improperly omitted an alleged visit to the apartment by a task-force officer and inadequately established an informant’s reliability. A jury later acquitted Fields of possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine and maintaining a drug house but convicted him of the lesser offense of methamphetamine possession and of amphetamine possession. At sentencing, the court assessed 10 points under Offense Variable 14 after finding that Fields supplied methamphetamine to his girlfriend and was a leader in a multiple-offender situation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals upheld the denial of suppression and a Franks hearing. The affidavit established probable cause through information from an informant described as reliable, official records connecting Fields’s mother to the apartment, surveillance linking Fields to the complex, and two controlled buys after which Fields returned there. Even assuming an officer entered the apartment before the affidavit was submitted, adding that information would not undermine probable cause, and Fields did not show a material omission requiring an evidentiary hearing.
The court nevertheless vacated Fields’s sentences because the trial court relied on acquitted conduct to score OV 14. The jury’s verdict rejected the allegation that Fields possessed methamphetamine with intent to deliver, yet the sentencing court expressly found that he delivered or intended to deliver methamphetamine to his girlfriend and used that finding to classify him as a leader. Removing the 10 points reduced Fields’s total OV score from 15 to 5 and changed his guidelines range from 19 to 38 months to 10 to 23 months. The court affirmed the convictions and remanded for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A warrant affidavit established probable cause when informant information was supported by records, surveillance, and controlled drug purchases linking the defendant to the place searched.
- An alleged omission does not justify a Franks hearing when adding the omitted information would leave probable cause intact.
- A sentencing court may not rely, even in part, on conduct underlying an acquitted charge to score an offense variable.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that Michigan courts assess alleged warrant-affidavit omissions by asking whether the affidavit would still establish probable cause if the omitted information were included. A defendant must identify an omission that is material to probable cause, not merely information absent from the affidavit.
The opinion also reinforces the due-process limit on using acquitted conduct at sentencing. When a jury rejects possession with intent to deliver and convicts only of possession, the sentencing court cannot revive the rejected delivery theory to increase the guidelines range.