Background
Officers investigating Derrick Amir Golden on an unrelated misdemeanor warrant saw him leave a Muskegon residence associated with his girlfriend. During the ensuing traffic stop, an officer found crack cocaine near Golden’s feet, more than $2,000 in small denominations on his person, and lottery tickets that officers said are sometimes used as drug “bindles.” Officers then obtained a warrant to search the residence.
The search uncovered large quantities of fentanyl and cocaine, including drugs in a bedroom and closet containing clothing consistent with Golden’s size and a letter addressed to him at another address. A jury convicted Golden of possessing with intent to deliver between 450 and 1,000 grams each of fentanyl and cocaine. Sentenced as a fourth-offense habitual offender, he received concurrent prison terms of 15 to 50 years.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. It held that Golden failed to establish at the suppression hearing that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the searched residence, particularly after disclaiming that the house and clothing were his. The court also concluded that, even if he had standing, the warrant affidavit established probable cause because it connected Golden to the residence, described his departure immediately before cocaine was found near him, noted the cash and his drug-trafficking history, and included the affiant’s experience concerning where traffickers store evidence.
The court further upheld admission of evidence concerning Golden’s 2000 and 2020 drug-related arrests. It found the evidence relevant to disputed questions of possession, knowledge, intent, and a recurring drug-trafficking plan, and concluded that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly given the limiting instruction. The court rejected Golden’s remaining claims concerning prosecutorial error, ineffective assistance, expert and drug-profile testimony, and cumulative error.
The court nevertheless vacated Golden’s sentences. At sentencing, the trial judge declined to follow a below-guidelines recommendation by stating, “I don’t sentence below the guidelines.” Because that statement reflected an impermissible sentencing policy rather than an individualized exercise of discretion, the court remanded for resentencing.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant challenging a residential search must establish a personal, reasonable expectation of privacy based on the evidence presented at the suppression hearing.
- A warrant affidavit may establish a sufficient nexus to a home through the defendant’s connection to the residence, recent departure from it, possession of drugs and trafficking-related cash, criminal history, and an officer’s relevant experience.
- Prior drug-related acts may be admitted for nonpropensity purposes when possession, knowledge, and intent are genuinely disputed and the similarities support a recurring plan or system.
- A sentencing court may not refuse categorically to impose below-guidelines sentences; it must exercise individualized sentencing discretion.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the tension defendants face when contesting both their connection to searched property and their standing to challenge the search. Disclaiming ownership or residency may support a defense on the merits but can undermine the showing of a protected privacy interest required for suppression.
The resentencing ruling also reinforces that advisory sentencing guidelines do not permit blanket judicial policies. Even when the ultimate sentence falls within the guidelines, the court must consider the individual defendant and circumstances rather than apply a predetermined refusal to depart downward.