People of Michigan v. Darius Lamarr Franklin
152840
| Mich. | May 12, 2017Background
- Police Officer Lynn Moore obtained a search warrant for Darius Franklin’s home based on Moore’s surveillance and information from an unregistered confidential informant (CI) alleging high-volume marijuana trafficking.
- Affidavit recounted five brief visits to Franklin’s front door within 30 minutes and an interaction where an unknown individual confirmed sales; magistrate found probable cause and issued the warrant.
- Search recovered ~350 grams of marijuana and a handgun; no packaging materials or scales were found. Franklin was charged with possession with intent to deliver and related firearms offenses.
- Franklin moved for a Franks hearing to challenge the affidavit’s veracity; the trial court granted the hearing sua sponte (expressing concern about the unregistered CI’s credibility) and ultimately suppressed the evidence and dismissed charges, finding reckless disregard for the truth.
- The prosecutor appealed only the trial court’s decision to hold the evidentiary hearing; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding a Franks preliminary showing was required to obtain a hearing. The Michigan Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Franks v. Delaware limits trial courts from granting a veracity hearing absent a defendant’s substantial preliminary showing | State: Franks requires a defendant to make a substantial preliminary showing before any Franks-type evidentiary hearing may be granted | Franklin: Trial courts retain discretion to grant evidentiary hearings even without meeting Franks’s preliminary-showing threshold | Court: Franks sets the constitutional floor (when a hearing is required) but does not bar trial courts from exercising discretion to hold hearings in other circumstances; reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Standard of review for a trial court’s decision to grant a veracity hearing | State: The decision was an abuse of discretion because Franks’s showing was not met | Franklin: Trial court properly exercised discretion based on credibility concerns about the CI | Court: Trial court’s decision to hold the hearing is reviewed for abuse of discretion and here was not an abuse |
| Effect of Franks on post-hearing remedy (voiding warrant/suppressing evidence) | State: If hearing granted improperly, remedy may be unwarranted | Franklin: If affidavit shown false by preponderance and remaining content insufficient, warrant must be voided under Franks | Court: Franks remains binding on standards to void a warrant; courts may still void/suppress only if defendant meets Franks’s substantive burden at the hearing |
| Whether federal law prohibits states from allowing discretionary veracity hearings beyond Franks | State: Discretionary hearings exceed Franks’s limits | Franklin: States may provide greater process so long as federal constitution is not violated | Court: No federal prohibition identified; states may permit additional process; Michigan trial courts have discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishes when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge a warrant affidavit)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (probable-cause standard for warrants: fair probability and deference to magistrate)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (courts should give great deference to magistrate’s probable-cause finding to encourage warrant practice)
- Nathanson v. United States, 290 U.S. 41 (warrant affidavits cannot rest on mere suspicion without supporting facts)
- United States v. Herrera, 782 F.3d 571 (10th Cir.: Franks mandates are a floor; district courts retain discretion to grant hearings)
- People v. Reid, 420 Mich. 326 (Michigan requires preponderance at Franks hearing to show reckless or intentional falsehood to void a warrant)
- People v. Keller, 479 Mich. 467 (affidavit sufficiency and review of magistrate’s probable-cause finding)