People of Michigan v. Rahim Salam, 334875

On April 23–25, 2016, Detroit police officer Nico Hurd received an anonymous tip that occupants of 18256 Winthrop were selling narcotics; Hurd surveilled the house on April 24–25.
During surveillance Hurd observed three different visitors approach the side door on separate occasions; each contact was brief and involved hand-to-hand exchanges, which Hurd testified were consistent with drug transactions.
On April 26, Hurd obtained and executed a search warrant for the residence; officers found cocaine, marijuana, cash, weapons, and drug packaging paraphernalia. Defendant was the sole person in the home and mail bearing the address and his name was located.
Defendant moved to suppress the seized evidence, arguing the affidavit lacked probable cause, relied on an unnamed informant, contained stale information, and the issuing magistrate’s signature was illegible; he also sought an evidentiary hearing.
A jury convicted defendant of possession of <25 grams of cocaine and delivery of marijuana; the trial court denied suppression without a Franks hearing and credited defendant with 38 days’ jail credit.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions but remanded to correct jail credit to 44 days (prosecutor conceded error).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for search warrant	Affidavit recited facts from Hurd’s surveillance supporting probable cause	Affidavit insufficient; conclusions, not facts, and lacked substantial basis	Warrant supported by probable cause; magistrate had substantial basis to issue warrant
Reliance on anonymous tip	Independent surveillance corroborated the tip, establishing reliability	Anonymous tip alone unreliable; affidavit did not show source credibility	Corroboration by police investigation made the tip reliable for probable cause
Staleness of information	Surveillance occurred two days and warrant was sought the next day — information timely	Information stale; passage of time undermined probable cause	Information was fresh: consecutive-day surveillance and prompt warrant application supported continuity
Requirement for a Franks hearing / evidentiary hearing	No false statements or material omissions shown; affidavit presumed valid	Requested hearing to challenge warrant sufficiency and alleged defects	No Franks hearing required: defendant failed to make a substantial preliminary showing of intentional or reckless falsehood or material omission
Jail-credit calculation	N/A (prosecutor conceded error)	Claimed 44 days credit; court credited 38 days	Remand for ministerial correction of judgment to reflect 44 days credit

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (establishes when a defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to challenge affidavit falsehoods or omissions)
People v. Keller, 479 Mich. 467 (2007) (courts must give great deference to magistrate’s probable-cause determination; magistrate must have substantial basis)
People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (2009) (probable cause requires facts within affiant’s knowledge, not mere conclusions)
People v. Ulman, 244 Mich. App. 500 (2001) (independent police investigation corroborating informant’s tip can support a warrant)
People v. Martin, 271 Mich. App. 280 (2006) (Franks rule applies to material omissions as well as affirmative false statements)
People v. Ericksen, 288 Mich. App. 192 (2010) (remand for ministerial correction of sentencing/jail-credit errors)