People of Michigan v. Roberto David Gonzalez
327861
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 31, 2017Background
- Two defendants (Omar Catarino Gonzalez and Roberto David Gonzalez) were convicted after bench trials for possession with intent to deliver marijuana and maintaining a drug house based on searches of Hydroworld (a medical marijuana dispensary) on Oct. 30, 2013 and Aug. 7, 2014, and a residence at 1809 Aberdeen (Aug. 7, 2014). Sentences: 18 months’ probation each.
- Defendants moved to suppress evidence, arguing affidavits supporting search warrants were stale and contained material misstatements and unreliable informant allegations. The trial court denied suppression motions.
- Defendants sought immunity under the Michigan Medical Marihuana Act (MMMA) §4 (immunity for registered patients/primary caregivers) and to assert §8 affirmative defenses; the trial court denied dismissal and/or jury presentation.
- Omar challenged bindover rulings (preliminary examination bindover) for two matters; Roberto challenged bindover for one matter. Trial court denied motions to quash bindovers.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed: magistrate probable-cause findings were supported under the totality of circumstances; alleged affidavit misstatements and informant reliability claims failed to show deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard; MMMA §4 and §8 burdens were not met by defendants; bindover issues were moot given convictions and no claimed prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / staleness of warrant(s) | Warrants were supported by affidavits showing recent controlled buys/traffic stops; magistrate reasonably found probable cause | Defendants argued traffic stops were undated or delay in execution (8 days) made information stale | Affirmed — under totality, ongoing dispensary activity and controlled buys gave fair probability evidence remained; magistrate entitled to deference |
| Alleged material misstatements in affidavits | Affiants’ statements were truthful and sufficient; no showing of deliberate falsehood | Defendants claimed specific allegations (e.g., a July 29 controlled buy; overlapping seller IDs) were false or unsupported | Affirmed — defendants failed to prove knowing/reckless falsity or necessity of any alleged falsehood for probable cause; no evidentiary showing to trigger Franks hearing |
| Confidential informant reliability | Affidavits recited controlled-buy protocol, affiant observations, and informant reliability history | Defendants contended informant statements were unreliable or unsupported | Affirmed — controlled-buy details and affiant’s observations permitted magistrate to infer personal knowledge and reliability under MCL 780.653(b) |
| MMMA §4 immunity (primary caregiver) | Prosecution conceded registration status for patients; still challenged sufficiency of other elements | Defendants asserted they were registered caregivers and thus immune as to possession/operations | Affirmed denial — defendants failed to prove by preponderance that they possessed only MMMA-allowed quantities and stored plants in compliant locked facility; seized amounts exceeded §4 limits (Omar) or were unsupported (Roberto) |
| MMMA §8 affirmative defense | Prosecution argued defendants failed to make prima facie showing of physician-patient relationships, medical necessity, or amounts needed | Defendants sought dismissal or jury submission under §8 (medical use defense) | Affirmed denial — defendants produced no prima facie evidence of bona fide ongoing physician-patient relationships, full physician assessments, patients’ medical needs/amounts, or actual medical use at time of offenses |
| Motion to quash bindover | Plaintiff relied on sufficient preliminary-exam evidence to bind over | Defendants argued preliminary evidence was deficient | Affirmed — given convictions after trial and no claim of trial prejudice, appellate relief on preliminary-exam evidentiary points unavailable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gingrich, 307 Mich. App. 656 (discussing standard of review for suppression and informant reliability)
- People v. Keller, 479 Mich. 467 (Michigan Supreme Court — deference to magistrate’s probable-cause finding)
- People v. Brown, 297 Mich. App. 670 (probable cause substantial-basis standard)
- People v. Poole, 218 Mich. App. 702 (common-sense review of warrant affidavits)
- People v. Mullen, 282 Mich. App. 14 (fair-probability test for contraband location)
- People v. Sobczak-Obetts, 253 Mich. App. 97 (staleness analysis — fair-probability focus)
- People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584 (weighing time, ongoing scheme, and nature of property in staleness analysis)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (due-process standard for proving deliberate falsity in warrant affidavits)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (burden to show affiant’s knowing/reckless falsehood)
- People v. Hartwick, 498 Mich. 192 (MMMA §4 immunity and §8 affirmative-defense framework)
- People v. Bylsma, 493 Mich. 17 (standard for MMMA interpretation and appellate review)