People of Michigan v. Tiara Antoinette Wilburn
359224
Mich. Ct. App.Apr 28, 2022Background:
- A confidential informant (CI) told Detective Gauthier that drugs were being sold from a Benton Township home on Berg Avenue and agreed to visit the residence; no controlled buy occurred.
- Analyst Fry linked the address to Tiara Wilburn and Vanzel Joseph and provided photos; Gauthier sent photos to the CI who confirmed the people and house.
- Detective Jessica Frucci drafted and swore to a search-warrant affidavit that falsely stated she had communicated with the CI and that she had specialized drug-enforcement and undercover training; Frucci had been with SWET about two months and lacked that specialized training.
- A judge issued the warrant; SWET executed it that night, seizing a scale with cocaine residue; Wilburn admitted selling crack and was charged with possession and maintaining a drug house.
- At a Franks hearing the trial court found no intentional falsehoods and applied the good-faith exception, denying suppression; on interlocutory review the Court of Appeals found Frucci recklessly included material falsehoods, held the affidavit insufficient for probable cause, reversed suppression of physical evidence, and remanded.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the affidavit contained intentional or reckless misrepresentations requiring Franks relief | Errors were innocent, negligent drafting by an inexperienced officer; evidence should not be excluded | Affidavit falsely claimed Frucci contacted the CI and had specialized training; those falsehoods misled the magistrate | Court: Frucci recklessly included false statements (subjective standard of serious doubt); Franks relief warranted |
| Whether the remaining, corrected affidavit established probable cause | Remaining facts (CI report via Gauthier) were sufficient for probable cause | Because Frucci misidentified the information source and misrepresented her experience, the magistrate could not assess reliability; remaining content insufficient | Court: After excising the false material, affidavit fails to establish probable cause |
| Whether the good-faith exception preserves the seized evidence | Reliance on the warrant was reasonable; any falsehoods were not intentional | Good-faith exception should not apply where magistrate was misled by false statements known or recklessly included by affiant | Court: Good-faith exception does not apply when affidavit contains material falsehoods recklessly included |
| Whether defendant's postarrest statements must be suppressed | Not fully litigated at trial; prosecution did not press this on appeal | Wilburn argued statements were tainted by the invalid search/warrant | Court: Declined to rule on suppression of statements and remanded for further consideration if needed |
Key Cases Cited
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (establishing standard for attacking warrant affidavits containing false statements)
- United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (magistrate must be supplied with underlying circumstances to perform detached review)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (exclusionary rule is a remedy of last resort)
- People v. Czuprynski, 325 Mich. App. 449 (limits on good-faith exception when magistrate is misled by affiant)
- People v. Goldston, 470 Mich. 523 (evidence should be suppressed if affiant knowingly or recklessly misled the magistrate)
- United States v. Williams, 718 F.3d 644 ( Seventh Circuit formulation of subjective reckless-disregard standard adopted)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich. App. 634 (affidavit must supply facts, not just conclusions, and must show CI reliability)