People v. Brown
297 Mich. App. 670
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Anthony Brown was convicted after a bench trial of manufacturing marijuana (less than 5 kg or fewer than 20 plants).
- Police received a tip from a former roommate about marijuana cultivation at Brown's Holland Township home.
- Trash from Brown’s property contained fresh marijuana and mail addressed to Brown, aiding the search-warrant affidavit.
- Detective Bytwerk did not verify Brown’s MMMA status in the affidavit, citing difficulties accessing MMMA data by name alone.
- A search warrant was issued and executed; eight marijuana plants and two grams of marijuana were found.
- Brown moved to suppress; the trial court concluded the affidavit lacked sufficient facts to show probable cause absent MMMA considerations but denied suppression due to good-faith reliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether probable cause existed for the search warrant under MMMA-era standards | Brown argues MMMA makes possession non-criminal, negating probable cause. | Brown contends affidavit lacked facts showing noncompliance with MMMA. | Probable cause exists without showing noncompliance with MMMA. |
| Whether the good-faith exception moots the suppression issue | Brown asserts suppression should apply given incorrect probable-cause framing. | State argues good faith preserved the search. | Moot; good-faith issue resolved on other grounds; affirm on alternative grounds. |
| Does MMMA immunization affect interpretation of probable cause for marijuana searches | Brown contends MMMA immunities remove per se illegality to support probable cause. | State argues MMMA does not negate illegality for purposes of probable cause. | MMMA immunities do not eliminate criminal prohibition for probable cause; per se illegality not required. |
| Must affidavits show marijuana activities are not legal under MMMA to support probable cause | Brown claims affidavits must negate MMMA legality. | State argues no such requirement exists. | Affidavits need not prove activities are not legal under MMMA; not required. |
| Whether the prosecution was required to cross-appeal to sustain affirmance | Brown challenges alternative bases for affirmance. | State was not obligated to cross-appeal. | No cross-appeal required; affirm on alternative grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kazmierczak, 461 Mich 411 (2000) (probable cause framework for search warrants)
- People v. Waclawski, 286 Mich App 634 (2009) (probable cause based on oath/affidavit to magistrate)
- People v. King, 291 Mich App 503 (2011) (MMMA does not abrogate criminal prohibitions on marijuana)
- People v. Kolanek, 491 Mich 382 (2012) (MMMA interplay with criminal prohibitions clarified on appeal)
- People v. Lemons, 454 Mich 234 (1997) (affirmative defenses and their effect on probable cause)
- Contesti v. Attorney General, 164 Mich App 271 (1987) (mootness and good-faith considerations in exclusionary rule context)
- People v. Bylsma, 294 Mich App 219 (2011) (MMMA compliance considerations referenced in suppression context)