The prosecution appeals by leave granted from a circuit court order granting defendant’s motion to suppress evidence and dismissing the case, thereby reversing a district court order denying defendant’s motion. We would reverse but for
People v Hill,
Defendant pleaded guilty in a separate case to a charge of manufacturing with intent to deliver between five and forty-five kilograms of marijuana, MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii). He was placed on Holmes Youthful Trainee status and sentenced to probation. After defendant allegedly violated his probation, the probation officer filed a petition for a bench warrant. The petition was not supported by an affidavit as required by MCR 3.606. Despite this deficiency, a district court issued a bench warrant for defendant’s arrest. Subsequently, defendant was arrested, and a search of defendant incident to his arrest revealed approximately seven grams of marijuana. After being charged in this case with possession of marijuana, MCL 333.7403(2)(d), defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the petition for the bench warrant was invalid and, therefore, the arrest was illegal. In denying defendant’s motion, the district court relied on the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, citing
Arizona v Evans,
The prosecution’s sole issue on appeal is its allegation that the circuit court erred in suppressing the evidence on the basis of an invalid bench warrant because a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule applies in Michigan, particularly where there is no police misconduct. We review de novo this constitutional issue.
People v Rizzo,
In Evans, the United States Supreme Court considered whether a court clerk’s failure to notify the sheriff’s office that an arrest warrant had been quashed rendered the results of a subsequent search incident to an arrest relying on the invalidated warrant inadmissible under the exclusionary rule. Evans, supra at 5. The Court opined that the exclusionary rule “operates as a judicially created remedy designed to safeguard against future violations of Fourth Amendment rights through the rule’s general deterrent effect.” Id. at 10. Thus, the Evans Court noted that, inasmuch as the exclusionary rule is a “remedial device,” its “application has been restricted to those instances where its remedial objectives are thought most efficaciously served.” Id. at 11.
In considering whether the exclusionary rule should apply when a court employee, rather than a police officer, created the invalidating circumstance, the
Evans
Court turned to its earlier decision in
United States v Leon,
To the extent that proponents of exclusion rely on its behavioral effects on judges and magistrates in these areas, their reliance is misplaced. First, the exclusionary rule is designed to deter police misconduct rather than to punish the errors of judges and magistrates. Second, there exists no evidence suggesting that judges and magistrates are inclined to ignore or subvert the Fourth Amendment or that lawlessness among these actors requires application of the extreme sanction of exclusion. Third, and most important, we discern no basis, and are offered none, for believing that exclusion of evidence seized pursuant to a warrant will have a significant deterrent effect on the issuing judge or magistrate. [Id. at 916.]
Thus, the Leon Court ruled that, unless the officer relying on the search warrant lacked objectively reasonable grounds for believing that the search warrant was properly issued, “the marginal or nonexistent benefits produced by suppressing evidence obtained . . . cannot justify the substantial costs of exclusion.” Id. at 922. Ultimately, the Leon Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings that the seized evidence should be excluded, thereby creating what is now commonly referred to as the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. at 903-906, 926.
Relying on the Leon decision, the Evans Court noted that there was no indication that the arresting *414 officer lacked an objectively reasonable basis for relying on the arrest warrant. Evans, supra at 15-16. Indeed, the Court opined that Leon supported a “categorical exception to the exclusionary rule for clerical errors of court employees.” Id. at 16. Consequently, the Court reversed the Arizona Supreme Court decision vacating the Arizona Court of Appeals decision, which had ruled that the evidence was admissible pursuant to the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Id. at 6, 15-16.
In light of the Leon and Evans decisions, it is clear that the United States Supreme Court has recognized a “good faith” exception to the judicially created exclusionary rule, at least insofar as the exclusionary rule is based on our federal constitution. However, the Evans Court reiterated the general rule that “state courts are absolutely free to interpret state constitutional provisions to accord greater protection to individual rights than do similar provisions of the United States Constitution.” Id. at 8. Thus, before recognizing a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule, we must determine whether the Michigan Constitution provides greater protection against unlawful searches and seizures than the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
In
People v Faucett,
Here, it is undisputed that defendant’s arrest, and the resultant search of defendant and seizure of evidence, were based on an invalid bench warrant and, therefore, the arrest and consequential search were unlawful. However, it is also not disputed that the defect in the validity of the bench warrant was caused by a magistrate erroneously issuing a bench warrant on the basis of a probation officer’s defective petition. There is no evidence suggesting that police officers or officials contributed to the invalid bench warrant, much less that the bench warrant was the product of police misconduct. Accordingly, the remedial purpose of the exclusionary rule, that is, serving as a deterrent to future police misconduct, is not served by excluding the evidence seized in the instant matter. Evans, supra at 10-11. Moreover, there is no evidence suggesting that the officers who relied on the purported validity of the search warrant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for doing so. Consequently, we believe that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in not applying the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule.
However, in Hill, a panel of this Court specifically declined to recognize and apply the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule. Hill, supra at 56. Thus, although we believe that Michigan should, as a matter of law, recognize the “good faith” exception, we are bound by the Hill decision to conclude other *416 wise, MCR 7.215(I)(1), as was the circuit court pursuant to MCR 7.215(C)(2). Were we not bound by the Hill decision, 1 we would reverse the circuit court order suppressing the evidence and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed.
Notes
Judge O’Connell’s opinion in
People v Hellis,