|
No. 136648
| The People of the State of Michigan, |
|
Timothy A. Baughman |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Boykin, U.) |
|
|
| Edwin Dewayne Richmond, |
|
Matthew R. Abel |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Alan L. Kaufman |
| ______________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Attorney General Michael A. Cox's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
After receiving an anonymous tip that Edwin Richmond was growing marijuana, Livonia police officers searched trash at the curb outside Richmond’s home and found a marijuana stem and mail addressed to him. The police obtained a warrant to search Richmond’s home, where they discovered guns and marijuana plants. Richmond was charged with manufacturing 20 to 200 marijuana plants, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, and felony-firearm. Richmond filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the anonymous tip and the evidence recovered in the trash were insufficient to support the issuance of a search warrant, citing the Court of Appeals decision in People v Keller, 270 Mich App 446 (2006). The trial court granted Richmond’s motion, finding that there was no evidence that the anonymous caller spoke with personal knowledge. When the caller’s statements to the police were set aside, the only other evidence supporting the search of Richmond’s house was the single marijuana stem, which was inadequate to support a search warrant, the judge concluded. The prosecutor announced that this decision left no evidence that would allow the prosecution to continue; the case against Richmond was dismissed. The prosecutor then appealed to the Court of Appeals. By the time the prosecutor’s brief was filed, the Michigan Supreme Court had reversed the Keller decision. In an unpublished per curiam opinion, which noted that Keller had been reversed, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s ruling and reinstated the charges against Richmond. Richmond appealed to the Supreme Court. He challenged the Court of Appeals analysis, and also challenged the prosecutor’s ability to appeal the search warrant ruling, arguing that the appeal was moot because the prosecutor had dismissed the case. Ultimately, after initially denying leave to appeal, the Supreme Court granted leave, “limited to the issue of whether the prosecutor’s dismissal of the charges rendered moot the prosecutor’s subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeals.”
Top of Page
|
