PEOPLE OF MI V MARIE ELIZABETH WOLFE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
September 17, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee,
v
No. 213312
Livingston Circuit Court
LC No. 97-9961 FH
RONALD NAPOLEAN WOLFE, SR.,
Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 213313
Livingston Circuit Court
LC No. 97-9962 FH
MARIE ELIZABETH WOLFE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Gribbs, P.J., and Kelly and Hood, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendants were charged with the unlawful manufacture of marijuana, MCL
333.7401(2)(d)(iii); MSA 14.15(7401)(2)(d)(iii). They moved to suppress the evidence of the
marijuana and, following a hearing, the trial court ordered the marijuana suppressed1. Plaintiff appeals
as of right, and we affirm.
While this Court reviews de novo a trial court’s ultimate decision with regard to a motion to
suppress evidence, it may set aside a trial court’s findings of fact only upon a showing of clear error.
People v Parker, 230 Mich App 337, 339; 584 NW2d 336 (1998); MCR 2.613(C). In this case,
we find no clear error in the trial court’s findings, and therefore cannot justify a reversal.
-1
After the evidentiary hearing, which took place over a period of eight days, the trial judge issued
a comprehensive and cogent, thirty-nine page written opinion. We adopt and incorporate this opinion
as our own. In the opinion, the trial court found, inter alia, that the bulk of the testimony concerning the
information in the affidavit for the search warrant was totally unbelievable, and in some cases, blatantly
false2. The trial court’s findings in this regard are supported by the record.
The trial court redacted the affidavit in support of the search warrant to eliminate the false
statements and statements made with disregard for the truth. See People v Melotik, 221 Mich App
190, 200-201; 561 NW2d 453 (1997). It then considered the affidavit and found that no factual
allegations remained which would allow a conclusion that any admissible or relevant records or evidence
of crimes could be found in defendants’ residence. Our review of the record and affidavit leads to the
same conclusion that there was no fair probability that contraband or evidence of any particular crime
would be found in defendant’s residence. Therefore, suppression was warranted.
In making our ruling, we acknowledge that there were sufficient facts to establish probable
cause to search a new pole barn and a gray airplane hanger which were on defendants’ property.
However, there was no probable cause to search the residence. For this reason, the prosecutor cannot
meritoriously argue that the marijuana could be properly seized because the police were lawfully in a
position from which they could view it. See People v Champion, 452 Mich 92, 101; 549 NW2d 849
(1996).
Defendant Ronald N. Wolfe raises four arguments in his cross-appeal. In light of our resolution
of plaintiff’s appeal, we need not address any of defendant’s three arguments with regard to the legality
of the search of his residence. Defendant’s remaining argument, concerning evidence seized in a
January 16, 1997 search, is not properly before us because the subject of the pending appeal is the trial
court’s order suppressing evidence seized in the December 23, 1996 search.
Affirmed.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Harold Hood
1
Although the trial court only suppressed the marijuana, the prosecution concluded that it could not
proceed on the charge, and the entire case against defendants was dismissed.
2
The marijuana at issue was found in a locked gun vault, which was behind some false shelving in
defendants’ residence. The prosecution witnesses agreed that no odor of marijuana could be detected
when the vault was closed. Neither the affidavit nor the search warrant mention the manufacture or
possession of marijuana.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.