PEOPLE OF MI V RONALD REASON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 244569
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-005093-01
KENNETH DARDEN,
Defendant-Appellee.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 244587
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-005093-02
RONALD REASON,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Wilder and Meter, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the orders granting defendants’ motions to suppress and
dismissing charges against them. We reverse. These appeals are being decided without oral
argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Defendants were charged with possession with intent to deliver between 225 and 650
grams of cocaine, MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(iii), and possession with intent to deliver marijuana,
MCL 333.7401(2)(a)(ii). Their motion to suppress evidence seized under a search warrant was
granted by the circuit court.
A trial court’s findings of fact regarding a motion to suppress are reviewed for clear error.
People v Sobczak-Obetts, 463 Mich 687, 694; 625 NW2d 764 (2001). Questions of law relevant
to a motion to suppress are reviewed de novo. People v Hamilton, 465 Mich 526, 529; 638
NW2d 92 (2002).
-1-
A search warrant and the underlying affidavit are to be read in a common sense and
realistic manner. People v Russo, 439 Mich 584, 604; 487 NW2d 698 (1992). Affording
deference to the magistrate’s decision requires that the reviewing court ensure that there is a
substantial basis for the magistrate’s conclusion that there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found at a particular place. Id. Probable cause exists when a person
of reasonable caution would be justified in concluding that evidence of criminal conduct is in the
stated place to be searched. Id, 606-607.
The affidavit in support of the warrant stated that the affiant met with a credible and
reliable informant regarding storage and sales of narcotics from the premises. The informant had
provided information to police on over eight occasions, resulting in over eight controlled
substances arrests and over eight convictions. The informant had been inside the house and
observed large amounts of suspected heroin and cocaine, and that the subject stored and sold
narcotics at that location. The affiant conducted surveillance, and observed the seller leaving and
entering the house with a key. He saw at least five persons arrive at the house in a 20 minute
period, enter, stay a short time, and then leave. Affiant believed that these observations were
consistent with ongoing narcotic activity.
The circuit court failed to give the appropriate deference to the magistrate’s decision.
The affidavit was based on information provided by an informant who had provided reliable
information in the past. The officer corroborated the information in observing activity that was
typical of drug trafficking. A reasonably cautious person would be justified in concluding that
evidence of criminal conduct would be found on the premises. People v Stumpf, 196 Mich App
218, 223; 492 NW2d 795 (1992).
Reversed.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
/s/ Patrick M. Meter
-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.
