PEOPLE OF MI V DARRETT L KING
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,
UNPUBLISHED
June 17, 2004
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 245766
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 02-009934
DARRETT L. KING,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Zahra and Murray, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order of dismissal entered by the circuit court after it
granted defendant’s motion to quash the search warrant and to suppress the evidence. We
reverse.
Defendant was charged with multiple offenses after a search conducted pursuant to a
warrant produced multiple weapons and quantities of controlled substances at his house. The
circuit court granted defendant’s motion to quash and to suppress the evidence, finding that the
search warrant affidavit contained information that was generic and stale.
This Court reviews a trial court’s findings of fact regarding a motion to suppress 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. Id.
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 unidentified informant in this case advised affiant in January that he had seen a bag
of heroin at the premises. The informant accurately identified the vehicles used by defendant,
and stated that he had also seen quantities of narcotics on the premises in the summer of 2000.
Defendant stored his proceeds nearby, and the informant had observed him move large quantities
of cash between the houses.
-1-
There was no showing that the informant had provided reliable information in the past,
however evidence supported the informant’s credibility. The affiant confirmed that the
informant correctly identified the vehicles driven by defendant, and that defendant owned
multiple parcels of real estate in other people’s names. Affiant observed an unidentified man
moving cautiously between the houses, carrying a package, consistent with the transactions
described by the informant. The informant stated that defendant rarely sold narcotics from the
address in order to avoid detection, thus a controlled buy could not be arranged. The informant
used terminology showing his knowledge of drug trafficking.
There was a substantial basis for the magistrate to conclude that there was probable cause
to conduct a search. If the informant was credible, his testimony established that it was likely
that drugs would be found at the stated address. The circuit court did not afford proper deference
to the magistrate’s decision, and erred in granting defendant’s motion.
Reversed.
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Brian K. Zahra
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
-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.
