Search & seizure; Motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant; Validity of a search warrant affidavit; Franks v Delaware; People v Mullen; Relevance of the experience & training of the officer who provided the affidavit; People v Ulman; Whether the remaining information in the affidavit formed probable cause to issue the warrant

The court concluded that the trial court committed an error of law in seemingly finding the experience and training of the officer (C) who provided the affidavit for the search warrant was irrelevant. Further, it “failed to consider whether sufficient evidence existed for a finding of probable cause if the ‘deliberately misleading’ portions of the” affidavit were not considered. Thus, the court vacated the order suppressing the evidence seized pursuant to the search warrant and dismissing the charges, and remanded “for the trial court to further address this matter under the proper test as enunciated in Franks and Mullen.” The court ruled in Ulman as to search warrant affidavits that “the affiant’s experience is relevant to the establishment of probable cause.” It appeared that the trial court found “the affidavit contained deliberately false and misleading information” primarily because it failed to portray the manner in which C’s “investigation proceeded chronologically from the time he first received the tip from” a confidential informant (CI) in 11/18 until the last controlled transaction in 3/19. But, although it determined “there was deliberately false and misleading information in the affidavit as a result of [C’s] omission of dates, that finding alone does not constitute a sufficient ground to void the warrant.” Rather, before a trial court can permissibly rule that a warrant is void, it must “consider whether the ‘remaining information in the search warrant affidavit, after the improperly omitted information is added and the improper information is disregarded, is sufficient to form probable cause to issue [the] search warrant[.]’” The trial court did not do so here. C testified at the evidentiary hearing that he first gathered the information contained in ¶ 5 of the affidavit in 11/18 but also confirmed it was still accurate in 3/19 before conducting the 3/18/19 “controlled transaction. The trial court failed to consider whether the affidavit would have provided probable cause to support the search warrant with the addition of this clarifying information . . . .” The court noted that in ¶ 7, the affidavit included a description “of a controlled drug transaction conducted at the location to be searched, within 48 hours of the issuance of the warrant, and indicating that the [CI] identified defendant as the seller of the drugs purchased. The trial court also failed to consider this untainted portion of the affidavit in” determining probable cause.