Search warrant affidavit false statements; Franks hearing; Franks v Delaware; Informant reliability; MCL 780.653(b); People v Kalchik; Probable cause; People v Mullen; OV 19 interference; MCL 777.49(c); People v Hershey; Possession of child sexually abusive material (CSAM); Child sexually abusive activity (CSAA)

The court held that, after severing false statements from the search-warrant affidavit, the remaining allegations still provided probable cause to search defendant’s apartment, and that the trial court properly scored OV 19 at 10 points for attempting to interfere with the administration of justice. Defendant, the biological mother of the victim whose rights had been terminated, was accused of repeated sexual contact with the teenage victim after he moved into her apartment, and police obtained evidence from a phone and bedding, including explicit photographs, messages, and DNA results. The trial court denied defendant’s motion to suppress after conducting a Franks hearing and later sentenced her following jury convictions of CSC offenses and related child-abuse and CSAM/CSAA counts, including scoring OV 19 at 10 points. On appeal, the court held the magistrate could credit information relayed through the DHHS because the affidavit identified the source as DHHS reporting suspected abuse in the course of its duties, and the affidavit also described corroborating circumstances, including the victim becoming emotional when asked about inappropriate touching, the refusal of a sexual-assault exam, and the victim’s statement that defendant told him to wash up to remove evidence. The court also held that three inaccuracies established at the Franks hearing had to be excised, but that even without them the affidavit still created a “fair probability” evidence of criminal sexual conduct would be found in the apartment, so suppression was unwarranted. The court next held OV 19 was supported by a preponderance of the evidence because defendant did not respond to police knocking while voices and movement were heard inside, and the victim testified defendant told him the police were there and instructed him to get in the bath and shut the bathroom door, which supported a finding she tried to hinder the investigation. Affirmed.