People v. Moten

In People v. Moten, 233 Mich. 169, 170; 206 N.W. 506 (1925), the defendant was convicted of unlawfully having in his possession intoxicating liquor, specifically "moonshine whisky." The evidence against the defendant was obtained by an executed search warrant. The search warrant indicated the place to be searched, but merely specified that the home was owned by "John Doe," real name unknown, and provided that the home was used as a place for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquors. The premises were owned by the defendant. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the specific grounds alleged in the search warrant itself. The affidavit in support of the search warrant provided that the affiant believed and had good cause to believe that illegal liquor was stored on the premises. Id. The affiant allegedly searched an individual and then gave the individual $ 1 to purchase whisky. The individual went into the defendant's home with the $ 1 and returned with moonshine whisky. However, the search warrant did not recite the material facts alleged in the affidavit. At the time of the search warrant, the pertinent statute provided that "the warrant for search shall. . . recite all of the material facts alleged in the affidavit." The statute also set forth the form of the warrant. Specifically, the warrant had to reference an affidavit and repeat the allegations of the affidavit within the search warrant. Moten, 233 Mich. at 171-172. Our Supreme Court held that suppression of the evidence was required for failure to comply with the technical requirements of the form of the warrant. Specifically, the Court held: In our statute the mandate is positive that the warrant shall recite all material facts alleged in the affidavit, and a statutory form of search warrant is provided indicating just where to insert the recital which the law makes an essential part of a valid warrant. Unfortunately, this essential requirement was ignored. The warrant is invalid, and the evidence procured thereunder inadmissible. Moten, 233 Mich. at 174. The Court also held that a record of the probable cause determination must be established so that the defendant can be informed of the basis for the charge. Moten, 233 Mich. at 171-173.