United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
K. Majzoub United States Magistrate Judge.
OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
A HEARING PURSUANT TO FRANKS V. DELAWARE 
GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court in this criminal action is Defendant Lamont
James McGhee's motion for a hearing to challenge the
truthfulness of a warrant affidavit, brought pursuant to
Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978). Defendant
asserts that there was a lack of probable cause for his
arrest because the search warrant rested upon false
statements made with reckless disregard for the truth. For
the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Defendant's
Motion for a Franks Hearing.
April 23, 2015, Anderson Robinson was arrested in the City of
Detroit. Dkt. No. 19-1, p. 3 (Pg. ID 69). The police seized
from him over 1.5 kilograms of cocaine and over $145, 000 in
cash. Id. An interview with Robinson revealed that
his cocaine supplier was known to him as “L.”
Id. According to Robinson, L supplied him with
approximately 1-2 kilograms of cocaine every month.
Id. Robinson provided the police with L's phone
number, and he was released from custody in exchange for
future cooperation in the investigation of L. Id.
the use of toll records, Officer Brian Elko of the Drug
Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) identified L as the
Defendant, Lamont James McGhee. Id. It was also
determined that Defendant resided at 16124 Veronica in the
City of Eastpointe. Id. Robinson was shown a
photograph of Defendant, and he positively identified
Defendant as L. Id.
Elko obtained four 30-day search warrants for phone pings on
Defendant's phone through the 41-B District Court in
Clinton Township. Id. He also obtained three 56-day
tracking warrants for Defendant's vehicles from the same
court. Id. From approximately May 18, 2015 to May 6,
2016, these surveillance devices revealed that Defendant made
frequent stops at various residences in Wayne and Macomb
County for short periods of time. Id. On numerous
occasions, it was also observed that Defendant met with
“DEA 1, ” who was the target of a large-scale
investigation by the DEA for trafficking cocaine in the Metro
Detroit area. Id.
police then obtained information from a “credible and
reliable” criminal informant, “C.I. #221, ”
that Robinson was still purchasing cocaine from Defendant.
Id., p. 4 (Pg. ID 70). C.I. #221 had previously
aided the police in the seizure of multiple kilograms of
cocaine, large amounts of pharmaceutical drugs, along with
heroin and marijuana. Id. Robinson was arrested on
January 26, 2016, and additional cocaine and currency was
January 3, 2017, the police gathered two trash bags from the
bin located in front of Defendant's home. Id. In
the bags were “wrappers” consistent with the kind
of packaging used for two kilograms of cocaine. Id.
Along with the wrappers were cellophane, empty boxes of
baking soda, dryer sheets, and sandwich baggies. Id.
The police swabbed the wrappers using a Sirchie Narc Cocaine
ID swipe, which indicated a positive test for cocaine.
James Onyski sought a search warrant for Defendant's home
based on the following: “the statements of Robinson,
the information gathered from the phone search warrants,
tracking search warrants, surveillance and the positive tests
for cocaine on multiple kilogram size ‘wrappers.'
” Id. On January 3, 2017, a warrant issued by
Magistrate Karen Haydett of the 38th District Court of
Eastpointe was executed to search Defendant's residence.
Dkt. No. 1, p. 2 (Pg. ID 3). Defendant was found in
possession of 290 grams of cocaine, 65.5 grams of crack
cocaine, and a 9mm Glock pistol, which was holstered on his
person. Id., pp. 3-4 (Pg. ID 3-4).
was charged under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(B)
(“Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribute a
Controlled Substance”) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)
(“Possession of a Firearm(s) in Furtherance of and
During and in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime”).
Dkt. No. 11, pp. 1-2 (Pg. ID 19-20). Defendant filed the
present motion for a Franks hearing on June 2, 2017.
Dkt. No. 17. He challenges the truthfulness of the January
2017 warrant affidavit written by Detective Onyski, asserting
that elements of the affidavit were false or fabricated.
LEGAL STANDARD FOR FRANKS HEARING
defendant is entitled to a hearing to challenge the validity
of a search warrant if he makes a substantial
preliminary showing that: (1) a false statement knowingly and
intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was
included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit,
and (2) the allegedly false statement is necessary
to the finding of probably cause. Franks, 438 U.S.
at 154-55 (emphasis added). To mandate an evidentiary
hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than
conclusory, pointing out specifically, with supporting
reasons, the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed
to be false. Id. It also must be accompanied by an