Police officers' suspicion that man was growing too much marijuana enough to support search warrant:
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant. Also, he waived his right to counsel, and his argument that the trial court erred in allowing him to proceed without counsel had no merit. He was convicted of manufacturing a controlled substance under MCL 333.7401(2)(d)(ii). On appeal, he argued that the trial court erred when it refused to suppress the evidence obtained from the search warrant (145 marijuana plants). However, the court concluded that he failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the deputy "knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly, inserted a false statement into the affidavit in support of the search warrant, or that such a false statement was necessary to find probable cause." The two police witnesses testified at the suppression hearing that defendant "engaged in a prolonged argument over whether a 'clone' constituted an individual marijuana plant." Coupled with his refusal to tell the deputy how many plants he had inside his home, "and the 'overwhelmingly' strong smell of marijuana emanating from" the house, the conversation "properly supported the deputy's conclusion that defendant was growing more marijuana than allowed by law." Further, as he recounted in part at the hearing, "the deputy had reason to conclude that defendant did not properly secure his marijuana" - his son took marijuana from his home without his knowledge, and "defendant told the deputy that he did 'not necessarily' secure his processed marijuana." Affirmed.