Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01537/USCOURTS-ca7-14-01537-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tyrone McMillian
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit ____________________

No. 14-1537

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TYRONE MCMILLIAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin.

No. 11-CR-281 — Rudolph T. Randa, Judge.

____________________

ARGUED JANUARY 20, 2015— DECIDED MAY 22, 2015

____________________

Before RIPPLE and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and KENNELLY,

District Judge.1

KENNELLY, District Judge. Tyrone McMillian was found 

guilty after a bench trial on one count of possession of firearms and ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

1 Of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, sitting by designation.

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
2 No. 14-1537

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). McMillian now appeals the denial 

of his motion to suppress. We affirm.

I. Background

On July 6, 2011, Milwaukee Police Officer Brian Shull reviewed a ”suspect card,” an internal document issued by the 

Milwaukee Police Department, which detailed probable 

cause to arrest Tyrone McMillian for his alleged involvement 

in a 2007 double homicide. After conducting a brief investigation, Officer Shull went to McMillian’s home in Brown 

Deer, Wisconsin to arrest him. Because the arrest was considered a ”high felony arrest” or a ”dangerous arrest,” officers from the Milwaukee Police Department’s tactical enforcement unit were called to assist. Officers from the 

Brown Deer Police Department were also called. In total, six 

or seven additional officers arrived at McMillian’s house at 

approximately 1:00 pm. They did not have an arrest warrant 

or a search warrant.

The officers surrounded the house. Shull knocked and 

announced that he was a police officer. Ashley Knueppel, 

McMillian’s cohabiting girlfriend, came to the door and confirmed that McMillian was inside. She stepped outside, and 

Officer Shull called for McMillian. When he came to the 

door, Officer Shull arrested him. Tactical officers then conducted a protective sweep of the house. During the sweep, 

officers observed a rifle case in one of the bedrooms. 

As the sweep was taking place, Officer Shull noticed that 

McMillian was barefoot and asked if he wanted shoes. 

McMillian responded that he wanted his black Air Jordan 

Nike flip flops. Officer Shull asked if he wanted the black 

flip flops that were near the doorway. McMillian responded 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 3

that those were his girlfriend’s shoes and that his were in the 

back bedroom.

Officer Shull took this exchange as a request by McMillian to get his flip flops from the back bedroom. After the protective sweep was completed, Officer Shull asked Knueppel 

if she knew where the flip flops were located. Knueppel responded that she did and, according to Shull, one of them 

said something like, ”Let’s go get them.” The two entered 

the back bedroom. As Officer Shull bent to pick up the shoes 

next to the bed, he saw two gun cases between the bed and 

the nightstand.

After the arrest, an officer on the scene contacted Milwaukee Police Detective Rodolfo Gomez. Detective Gomez 

drafted an affidavit for a warrant to search McMillian’s residence. The affidavit said that an AK-47 assault rifle had 

been observed during the protective sweep (the government 

admitted this was wrong and that it should have stated that 

the officers observed a rifle case). The affidavit also referenced the gun cases Officer Shull had observed when he retrieved the flip flops. The affidavit also described an informant’s statement that McMillian had confessed his involvement in two 2007 homicides. A state court judge issued 

the search warrant.

When Detective Gomez arrived at McMillian’s residence 

with the search warrant, he noticed a typographical error in 

the warrant and affidavit. Although McMillian lived at 6333 

West Darnell Avenue, Detective Gomez had typed 6633 West 

Darnell Avenue. He called the judge, who instructed him to 

correct the mistake by hand. Detective Gomez did so and 

noted that the judge had approved the correction. Detective 

Gomez was not placed under oath when he revised the adCase: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
4 No. 14-1537

dress. Officers searched McMillian’s house and recovered 

firearms and ammunition. 

The July 6, 2011 search and arrest led to two indictments. 

McMillian was first indicted on September 7, 2011 on sex 

trafficking charges. See United States v. McMillian, No. 11-

CR-193 (E.D. Wis.) (Clevert, J.).2 The sex trafficking charges 

are not part of this appeal. McMillian was indicted on the 

charge that is the subject of this appeal on December 6, 2011.

A grand jury charged him with one count of possession of

firearms and ammunition as a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). See United States v. McMillian, No. 

11-CR-281 (E.D. Wis.) (Randa, J.).

McMillian filed pretrial motions as part of the sex trafficking case before Judge Charles Clevert, Jr., including a 

motion to suppress the fruits of the July 6, 2011 protective 

sweep and a motion to quash the search warrant that was 

executed that day. At the request of the parties, Judge Rudolph Randa continued proceedings in the firearm possession case pending a decision on McMillian’s pretrial motions

in the sex trafficking case. Judge Randa agreed that Judge 

Clevert’s rulings would be dispositive in the firearms case.

Judge Clevert referred the sex trafficking case to Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph. The government conceded that 

the protective sweep of McMillian’s house was unlawful and 

2 A grand jury handed down a superseding indictment on October 

18, 2011. McMillian was convicted by a jury of four counts of sex trafficking. According to the government, none of the materials seized from 

McMillian’s house were used in the prosecution of the sex trafficking 

case. This court recently affirmed McMillian’s sex trafficking conviction 

but vacated the sentence imposed by the district court. United States v. 

McMillian, 777 F.3d 444, 452 (7th Cir. 2015).

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 5

agreed to strike the description of the rifle from the search 

warrant affidavit. Magistrate Judge Nancy Joseph held an 

evidentiary hearing to consider McMillian’s other suppression arguments. In his post-hearing briefing, McMillian 

made a number of additional arguments. First, McMillian 

argued that neither he nor Knueppel voluntarily consented 

to Officer Shull’s entry and that the observations of the gun 

cases should therefore be excised from the warrant affidavit. 

Additionally, McMillian argued that the reference to the uncorroborated statement of an informant accusing McMillian 

of being involved in a 2007 double homicide did not supply 

probable cause. Finally, he argued that the warrant was deficient because Detective Gomez was not under oath when 

he corrected the error in the address. 

In her report and recommendation following the hearing, 

Magistrate Judge Joseph agreed that the protective sweep 

was unlawful. She nonetheless concluded that Officer 

Shull’s entry into the back bedroom was lawful because

McMillian voluntarily consented. Magistrate Judge Joseph 

did not address Knueppel’s consent. Turning to the validity 

of the search warrant, Magistrate Judge Joseph found that 

there was no probable cause to search for evidence of the 

2007 homicides but that there was probable cause to search 

for firearms. Magistrate Judge Joseph determined that although Detective Gomez was not under oath when he corrected the address, he nonetheless acted in good faith.

Judge Clevert held an additional evidentiary hearing. He

agreed with Magistrate Judge Joseph that there was no

probable cause to search for evidence of the homicides, that

evidence obtained from the unlawful protective sweep was 

inadmissible, and that Detective Gomez had acted in good 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
6 No. 14-1537

faith when he corrected the address. Judge Clevert concluded that McMillian and Knueppel impliedly consented to Officer Shull’s entry into the bedroom. Judge Clevert did not

expressly rule on whether Officer Shull’s observation of the 

two gun cases supplied probable cause to search for weapons, although he determined that the officers acted in good 

faith despite any deficiencies in the search warrant. Judge 

Clevert therefore denied McMillian’s motion to quash the 

search warrant.

Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, Judge Randa accepted Judge Clevert’s ruling, and the parties proceeded to a 

stipulated bench trial. Judge Randa found McMillian guilty 

of one count of possessing firearms and ammunition as a 

felon and sentenced him to 77 months imprisonment and 3

years of supervised release. 

II. Discussion

In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, 

we review the district court’s factual findings for clear error 

and its legal conclusions de novo. United States v. Gutierrez, 

760 F.3d 750, 753 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 735 (2014). 

On appeal, McMillian argues that the arrest, the protective 

sweep, and Officer Shull’s entry into the back bedroom were 

unlawful and that the search warrant was defective. We address each of McMillian’s arguments in turn.

A. Legality of McMillian’s Arrest

McMillian argues that his arrest inside the doorway of 

his house was unlawful because the Fourth Amendment 

prohibits the police from making ”a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a 

routine felony arrest.” Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 576 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 7

(1980). Although the government disputes the contention

that McMillian was inside at the time of his arrest, we need 

not consider whether Officer Shull crossed the threshold of 

the house. McMillian forfeited the right to appeal the legality of his arrest by failing to challenge the arrest before the 

district court.

A criminal defendant forfeits an argument if he ”negligently fails to assert a right in a timely fashion.” United 

States v. Brodie, 507 F.3d 527, 530 (7th Cir. 2007); see also United States v. Kelly, 772 F.3d 1072, 1079 (7th Cir. 2014). Although plain error review generally applies to forfeited arguments, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(c)(3) imposes an antecedent good-cause requirement when a defendant fails to file a timely motion to suppress. FED. R.

CRIM. P. 12(c)(3).3 Before a court may consider an untimely

motion to suppress, ”a defendant must first establish good 

cause for the absence of a pretrial motion.” United States v. 

Acox, 595 F.3d 729, 731 (7th Cir. 2010); see also Kelly, 772 F.3d 

at 1079.4

3 Rule 12 was amended while this appeal was pending. The provision addressing the effect of a failure to raise an issue in a pretrial motion, formerly found in Rule 12(e), was relocated to Rule 12(c)(3), effective December 1, 2014. The reference to ”waiver” was removed to clarify 

that the rule does not contemplate waiver as that term is traditionally 

used in criminal cases. FED. R. CRIM. P. 12(c) advisory committee’s note. 

Because the amendment did not alter the applicable standard, we apply 

the current version of Rule 12. See United States v. Bennett, 332 F.3d 1094, 

1100 n.2 (7th Cir. 2003).

4 The court of appeals analyzes the good-cause determination for 

abuse of discretion, because ”the good-cause decision is committed to 

the district court.” Acox, 595 F.3d at 732. When confronted with a motion that was not presented to the district court, we ask whether the dis-

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
8 No. 14-1537

Although McMillian filed a motion to suppress, he did 

not argue before the district court that his arrest was unconstitutional. This court ”has repeatedly held that there is no 

good cause to excuse a Rule 12 forfeiture where a defendant 

files a timely motion to suppress on one ground, and later 

seeks to assert a new ground for suppression for the first 

time on appeal.” Brodie, 507 F.3d at 531.

During one of the evidentiary hearings, McMillian’s trial 

counsel argued that McMillian was arrested outside the 

house to support the argument that there was no probable 

cause to search inside the house. Appellate counsel now argues the opposite, that McMillian was arrested inside. 

McMillian offers no explanation for this change of course

that would support a finding of good cause for failure to 

make the argument before the district court. Rather, he argues that ”these are purely legal questions based on the factual record developed below” and that ”the government is 

not disadvantaged by McMillian raising the issues on appeal.” Brief for Appellant at 19. We disagree. If McMillian

had made this argument before the district court, the government might have called witnesses to testify about whether the arrest took place inside or outside. See United States v. 

Murdock, 491 F.3d 694, 698–99 (7th Cir. 2007). We conclude 

that there is no basis to excuse McMillian’s forfeiture of the 

point.

trict court would have abused its discretion had it denied a request to 

present an untimely motion. Id. Where, as here, the defendant has not 

articulated any rationale that would support a good-cause determination, the district court would not have abused its discretion by refusing

to consider an untimely motion. Id. at 733.

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 9

McMillian also argues that even if he was outside at the 

time of his arrest, his presence was coerced. See, e.g., Sparing 

v. Vill. of Olympia Fields, 266 F.3d 684, 689–91 (7th Cir. 2001);

United States v. Saari, 272 F.3d 804, 809–10 (6th Cir. 2001); 

United States v. Maez, 872 F.2d 1444, 1450–53 (10th Cir. 1989). 

Again, McMillian has not offered any explanation for his 

failure to present this argument to the district court. Because

of this omission, the government did not have an opportunity to respond or present evidence related to voluntariness. 

Accordingly, McMillian has forfeited this argument. See 

United States v. Kirkland, 567 F.3d 316, 321 (7th Cir. 2009) 

(finding forfeiture when defense counsel ”failed to develop 

the argument with citation to any relevant authority or 

meaningful discussion,” because the omission ”does not give 

the government a meaningful opportunity to rebut [the defendant’s] claims, nor does it notify the district court that it 

needs to address them”); Murdock, 491 F.3d at 698–99.

In sum, McMillian cannot challenge the legality of his arrest on appeal.

B. Legality of the Protective Sweep

McMillian argued before the district court that the warrantless protective sweep of his home violated the Fourth 

Amendment. The government conceded that the sweep was 

unconstitutional and agreed to strike the reference to the 

AK-47 rifle from the search warrant affidavit. We agree that

the protective sweep violated the Fourth Amendment, because the officers did not reasonably believe ”that the area 

swept harbored an individual posing a danger to the officer 

or others.” Maryland v. Buie, 494 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). The 

district court properly struck the observation of the rifle 

from the search warrant affidavit.

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
10 No. 14-1537

C. Legality of Officer Shull’s Entry

McMillian argues that Officer Shull’s entry into the back

bedroom was unlawful because McMillian and Knueppel’s 

consent was tainted by the prior unlawful sweep.5 Generally, an officer need not obtain a warrant if a suspect voluntarily consents to a search. See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 

U.S. 218, 222 (1973). But otherwise voluntary consent can 

nonetheless be tainted by a prior illegal entry. See United 

States v. Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d 679, 681 (7th Cir. 2003) 

(”Where the search following the illegal entry is justified 

based on alleged consent, courts must determine whether 

that consent was voluntary, and in addition the court must 

determine whether the illegal entry tainted that consent.”). 

McMillian does not challenge the district court’s determination that he and Knueppel impliedly consented to Officer 

Shull’s entry. Instead, he argues that consent was tainted by 

the illegal protective sweep.

McMillian’s appellate counsel conceded during argument 

that trial counsel did not argue before the district court that 

any consent was tainted. Appellate counsel attempted to 

show that the argument was not forfeited by stating: ”Mr. 

McMillian pretty clearly said the protective sweep was unlawful and the fruits of that sweep should be excluded from 

evidence. Now, the precise kind of legal argument that 

we’ve made on appeal I think fleshes that out.” Oral Argument at 4:56–5:10. The closest McMillian came to arguing 

5 Although McMillian also argues that consent was tainted because 

his arrest was illegal, we have concluded that he has forfeited his challenge to the arrest.

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 11

that consent was tainted was during the evidentiary hearing 

before Judge Clevert. There, trial counsel stated: 

When the tac squad told Officer Shull that 

there is a rifle case inside and Officer Shull 

shows [sic] that Tyrone McMillian is a convicted felon, he’s going to find a way to go back into that residence come hell or high water and 

so he tells Ashley Knueppel let’s go in. He 

goes in because he wants to find that weapon 

and have another case against Tyrone McMillian.

Appellant’s App. at A50. In that part of the hearing, McMillian’s counsel did suggest that Officer Shull exploited information obtained from the illegal sweep when he entered the 

bedroom. But trial counsel made that point to support the 

argument that ”implied consent . . . was not given in this 

case.” Id. 

A defendant must expressly raise an argument before the 

district court in order to preserve it for appeal. See, e.g., 

Kelly, 772 F.3d at 1078–79 (”Kelly nowhere . . . explicitly argued that the warrant failed for lack of underlying probable 

cause. . . . Kelly’s sporadic references to probable cause in 

the context of a particularity challenge were insufficient to 

raise the argument before the district court.”). For instance,

in United States v. Murdock, 491 F.3d 694 (7th Cir. 2007), this 

court held that a defendant had forfeited a suppression argument when he claimed that he was not read Miranda

warnings before the district court but argued on appeal that 

his confession was involuntary. Id. at 698–99. There, ”appellate counsel contend[ed] that Murdock’s argument at his 

suppression hearing was sufficient to encompass his arguCase: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
12 No. 14-1537

ment on appeal.” Id. at 698. The court nonetheless concluded that there was ”no reason why trial counsel could not 

have broadened his argument, and by failing to do so he 

gave the government no reason to offer evidence to rebut his 

new allegation.” Id. at 698–99.

McMillian has forfeited the argument that consent was 

tainted. He therefore must show good cause for failing to

press the argument before the district court. FED. R. CRIM. P.

12(c)(3). McMillian has offered no viable justification for 

failing to argue that consent was tainted. In addition, we 

note that the government would be unfairly prejudiced were 

McMillian permitted to assert this point for the first time on 

appeal. Because McMillian did not make this argument before the district court or cite to case law holding that an illegal entry can taint otherwise valid consent, the government 

had no opportunity to respond. This is particularly significant because the government bears the burden of showing 

that consent was purged of the taint caused by an illegal entry. See Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d at 683.6 

D. Search Warrant

McMillian contends that the search warrant was defective. He argues that there was no probable cause to issue the 

warrant, because the affidavit cited information obtained

during the illegal sweep and entry into the bedroom and because the affidavit did not contain enough information to

6 To determine whether consent was tainted, a court considers ”(1) 

the temporal proximity of the illegal entry and the consent, (2) the presence of intervening circumstances, and, particularly, (3) the purpose and 

flagrancy of the official misconduct.” Robeles-Ortega, 348 F.3d at 681 (citing Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603–04 (1975)). 

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 13

support a search for evidence of a double homicide. McMillian also argues that the warrant was defective because Detective Gomez was not under oath when he corrected the 

address on the warrant and affidavit.

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, 

”no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the 

place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” 

U.S. CONST. amend. IV. In considering a court’s probable 

cause determination, we review legal conclusions de novo 

and factual findings for clear error. United States v. Peck, 317 

F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2003). We review de novo whether the 

oath or affirmation requirement was met. United States v. 

Wilson, 169 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 1999).

The only evidence supporting probable cause that was

presented to the judge who issued the warrant was an affidavit describing a rifle and two gun cases purportedly observed in McMillian’s house and the informant’s statement

concerning McMillian’s suspected involvement in two 2007 

homicides. ”When an affidavit is the only evidence presented to a judge in support of a search warrant, the validity of 

the warrant rests solely on the strength of the affidavit.” 

Peck, 317 F.3d at 755. To determine whether probable cause 

existed, the court must ask whether, ”based on the totality of 

the circumstances, the affidavit sets forth sufficient evidence 

to induce a reasonably prudent person to believe that a 

search will uncover evidence of a crime.” Id. at 756.

The black rifle case, which was incorrectly listed in the affidavit as a black assault rifle, was observed during the protective sweep. The reference to the rifle was properly strickCase: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
14 No. 14-1537

en from the affidavit after the government conceded that the 

protective sweep was illegal.

The magistrate and district judges were also correct to 

conclude that the informant’s tip did not establish probable 

cause to search for evidence of the homicides. The affidavit 

does not indicate that the police independently corroborated 

the informant’s allegations, nor does it include any information concerning the informant’s credibility and reliability.

Thus, there was no probable cause to search for evidence of 

the homicides. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 241 (1983) 

(”Our decisions applying the totality-of-the-circumstances 

analysis . . . have consistently recognized the value of corroboration of details of an informant’s tip by independent 

police work.”); United States v. Bell, 585 F.3d 1045, 1050 (7th 

Cir. 2009); Peck, 317 F.3d at 756–57.

With the descriptions of the rifle and the homicide allegations excised from the affidavit, the validity of the warrant 

depends on whether the two gun cases Officer Shull observed by the bed supplied probable cause. Because McMillian consented to Officer Shull’s entry into the bedroom and 

McMillian has forfeited the argument that consent was tainted, the observation of the gun cases need not be excised from 

the search warrant affidavit. A reasonable person considering Officer Shull’s observation of the two gun cases would

believe that a search would reveal firearms and ammunition.

Thus, we affirm Magistrate Judge Joseph’s finding that there

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 15

was probable cause to issue a warrant to search McMillian’s 

house for firearms.7

Finally, Detective Gomez did not violate the Fourth 

Amendment when he corrected the address without being 

placed under oath. The warrant was valid as originally 

drafted, and the correction of a typographical error did not 

render it defective. 

The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement limits ”the authorization to search to the specific areas and 

things for which there is probable cause to search,”and in 

doing so ”ensures that the search will be carefully tailored to 

its justifications, and will not take on the character of the 

wide-ranging exploratory searches the Framers intended to 

prohibit. ” Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79, 84 (1987). The 

requirement is satisfied if ”the description is such that the 

officer with a search warrant can, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.” Steele v. United 

States, 267 U.S. 498, 503 (1925). 

This court has upheld search warrants that include ”minor technical errors or omissions . . . so long as there is no 

danger that the officers might inadvertently search the 

wrong place.” Kelly, 772 F.3d at 1081 (upholding a warrant 

that incorrectly described the premises as the “upper apartment,” when the target was the two-story unit at the back of

the residence). Although this court has not addressed this 

particular situation, the court upheld a search warrant when 

the affidavit (but not the warrant) contained a typographical 

7 Judge Clevert did not expressly rule on the question of probable 

cause to search for weapons, although he determined that the officers 

acted in good faith despite any deficiencies in the search warrant.

 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
16 No. 14-1537

error in one digit of the address. United States v. Jones, 208 

F.3d 603, 608 (7th Cir. 2000) (”[T]his warrant provided other, 

ample, descriptions of the location of Jones’ house. . . . An 

officer could have relied on the remaining guides, without 

the numeric address, and still found the correct house.”). 

Courts in other circuits have upheld warrants against particularity challenges in situations like this one in which both 

the warrant and affidavit listed the incorrect street number. 

See, e.g., United States v. Lora-Solano, 330 F.3d 1288, 1293–94 

(10th Cir. 2003); United States v. Valentine, 984 F.2d 906, 909 

(8th Cir. 1993); United States v. Garza, 980 F.2d 546, 551–52 

(9th Cir. 1992); United States v. Burke, 784 F.2d 1090, 1092–93

(11th Cir. 1986); United States v. Turner, 770 F.2d 1508, 1510–

11 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Gitcho, 601 F.2d 369, 371–72 

(8th Cir. 1979). In assessing the validity of the warrants, 

these courts have considered whether the warrant and affidavit provided a detailed description of the premises and 

whether the officers executing the warrant knew the correct 

target location or could have searched the wrong residence. 

See Garza, 980 F.2d at 552; Burke, 784 F.2d at 1092–93; Turner, 

770 F.2d at 1511. We agree with these courts and conclude 

that a typographical error in an address does not invalidate a 

warrant if the affidavit otherwise identifies the targeted 

premises in sufficient detail and there is no chance that another location might be searched by mistake. See Kelly, 772 

F.3d at 1081.

In this case, the affidavit listed McMillian’s house as 6633 

West Darnell Avenue, even though the correct address was 

6333 West Darnell Avenue. Although the address was off by 

one digit, other portions of the affidavit contained sufficient 

description such that an officer could ”with reasonable effort 

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17
No. 14-1537 17

ascertain and identify the place intended.” Steele, 267 U.S. at

503. The affidavit and warrant described the residence as:

a single family, ranch style residence that is located on the south side of Darnell Ave. The 

residence is tan in color, with a wood material 

upper and brick material lower portion. The 

driveway is located on the East side of the residence and the roof in [sic] constructed of 

brown asphalt like shingles. The numbers 6633 

[sic] are located on the North East portion of 

the residence.

Appellant’s App. at A7, A10–A11. Moreover, there was no 

chance that the officers could have searched the wrong 

premises, as they had personal knowledge of McMillian’s 

house. Under these circumstances, the warrant described 

McMillian’s house with sufficient particularity, and it did not 

become invalid when Detective Gomez corrected the typographical error with the issuing judge’s permission. 

In sum, we conclude that the search warrant satisfied the 

Fourth Amendment’s requirements.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, we AFFIRM the district 

court’s denial of McMillian’s motion to quash the search warrant.

Case: 14-1537 Document: 43 Filed: 05/22/2015 Pages: 17