## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 10

- 1608 U NI T ED S T A T E SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A AR ON W I L L I A MS, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 C R 77711

—David H . C oar, Judg e.

____________ A RG UE D S EPT EMBER 7, 2010

— D ECI DE D O CT OB ER 25, 2010

____________ B efore F LA UM, R OV NER, a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges . F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudg e . I n July 2008 , Ch icago po li ce offi cers pu l l ed o ve r a S uburban atthe re quest o fano therChica go po l i ce o ffi ce r, who was a mem be r o fa Dr ugEnf o r ce m en t Ad m i ni st r at i o n ( “D E A”) t as kf o r ce . A su bs eque nt w ar ran tles s s ear ch ofthe vehi cl e, i n w hi ch def endanta p p e l l a n t Aa r o n Wi l l i a ms wa s a p a s s e n g e r, r e v e a l e d a brick of coca ine. T he district cou rt de nied W illiam s’s m oti on t o supp re ss the d rug evi dence on the g ro und s that th e D E A t a s kf o r c e h a d p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o rth e s e a r c h,2 N o. 10

- 1608

w hi ch co uld be im pu ted to the offi cer s under the c ol l ecti ve k no wl edg e do ct r i ne . W i l l i ams e nt er ed a g ui l ty pl ea t o o ne c o u n to fp o s s e s s i o n w i th i n t e n tt o d i s t r ib u t e 5 0 0 g r a ms or m or e o fa substa nce co ntai ni ng co cai ne, 2 1 U
. S
. C. § 841( a) ( 1) , i n w hi ch he prese rv ed hi s ri ght to c h alle nge the s up press i on r uling. The di str i ct c ourtse n tenced W illiam s t o 6 0 m on th s of im p ris on m en t. W illiam s a p p ea ls the deni alo fhi s m oti on t o supp re ss. F o r th e f o l l o win gr e a s o n s , w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und I n the s um m erof 200 8, the Dr ugEnf o r ce m en t A dm i ni str ati on ( “DE A ”) was i nvest i gat i ng a n al l ege d drug- tr affi cki ng o rg ani zati on. I n connect i on with that i nvest i gat i on, a DE A

- l ed tas k f or ce used cour t- author i zed w ire ta ps to i nter cept phone c al l s m ade and re cei ved by i ndi v i du a l s s us pe c t e d t o b e i nv o l v e d in the dr ug - t r a ffi c ki ng r i ng. On J uly15 , 20 08, the DE A i ntercepted a ser i es of ca l l s be tweenBe r na r do S o l an o , F i l ibe r to Hi noj o sa, a nd Leo ba r do Ba r m bi l a th atl ed th em to be l i ev e th ata dr ug tr ansact i on was go i ng to o ccur at a suspecte d stas h house loc at ed in t h e 2 70 0 b loc k of N or th M on ito r A ve n u e in Ch i cago , I l l i noi s. Duri ng o ne o ftho se calls , Hinoj osa i nf o r m ed So l an o tha t “the c arpa r ts ” ha d a r r i ve d a t th e “shop. ” A gents conducted surve i l l ance on the M onito r re si dence, and sto pp ed an i nd i vi du all ate r i denti fi ed as So l ano a fterse ei ng hi m l eave the house. S ol ano adm i tte d th athe h a d p u r c h a s e d t wo k i l o g r a ms o fc o c a i n e a tt he M o ni t o r r e s i dence

. F r o m ph o t o g r a ph s p r o v i de d b y DE A age nts, S ol ano i denti fi ed H i noj osa as the perso n f ro mN o. 10

- 1608 3 whom h e ha d pur ch as ed th e co ca i ne , an d Ba r m bi l a as the perso n w ho he bel i eve d had sup pli ed the coca i ne. The f o l l o win gd a y, th e D E A in t er ce pte d a ddi ti o na l pho ne cal l s be tw een Hin ojos a a nd Barm bi l a, i n w hi ch they d isc u ss ed m ee tin g th e “b lac k gu y” at th e “sh o p o n M o n itor ” l ate r that day. Based o n t h ose cal l s, DE A ag ents deci ded to conduct surve i l l ance on the M oni torr esi dence atthe an tici pat ed ti m e o fthe t r an sa ct i o n, a nd t o put offi cer s fro m the Ch i cago Pol i ce Depar tm ent ( “CPD ”) o n sta nd by to ass i st. Chi ca g o po l i ce o ffi ce r Da ni elGut i er r ez , a mem be r o fthe task force, w as resp ons ibl e for c o o r d inating th e D E A ’s ef fo r ts wi ththe CPD. Pr i o r t o the a nt i ci pat ed tr an sa ct i o n, Gu ti er re z m et w i th a num ber of Ch i cago pol i ce offi cer s, i ncl u d in g offi cerJ ose ph Si m on, and to l d them thata perso n w oul d be co m i ng to the M oni torr esi dence to p urc ha se na rcotics. G ut ierrez h a d not h eard the interce pte d pho ne ca l l s hi m se l f, but he was i n c o nt ac t wi ththe age nts who had m oni tor ed the calls

. Gutie rr ez re quested th at th e office rs p os itio n th em se lve s in th e are a. H e t old th em th athe woul d pr o vi de th em wi thi nf o r m at i o n abo ut th e s u sp ec t v eh icle , a n d th at th ey sh ou ld st op th e v eh icle afterdevel opi ng the i r own pro babl e ca use t o do so

. M embe r s o fthe ta skf o r ce co nduc tingsur ve i l l an ce on th e M on ito r re sid en c e s aw W illiam s a n d an ot h er ind ivid u al, E n n is H ow ar d , arriv e in a C h ev y Su b u rb an atap p ro x im ate l y 1 1: 30 A . M . Howar d a nd W i l l i ams pa r k ed the S ub u rb a n i n a n a l l e y b e h i n d th e Mo n i t o r r e s i d e n c e a nd e n t e r e d th e b ac k y a r d

. Wi l l i a ms wa s c a r r y i n ga b r o wn shoe box. A pp ro xi m ate l y fi ftee n m i nutes l ate r, age nts s aw4 N o. 10

- 1608 H o war d a nd W i l l i ams l ea ve the b ac k y ar d c ar r y i ngthe b ro w n shoe box, ge t i n the Suburba n, and dri ve aw ay. Guti er r ez , who was c o nduc ting su r ve i l l an ce ne arthe M o ni to r r es i den ce , s aw the S ubu rba n dri ve a way fr o m the M oni torr esi dence and turn onto D iver seyA venue. Guti er r ez c al l ed S i m o n, g av e hi m a des cr i pti o n o fthe ve hi cl e an d the l i ce ns e pl at e, a nd i nf o r m ed hi m tha t th e vehi cl e was headi ng ea stbo und o n Dive rs ey. S i m o n a nd hi s pa r tn erbeg anf o l l o wi ngthe S ubu rba n a nd even tu all y stop p ed the veh icl e. Sim on inst ruc ted H ow ard and W i l l i am s t o exi t the ve hi cl e. A pat-d ow n sea rch re ve ale d tw o b ag s o f m ar ij u an a in W i l l i a m s’s p oc ke t. A su bs eque nts ea r cho fthe S ubu rban by o th ero ffi ce r s who a r r i v e d o n th e s c e n e l e d t o th e d i sc o v e r y o fa b r o wn shoe box i n the backse at of the S uburban co ntai ni ng a bri ck ofwh at w as l ate r confi rm ed to be a k i l ogr am o fco cai ne. W i l l i am s was char ged i n an i nd i ctm ent with one count o f posse ssi on with i ntent to dist ribute 5 00 gr am s o r m or e o f a s u b st an c e c on ta in in g c oc ain e. See 21 U .S .C
. § 841(a)( 1). On M ar ch 31 , 20 09 , W i l l i ams fi l ed a m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e ev id en c e s eiz ed b y p olic e follo w in g th e Ju ly 1 6, 20 08 tra ffic sto p. A t a hear i ng o n the m oti on, Si m on test i fi ed that, after f o l l o wi ngthe S ubu rba n f o r a pe r i o d o ft i m e wi th o ut o bs er vi nga ny t r affi c vi o l at i o ns , h e pul l ed al o ng si de th e ve hi cl e. S i m o n t es ti fi ed th athe c o ul d s ee tha t th e passe ng er - si de o cc upa ntwas no t wea r i nga s ea t be l t, a nd th athe s to pped th e S ubu rba n b as ed o n tha t vi o l at i o n. W hile I ll inois l aw requ ires drivers a n d ( m ost) pas sen gers of m otor veh icl es to w ear seatb elts, 625 I L C S 5/12-603.1(a) , a pol i ce o ffi cer“m ay not sea rch ori nspect a m oto r vehi cl e,N o. 10

- 1608 5 i ts conte nts, the dri veror a p ass engersol el y because o f ” a d riv er or p as se n ge r’s failu re to w ea r a s ea t b elt, id. at § 6 03 .1(f); see also 72 5 I LC S 5/ 108- 1( 3)
. S i m on t est i fi ed that, at th e t im e o f th e s to p , he w as aw a r e t h at th e s ea t b elt v i o l a t i o n wo ul d no t j us t i fy a s e a r c h o f the v e hi c l e o r i ts o cc upa nt s. Acco r di ngt o S i m o n, whenhe a ppr o ac he d the vehi cl e, he s aw “cr um bs” ofm ar ij uana on the ce nter c on sol e a nd two ci gar - l i ke obj ects i n the open as htra y. B a s e d o n wh a th e b e l i e v e d t o b e ma r ij u a n a i n p l a i n v i e w, Si m on o rder ed the occupants to exi t the ve hi cl e. Wi l l i a ms a l s o t e s t i f i ed a tth e s u p p r e s s i o n h e a r i n g . He ac k no wl edg ed th atthe r e wer e two uns m o k ed m ar ij ua na ci g ar s i n the as ht r ay, b uts ta te d tha t he ha d c l o se d the ashtr ay w hen the vehi cl e w as pu l l ed ove r. H e a l so tes ti fi ed th atthe r e wer e no “cr um bs ” o r any othe r m ar ij ua na o n the cente r conso l e. The dis tr i ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that Si m on’ s t est i m ony w as not cred ibl e. I n reac hin g th at con clusion, the d istri ct cou rt re l i ed on Sim on’s m anner ofte sti fyi ng, as wellas o n S i m o n’ s pr o f es se d st r at egy f o reff ec tingthe des i r ed se ar ch, whi chthe c o ur t co nc l ude d m ade “ l i tt l e se ns e. ” Acco r di ng to Sim on, he d ecid ed to pu ll t h e S u b urb an over f or a v i o l a tio n h e k n ew d id n ot p ro vid e h im w ith th e p ro b ab le c au se h e n ee d ed to se ar c h t h e ve h icle . Th en , i f Sim on is bel i eve d, he f or tui tousl y s aw m ar ij uana i n pla i n vi ew because

— co nt r ar y t o W i l l i ams’ s te st i m o ny

— H o war d a nd W i l l i ams, kno wi ngthe y h ad a k i l o g r am o fc o ca i ne i n the backse at, l eft the as htra y c ontaini ng m ar ij uana open f or tw o app r o a c hingo ffi c e r s t o s e e . F i nd i ngS i monn o tt o be cr edibl e, the di st r i ctco ur t de te r m i ne d tha t the se ar chofthe6 N o. 10

- 1608

W e note thatw hil e “the p rovider and d ri ver o fthe car” has “a 1 reas onab le ex pectat ion ofprivacy in it [ , ]
. . . a m ere passe nger” d o es n o t. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Pri ce, 54 F .3d 3 4 2 , 3 4 5 -4 6 (7t h C ir . 19 9 5 ). W e ha v e fou nd no thin g in the r e c o r d to su g g est tha t W ill i a ms

— the passe nger

— owned the Su bu rb an i n whi c h h e and H oward were s t oppe d. How eve r, the gove rn m en tha s no t argu ed thatW i l l i am s l ac ks s t andi ng t o c hal l en ge the s ea rc h o f th e v eh ic le

. Seei d. ; R a k a s v . Illi n o is , 439 U.S
. 128 ( 1978) ( il le gal s e a r c h ofve hi c l e do e s n oti nfr i ng e pa s s e ng e r s ’ F ou r t h Am e nd

m en tr ight s , an d pas s en ge rs l ac k s t andi ng t o c hal l en ge the (co n tin u ed ...) S ubu rba n was no t su ppo r te d b y the s ea t be l t vi o l at i o n the o ffi ce r s te st i fi ed th atthe y o bs er ve d, o r the mar ij ua na the officers testifi ed they observed in p lai n view i n th e Sub urban

. Th e d istri ct cou rt nev erth eles s d en ied W il li am s’s m oti on t o su p p re ss, co ncl ud i ng tha t the DEA ’ s wir eta p i nv es ti g at i o n a nd s ur ve i l l an ce e vi den ce g av e th e CPD o ffi ce r s pr o babl e ca us e to sear chthe S ubu rba n un derthe col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne. On D ecem ber4, 20 09, W i l l i am s e nter ed i nto a co nd i ti o nal gu ilty p lea , res er vin g t h e rig h t t o a p p ea l th e d en ial of h is m otion to su p p ress. On M arch 2, 2 0 1 0, th e d istri ct cou rt se n te n c e d W i l liam s t o 6 0 m on th s o f im p ris on m en t. T h is a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . D i scussi on On app eal, W i l l i am s chal l enges the denia l o fhi s m oti on to supp re ss the e vi dence f ound d uri ng the warra ntl ess sea rch ofthe vehi cl e. I n re vi ew i ng a dist ri ct cour t’ s deni al 1N o. 10

- 1608 7

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 searc h)

. The re f or e, the ar gum en ti s wai ved a nd we ne ed n ot co n sid er it. Pri ce, 54 F.3d at 3 4 6 ( t h e p rinc ip le of “stan d ing ” is “r oot ed i n the s ubs t ant i ve l aw ofthe Four t h Am en dm en tan d not Arti cl e I II , ” a n d co n se q u en tly ca n b e w a iv ed ). ofa m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence, we re vi ew co ncl usi ons of l a w d e n ov o a n d find in gs of fac t fo r c lea r er ro r. U ni ted Sta tes v. B o o k er, 61 2 F.3d 59 6, 59 9 (7th C ir. 20 10 ). P ro b ab le cause deter m i nati ons ar e m i xed questi ons ofl aw and f act th at w e re vie w d e n ov o. Id

. W a r r a nt l e s s s e a r c he s a r e c o ns i de r e d per seu n re as on ab le u n d er t h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t u n les s o n e o f a few sp ec ifical l y e stabl i shed and w el l

- del i neate d exce pti ons appli es. Arizona v. Gant,

___U
. S. ___, 129 S .C t
. 1710, 1716 (2009). One su ch ex ce pti o n to th e war r an t r equi r ement i s the autom obi l e excepti on, w hi ch al l ows l aw enf or cem en t to conduct a w ar ra ntl ess sear ch of a vehi cl e ifther e i s probabl e ca use t o bel i eve the vehi cl e co ntains c on tr aband o r ev id en c e o f a c rim e. See U ni t e d St at e s v. Zahurs ky, 580 F
. 3d 51 5, 52 1 (7th C ir. 20 09 ); C a rroll v. U nited Sta tes , 26 7 U.S
. 13 2, 15 3- 56 ( 1925 ). W he n pr o babl e ca us e ex i st s to s ea r cha ve h icle , l aw en for c em en t age n ts ar e pe rm itt ed to se ar c h all p ar ts of th e v eh icle in w h ich co n tr ab an d or ev id en c e c ou ld be concea l ed, incl ud i ng clo sed com partm ents, co ntai ners , p ac ka ge s, an d tru n ks

. U nite d State s v. Scott, 51 6 F
. 3d 587, 58 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. R o ss , 45 6 U.S
. 79 8, 82 3- 24 (1982). He r e , o uri nqui ry i s t wo - f o l d. F i r s t, we mus tde c i de w hetherthe DE A ta sk f or ce had e nough i nfo rm ati on t o8 N o. 10

- 1608

s up po r ta fi nd i ngo fp r o b a b l e c a us e t o s e a r c h the v e hi cl e. Se cond, i fso , we m ust deter m i ne w hetherthati nfo rm ati on ca n b e i m put ed to the o ffi ce r s who co nduc te d the s to p a nd sea rch und erthe col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne.

A . Pro bab l e Cause Pr o babl e ca us e to s ea r che xi st s wher e, b as ed o n the k no wn facts and ci r cumst an ce s, a r ea so nabl y pr ude nt p erson w ou ld believe tha t con traba nd or evid en ce of a c rim e w ill be fo u n d in t h e p lac e t o b e s ea rc h ed

. See Zahurs ky, 58 0 F
. 3d at 52 1; Scott, 5 16 F
. 3d at5 89
. Her e, the questi on is w hetherther e was “a f ai r probabi l i ty” that co nt r ab an d o r e vi den ce o fa c ri m e woul d b e f o und i n the Suburba n; abs ol ute ce rt ai nty o fsuch a di sco ve ry i s no t re q u ire d

. Zahurs ky, 58 0 F
. 3d at 521. The de te rm i nati on w hethersuspi ci ous c i rcum sta nces ri se to the l ev el of p robab le cau se is a com m on-sen se j ud gm en t, an d officers ar e e nti tl ed to draw rea sonab l e i nfe re nces base d on their tr aini ngand e xpe r i en ce i n mak i ngtha t det er m i na ti o n. U nited Sta tes v. R eed, 443 F.3d 600 , 603 (7th C ir. 2006). W e co ncl ud e that the fac ts known to the DEA ta sk f or ce supp or ted a sea rch ofthe vehi cl e. On J uly16 , 20 08, ag ents i nter cepted cal l s be tw een Hinoj osa and Barm bi l a di scussi ng a m eet i ng with “the bl ack guy” at “t h e s hop” on Mo n i t o r . A g e n t s th e n o b s e r v e d H o wa r d a n d Wi l l i a ms ar ri ve at the M oni torr esi dence, ente r the b acky ar d carryi n ga s h o e b o x , a n d e x i t s h o r t l y th e r e a ft e r c a r r y i n gth e s a me sh oe b o x . Th e d ay be for e, ag en ts h ad int er c ep te d ca lls between H i noj osa and B arm bi l a, and bet w een Hinoj osa an d S o l an o , duri ngw hi chthe y a r r an g ed a m ee tinga t “theN o. 10

- 1608 9 sh o p. ” Lat ero n J ul y 1 5th , a g en ts ha d o bs er ve d S o l an o l eaving the M oni tor re si dence car ry i ng a packag e, w h i ch So l ano subsequentl y adm i tte d contai ned tw o ki l ogr am s o f c oc ain e t h at h e h ad p u rc h as ed fr om H in ojos a a n d B ar m b ila at the M o ni t o r r e s i de nc e . Ta k e n a s a who l e , the s e f acts j u s t i fi e d th e a g e n t s ’ b e l i e fth a tH o wa r d a n d Wi l l i a ms pu rchas ed drugs at the M oni torr esi dence, and that a sea rch ofthe Suburba n w oul d uncovertho se drugs. W i l l i am s ar gues that age nts coul d no t re aso na b ly h ave b elie ve d th at h e a n d H ow ar d w en t t o t h e M on ito r re sid en c e t o b u y d ru gs be c au se th e c a lls in te rc ep te d on Ju ly 16th did notd i scuss any parti cul ard rug, w ei ght, or dol l ar amoun t

— ev en in c od e. A c c or d in g t o W illiam s, th e c alls su ggest on ly th at a m eeting w as to take p lace, not nec essari l y a dr ugt r an sa ct i o n. As we ha ve s ai d b efo r e, “ a find in g ofpro babl e ca use doe s no t r equi re e vid ence suffi ci ent t o su ppo r t a co nv i cti on, no r e ve n e vi den ce de m o ns tr at i ng tha ti ti s mo r e l i k e l y tha n no ttha tthe s us pe c tc o mm i t t e d a cri m e. ” U nited Sta tes v. Fun ch es , 3 27 F.3d 582, 587 (7th C ir. 2003 ). A llthat i s requ ired is a f air p robab il ity ofdiscov eri n gc o n t r a b a n d

. He r e , t h e t o t a l i t y o ft h e f a c t s a n d c i r c u ms t ances

— th atW i l l i ams a nd Howar d m etHi noj o sa a nd Barm bi l a ( suspecte d drug deal er s) atthe M o ni t o rr e si dence ( a s uspected st ash hou se ) , wh er e a gents knew H i noj osa an d B ar m b ila h ad c ar rie d o u t a d ru g t ra n sa c tio n as rec en tly as the day befor e, and that W i l l i am s and How ar d l eft that m eet i ng ca rr yi ng a shoe box ( i n w hi ch theyco uld co nceal drugs)

— w er e s uffi ci ent to cr eat e pr obab l e ca use e ven abse nt such deta i l s i n the cal l s them sel ves. M or eov er, that W illiam s a n d H ow ar d ’ s c o n d u c t o n Ju ly 1 6t h “t ak en in i sol ati on, . . . m i ght b e i nnocen tl y e xplai ned aw ay” does10 N o. 10

- 1608

n ot p re c lu d e a find in g of p ro b ab le c au se . Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Scott, 1 9 F
. 3d 12 38 , 1 24 2 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 4) ( “i t i s o fno mom en t that m osto f[ defe n d an t’s] conduct .

. . m ay have been unrel ate d to drug ac ti vi ty” wh er e the of fi cer s, “vi ew [ i ng] [ th e] co nduc t a s a w ho l e” and i n l i g htofthe i r t r aini nga nd ex per i en ce , c o nc l ude d tha t defen dan t was e ng ag ed i n dr ug tr affi ck i ng )
. Her e , th e f ac ts a nd c i r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ng th e m eeting w ere su ffici en t t o justify th e officers’ bel ief, base d on thei r experi ence i n pol i c ingn a r c o t i c s t r a ns acti ons, tha ta dr ugt r a ns a c t i o n ha d o c c ur r e d.

B . C o l l e c t i v e Kno wl e dg e Do c t r i ne H av in g d et er m in ed th at th e D E A ta sk forc e h ad p ro b ab le ca us e to s ea r chthe v eh i cl e, we co ns i derwhethe r the i nfo rm ati on know n to th e ta sk f or ce c an be i m pu ted to S i m o n un derthe c o l l ec ti ve kno wl edg e do ct r i ne . The c o l l e c t i v e kno wl e dg e do c t r i ne p e r mi t s ano ffi c e r t o s t o p, sea rch, o r ar re st a s uspect a t the dir ecti on o fano thero ffi cer orp olice ag ency, ev en i fthe offi cerhi m sel fdoes nothave fi rsth an d kn ow ledge of fac ts th at am ou nt to th e nec essary lev el of s u sp icio n to p er m it t h e g ive n ac tio n . See U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, 4 69 U. S
. 2 21 , 2 32

- 33 ( 1985)
. The r e i s no F o ur thAm en dm en t vi o l at i on ifthe kno wl edg e o fthe offi cerdi re cti ng the stop , s ear ch, o r ar re st

— orthe col l ecti ve knowle dge o fthe age ncy f orw h ich he w or ks

— is su fficie n t to co n st itu te p ro b ab le c au se . U nited Sta tes v. H arris , 58 5 F
. 3d 39 4, 4 00 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. I n o r derf o r the col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne to apply, ( 1) the offi cer ta k i ngthe actionmusta cti n o bj ec ti ve r el i an ce o n the i nfo rm ati on r ecei ved, ( 2) the offi cerpro vi ding the info rm a-N o. 10

- 1608 11 ti on

— orthe age ncy f orw hi ch he work s

— m ust hav e f acts supp or ti ng the l eve l of suspi ci on re quir ed, and ( 3) the s top m u st be n o m or e in tr u siv e t h an w ou ld h av e b ee n p er m iss ib le for th e o ffice r re q u es tin g it. U nited Sta tes v. Na fzger, 974 F.2d 906, 911 (7th Cir. 1992). W e ha ve a ppl i ed th e co l l ec ti ve kno wl edg e do ct ri ne w here , as i s the cas e her e, DE A ag ents ask ed locall aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer s t o sto p a speci fi cal l y- i denti fi ed vehi cl e, and the l oca l offi cer s had no knowle dge ofthe f acts u n d er lyin g t h e D E A ’s p ro b ab le c au se . For e x am p le, in U nited S ta tes v . Ro drig uez , 831 F.2d 162, 166 (7th Cir. 1987), the DEA r equeste d t h at Ill i noi s S tat e Po l i ce m ake a “r outine tr affic stop” ofan ind i vi du althe DE A bel i eve d w as i nvol ved i n drug- tr affi cki ng acti vi ti es f orthe pu rpos e ofi denti fyi ng the dri ver . The o ffi cerwh o m ade the sto p kn ew n ot h in g ab ou t th e fac tu al b as is for th e D E A ’s s u sp ici on, o therthan that the DEA was coord in ati ng a l ar ge in ve st iga tio n w ith loc al a ge n c ies
. Id. at 1 65 -66. Based o n th e fa c ts o ft h at ca se , w h ich inv olv ed an ad m itt ed ly

“ s k e l e t a l ” r e q u e s tf o r a ss i st a n c e , we co nc l ude d tha t th e “s ta te t r o o perwas . . . act i ngas an e xt en si o n o r a g en t o fthe D E A ag en t a n d sh e c ou ld ac t o n th e D E A ag en t’s su sp ici ons. ” Id. I n U nite d S ta tes v. C el io , 94 5 F
. 2d 180, 18 3 ( 7th Ci r. 19 91) , I l l i nois St ate Pol i ce s topped and sear ched a ve hi cle at the r eque sto fthe DEA, b as ed so l el y “ o n the bal d asse rt i on by t h e fe deralag ents that they suspecte d dr ugt r affi ck i ng . ” As i n R o drig uez , “th e au tom obi l e t o be sto pp ed w i th i ts occupant w as poi nted out speci fi cal l y b y th e r eque st i ngoffi ce r, and the [ det aini ng ] o ffi ce r kne w the re questi ng o ffi cerwas coo rd i nati ng a l ar ge i nvest i gat i on w i th l oca l ag enci es. ” Id. at18 4 ( quoti ng R o drig uez , 83 1 F
. 2d12 N o. 10

- 1608 at 166)
. W e co ncl ud ed that t h e sear ch w as supp or ted by probabl e ca use be cause the DEA ’ s co l l ecti ve kn ow l edge coul d be i m pu ted to the offi cer s under the c ol l ecti ve kn ow led ge d oc tr in e. Id

. The f ac ts he r e ar e an al o g o us t o tho se ati ss ue i n R o drig uez a n d C el io
. Gutie rr ez speci fi cal l y i denti fi ed the Suburba n and i ts occupants f orS i m on, wh o w as a w ar e ofthe ongo i ngDEA i nv es ti g at i o n. I n f ac t, S i m o n kne w m o r e ab o utthe unde r l y i ngf ac ts tha n di d the l o ca l o ffi ce r s i n Rodr iguez an d C el io , as he knew that the vehi cl e w as l eaving a s uspected dr ugt r an sa ct i o n. Wi l l i a ms a t t e mp t s to d i s t a n c e h i s c a s e fr o m R o drig uez a nd Cel i o base d on Gutie rr ez’ s i nstr ucti on th at S i m on dev el o p hi s ow n p r o babl e ca us e to s to p a nd s ea r chthe S ubu rba n. A ccor ding to W i l l i am s, thatst ate m ent pr ecl ude d S i m o n fr o m r el y i ngo n the DEA’s kno wl edg e, a nd ther ef or e Sim on co uld nothave bee n acting i n obj ecti ve re l i ance on the i nfo rm ati on he re cei ved f ro m Gutie rr ez, as i s r equi re d fo r the a pp l i cati on o fthe col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne. W e di sag re e with W i l l i am s’ s char ac ter i zati on o f the instr uction . Guti er re z di d not f orbi d Si m on fro m re l yi ng o n the i nfo rm ati on col l ecte d by the DEA ta sk f or ce. Ra th er, Gut i er r ez sough t to c o nc ea l the e xi st en ce o fthe DEA i nv es ti g at i o n a nd wi r e ta ps f r o m W i l l i ams a nd H o wa r d

. T h a t e ff o r t h a s n o i mpa c t o n th e f a c t th att he DE A ag ents had probabl e ca use, o n w hi ch Si m on was enti tl ed to r el y. O th era ppea l s co ur ts s i m i l ar l y ha ve c o nc l ude d tha t th e a p p li cation of th e coll ective kn ow ledge doc trine is un aff ecte d by a n offi cer ’ s use o fa cove r sto ryto d i sgui se a s topN o. 10

- 1608 13

as a m er e t ra ffic s to p . See U nited S t a t e s v . Ch a vez , 53 4 F
. 3d 1338 , 13 41- 42 ( 10th Cir
. 20 08) ( w here o ffi cerstop ped suspect at DE A ’ s r equest, the f act that the o ffi cerpre tended that the s top was f ora f ai l ure to turn o n headl i ghts i n or der to concea l a confi denti ali nfo rm ant’ s i denti ty and prote ct th e i nt eg r i tyo fthe DEA i nv es ti g at i o n di d no t pr ec l ude the ap p lication of the collective know ledge doc trine); U nited Sta tes v. R a m irez , 47 3 F. 3d 1026 , 10 38 ( 9th Ci r. 20 07) (K oz in sk i, J., c on c u rrin g) (“d isg u isin g th e st op a s a ‘tra ffic sto p ’ w as a va l i d l aw enf or cem ent t acti c ca l cul ate d to en su r e ano ffi ce r ’ s sa f ety . . . [a nd] di d no t ch an g e th e nature o fthe sto p, ” o r the f act that the s top was m ade at the di re cti on o fan offi cerwh o had probabl e ca use, such th at th e coll ective know ledge d octrine ap p li es). M oreover, th e F i ftha nd Te nth Ci r cui ts h ave c o ns i der ed i ns tr uct i o ns l i ke the one Gu ti er re z gave Si m on, and c oncl ud ed that such an i nstr ucti on does notbar the appli cati on ofthe col l ecti ve knowle dge doctr i ne. I n U nited Sta tes v. Ibarra -Sa nc hez , 199 F. 3d 753 ( 5th C ir. 1999 ) , a DE A age nt i nstr ucted the l oca l pol i ce di spatcherto i ssue a r adio bu lleti n sta ti ng tha t a DE A ag ent ne eded as si st an ce i n s to ppi nga v ans us pec te d t o b e tr an spo r ting d ru gs or w ea p on s, an d th at th e offic er s s h ou ld form th eir ow n rea so n ab le s u sp icio n be for e s to p p in g t h e v an . Id. at7 57
. The DE A ag en t as k ed l o ca l a utho r i ti es t o make the sto p to avo i d re veal i ng the exi ste nce o fthe DE A i nvest i gatio n . Id. a t 75 7 n. 1. The di spa tc he r i ss ue d the b ul l et i n, b ut d i d n o ti n c l u d e th e i n s t r u c t i o n th a t o ffi c e r s f o r m th e i r o wn re as on ab le s u sp icio n . Id. at75 7. Af te r he ar i ngthe b ul l et i n, a pol i ce offi cer and S W A T tea m sto pp ed the van. 199 F. 3d at7 57
. The F i fthCi r cui t he l d tha t th e stop w as c o ns ti tu
-14 N o. 10

- 1608 ti onalbec ause the DEA ag ent’ s know led ge coul d be i m pu ted to the offi cer s under the c ol l ecti ve kn owledge d oc tr in e. Id. at 759-60. T he c ou rt noted that the d ispa tch er’s “f ai l ure to re l ate [ the a gent’ s] i nstr ucti on tha t the [ l oca l p oli ce] officers f orm their ow n reason able s us p ici on be fore sto pp i ng the van” w as “i rr el evant
. ” Id. at 760 n.6. T he cou rt f ound the defendants’ a rg u m ent t o the c ontr ar y t o be “i m m ate ri al

. . . bec ause und ert h e ‘c ol l ecti ve knowle dge’ d o c t r i n e , th e [ l o c a l ] o ffi c e r s d i d n o t n e e d t o f o r m th e i r o wn suspi ci on. ” Id. A s W i l l i ams poi nt s o ut, the m es sa g e ab o ut dev el o pi ngi nde pen den t su spi ci o n was no t r el ay ed to the det aini ngo ffi ce r s i n Iba r r a -Sa nc hez , w hile Gu tierrez’s i nstr ucti on was co m m unica ted to S i m on here. B ut the Fi fth Cir cui t’ s descr i pti on o f t h e d i spatcher ’ s f ai l ure to pass o n the instr ucti on a s “ i rr el evant, ” and i ts chara cter i zati on o f the de fen d ants’ ar gum ent that the f ai l ure som ehow w as re lev an t a s “ im m at er ial,” ind ica te th at th e c ou rtw ou ld h a v e c o n c l u d e d th a tth e c o l l e c t i v e kn o wl e d g e d o c t r i ne appli ed re gar dle ss ofwh etherthe i nstr ucti on was i ncl ud ed in th e b u llet in
. Id. C ha vez i s ev enmor e fac tu al l y a na l o g o us t o the i ns ta nt case . There , the re questi ng D EA agent instr ucted the sta te pol i ce o ffi certa ske d w i th st opping a ve hi cl e s uspecte d to be t ra nsport i ng co cai ne to d eve l op h i s ow n probabl e ca use for st op p in g t h e v eh icle . 534 F.3d at 13 41
. T h e Te n th C irc u it f ou nd tha tthe s t o p wa s p r o pe r u nd e r the c o l l e c ti ve knowle dge doctr i ne be cause the D EA agent w ho r equeste d th e s t o p h ad p ro b ab le c au se . Id

. at 1348. Th e cou rt ap p are n t l y f o u n d th e i n s t r u c t i o n th a t th e o ffi c e r d e v e l o p h i s o wn probabl e ca use t o be o fno conseq u en c e t o the c ol l ecti ve k no wl edg e i nqui r y , as i t di d no t addr es s th e instr uct i o n,N o. 10

- 1608 15 except t o note thatthe offi cer ’ s use o fa c over sto ryto c on c ea l the re aso n f orthe sto p “w as a va l i d l aw enf or cem ent t acti c. ” Id. ( qu o ti ng R a m irez , 47 3 F
. 3d at 1038 (K ozinski, J. , conc urring)). W i l l i am s a l so conten d s that the co l l ecti ve knowle dge d oc tr in e d oe s no t a p p ly b ec au se Sim on te st ified th at h e d id not re l y o n the i nfo rm ati on he re cei ved fro m Gutie rr ez to j usti fy t h e search. But Si m on’ s s ubj ecti ve re aso ns f or m aki ng the sto p and ini ti ati ng the se ar ch ar e i rr el evant, as “[ s] ubj ecti ve i ntenti ons pla y no r ol e i n the or dinary, probabl e- cause Four th A m endm ent a nal ysi s. ” Whren v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U
. S. 806, 813 ( 1996 ) ( case l aw “f or ecl ose [ s] any a rg um en t that the c onst i tuti onalr eas onabl eness o f tr affi c st o ps depe nds o n the actu al m o ti va ti o ns o fthe in d ivid u al off ice rs inv olv ed ”); see also Flo rida v. R o yer, 46 0 U. S
. 4 91 , 5 07( 19 83 ) ( th e f ac t th ato ffi cers acte d o n o ne r at i o na l e i n c o nduc tinga s earc h do es “ no t f o r ec l o se the [ g o ve r nm en t] fr o m j us ti fy i ng[ th e se ar ch ] b y pr o vi ng pr o babl e c au se ”)
. The r efo r e, S i m o n’ s m o ti va ti o ns f o r the st o p a nd s e a r c h do n o ta ff e c tthe c o l l e c t i v e kno wl edge doctr i ne anal ysi s. O ur d ecision is con sisten t w ith th e N in t h C ircuit’s op in ion inR a m irez
. I n R a m irez , a pol i ce s er gea nt r equeste d that a uni f or m ed offi cerm ak e a “tr affi c st op” o fa car suspecte d to have been i nvol ved in a d rug tr ansact i on. 47 3 F. 3d at 1029
. A uni f or m ed office r m ade the re quested tr affi c st op w hen he o bser ved the car str add l i ng two l anes. Id . Th e d efe n d an ts arg u ed th at th e s to p w as inv alid b ec au se lan e-s tr ad d lin g is n ot illega l. Id

. at 103 0. Based o n Whren , the N i nth Cir cui t co n c l ud ed that nei therthe f act16 N o. 10

- 1608 that th e officer “w as dir ecte d to m ake a tr affi c st op, ” no r the f act that he m ay not have had “val i d gro und s t o m ake th e tr affi c st o p b ec au se o fl an e- st r addl i ng, ” was r el ev an t be caus e th e o ffi ce r ha d pr o babl e ca us e ba se d o n the c olle c tiv e k n ow led ge d oc tr in e. Id

. at10 30. W i l l i am s m ai ntai ns that even i fthe col l ecti ve knowle dge d oc tr in e a p p li es, o nl y Guti er re z’ s know l edge

— and not that ofthe enti re DE A ta sk force

— ca n b e i m put ed to S i m o n. W i l l i ams a ss er ts t wo a r g um en ts i n s uppo r t o ftha t po si ti o n. F i r s t, h e c o n t e n d s th a t th e k n o wl e d g e g l e a n e d f r o m t he w i re taps cannot be i m pu ted to Si m on becau se G uti er re z di d no t l i st ento the wi r et ap co nv er sa ti o ns . S ec o nd, he ar gues that the know l edge o fthe DE A ag ents ( i.e. , the substa nce o fthe w i re ta p conver sat i ons) canno t be i m pu ted to Gut i er r ez b ec au se he wor k ed f o r a di ff er en t ag en cy, the CPD. W e addr es s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n. A s no ted abo ve, Gutie rr ez w as a m em bero fthe DE A

- l ed ta skf o r ce . He te st i fi ed tha t, pri o r t o b r i efi ngS i m o n a nd the othe r CP D offi cer s, he b ecam e a w ar e th at c al l s had be en i nter cepted i nd i cati ng that there w as going to be a nar cot
ics sa le a t t h e M on ito r re sid en c e. G u tie rre z w as in ra d io co nt ac t wi thmem be r s o fthe s ur ve i l l an ce t ea m who in for m ed h i m t h at th ey h ad ob se rv ed H ow ar d an d W ill i ams e nt era nd l ea ve the M onitorr es i den ce c ar r y i ngthe shoe box. There f or e, bas ed on co m m unica tio n s w i th o ther task for ce m em ber s, Gutie rr ez had i nd i re ct know l edge o f the f acts supporting pro babl e ca use. W e pr ev i o us l y ha ve he l d th at whethe r th e reque st i ng offic er h ad d ire c t k n ow led ge of th e fa c ts su p p or t i n g h is suspi ci on i s “ i nconsequenti al ” w here the age nts in posse s-N o. 10

- 1608 17 sion of the know ledge and the requ esting age nt s are “p art o fa c o o r di na te d i nv es ti g at i o n” an d ar e i n c o m m uni ca ti o n. N a fzger, 974 F
. 2d at 914 . The know l edge o fa tea m o f o ffi ce r s “wo r k [ i ng ] t o g ethe r c l o se l y i n m o ni to r i ng [ a] dr ug t r a ns a c t i o n a s i tunfo l d[ s ]
. . . ‘ may b e mutua l l y i mput e d’ ” eve n the absence of “ ’ express testi m ony that the s peci fi c o r detai l ed i nfo rm ati on cr eat i ng the j usti fi cati on f orthe sto p w as conve yed. ’ ” U nited Sta tes v . P a rra , 40 2 F
. 3d 752, 76 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05) ( quoti ng N a fzger, 974 F
. 2d at 911)
. There f or e, knowle dge o fthe i nfo rm ati on co ntai ned i n the i nter cepted p h on e ca lls c an b e im p u te d to G u tie rre z b as ed on h is ro le i n the t as kf o r ce ’ s i nv es ti g at i o n. W i l l i a ms ’ s s e c o n d o b j e c t i o n a l s o f a i l s t o c a r r y t he da y, al though we r eco gni ze that the l anguage o fso m e o f our prece dents m ay be m i sl eadi ng. W e hav e s ai d that k no wl edg e m ayb e im p ut ed t o a n o ffi ce r “ so l o nga s th e kn ow ledge of th e officer directing th e [challenged action], or the collective know ledge of t heage ncy h e w o rks f or, i s su ffi ci ent t o const i tute probabl e ca use. ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Va le ncia , 913 F.2d 378 , 383 (7th C ir. 1990) (em p ha sis add ed ). T h at lan gu ag e w as d es ign ed to r e c og n ize th at th e k n ow ledg e o fo th e r o ffi c e r s ma y b e i mpu t e d t o th e r e q u es ti ng offi cer, so l ong a s th e o ffi cer s a re i n cl ose co m m unica ti on wi th o ne a no the r . He r e , Gu t i e r r e z wa s a s s i g ne d t o the DE A ta skf o r ce and wor k ed cl o se l y wi thDEA ag en ts o n the drug tr affi cki ng i nvest i gat i on. That he car ri ed a b adge i ss ue d b y the CPD, no t th e DEA , do es no t pr ec l ud e th e appli cati on o fthe col l e c t i v e kno wl e dg e do c t r ine . T he re f or e, th e d istri ct c o u r t correctly i m p ut ed the D E A task force’s k no wl edg e to Gut i er r ez a nd S i m o n.18 N o. 10

- 1608 I I I . Conclusi on Forthe f or ego i ng r eas ons, we AF FIRM th e d istri ct cou rt’s j ud gm ent.

10- 25- 10