H on. Sam uel Der- Y eghiayan, D is tr ic t J ud ge f or the N orther n  Dis t ri c tofI l l i noi s , i s s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## 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. 08

- 3574 K EN NE T H E. G EN TRY, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. M AR K R. S EVIE R, S u p e r i n t e n d e n to fth e Mi a mi C or re c tio n al F ac ility , R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, S outh Bend D ivisi on.

No . 06- C- 350

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Judg e.
A RGUED N OVE MBE R 10, 2009

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 26, 2010

Befo re P O SNER an d F LA UM, Cir cu i tJudges , a nd D ERY EG HI AY AN, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  D ER-Y EG HIA YAN, D i s t r i ctJudg e . On J une 10, 19 99, K enneth E. Gentrywas convi cted i n the M ar i on S up er i or2 N o. 08

- 3574 Court ofI nd i ana o n thr ee c ou n ts o fburg l ar y a nd thr ee coun t s o fthe ft
. Du r i ngthe t r i a l, the Go v e r nme nti ntro
d uc ed eviden ce th at w as obta in e d by police officers d uring an en cou nt er w ith G en try w he n th e po li ce offi cers sea rche d G en try’ s per son and a wh eelbar ro w he was p us hin g. A t no tim e before or du ring the trial d id G en try’s counselm ove to suppress o r obj ect to the i n tr od ucti on ofthe evi dence. Gentry ’ s habe as p et iti on a sse rt s that by f ai l i ng to m ove to suppress o r obj ect to the a dm i ssi on o fthe e vi den ce o bt ai ne d fr o m the s ea r ch es b y the ar re sti ng offi cer s, Gentryr ecei ved i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce ofco unsel . T he di str i ct c ourtdeni ed Gentry ’ s habe as pet i ti on. F o r the r ea so ns s ta te d b el o w, we r ev er se the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fthe habe as pe ti ti o n.

I . B a c kg r o und A t approxi m ate l y 2: 30 a. m . , on Febr uary 6, 19 99, Kenn eth E
. Ge nt ry w as w alki ng throu gh a res id en tial ne ighborhoo d i n I nd i a na po l i s , I nd i a na . Ge nt r y wa s pu s hi ng a w heelbar ro w co ntai ni ngmi s cel l aneous i tem s s uch as too l s, a ce l l phon e, com pac t di sc s, a nd b ee r . The i te m s i n the w heelbar ro w w er e parti al l y c ove re d by a ye l l ow rai ncoat
. Wh i l e G e n t r y w a s wa l k i n gwi th t h e wh e e lb a r r o w, s o me i te m s f el l o uto fthe whe elba r r o w. The no i se wok e up r es i den ts i n th e ar ea, an d upo n wak i ng, o ne resi den t obs er ved Gentryfr om a window and cal l ed the pol i ce. Based on the cal l, di spatch a t the I nd i anapol i s Po l i ce Dep ar tm ent no ti fi ed offi cer s o verthe r adio abo ut a “s us pi ci o us pe r so n” d esc r ibe d a s a bl ac kmal e wea r i ng dar kc l o th i ng, i nc l udi ngc amoufl ag e pan ts , a nd pus hi ngN o. 08

- 3574 3

a w h ee lba rro w . (A p p . at 1 , 3, 59, 1 4 7 )
. T w o In d ian ap olis po l i ce o f fi ce r s r es po nde d t o the di spa tc h. Upon ar r ivi ng i n t h e a r e a , o n e o ffi c e r o b s e r v e d G e n t r y fr o m the ma r k e d p a t r o l c ar “t r o t t i n g ” wi th th e wh e e lb a r r o w. ( A pp . at60 , 14 7)
. The o ffi cer s pul l ed up in the pa tr olcar w ithou t activat ing th eir em ergen cy eq uip m en t . G en try putdo wn th e whee lba r r o w, wav ed to the o ffi ce r s an d bega n w al ki ng to w ar ds the p atr olcar . One offi cergo t o uto fthe c a r and tol d Ge nt r y t o “ k e e p [ hi s ] h a nd s u p” w hile the offic e r p atted dow n G en try. (A p p . at 63). W hi l e co nd ucti ng the pat down, the o ffi cer fe lt som ethi ng bul ky i n Gentry ’ s pock et and disc ov er ed i t was a g ar age d oor opener . Duri ng thi s i ni ti alco ntact w i th G en try, the offi ceras ked Gentr y what he was doi ng with th e whee lba r r o w a nd Gen tr y i ndi ca te d th at he was go i ng ho m e. The o f fi ce r o bs er ve d a ho dge po dge of ite m s i n the w heelbar ro w and the w heelbar ro w h ad the word “Bra nd t” spraypai nted on i ts sid e. ( A pp . at4, 61 )
. The o ffi cer te st if i ed th ati n pl ai n v i ew he s aw s o m e o l d b ea t- up st u ff, an d th at h e fo u n d n ew er , m or e v alu ab le ite m s o n ly a ft e r h e s t a r t e d p o k i n ga r o u n d i n th e wh e e lb a r r o w. (A p p . at 84, 86-87, 91). The offi cerwh o h ad been i nter ro gat i ng Gentr y then l e ftG e n t r y wi t h a n o th e r o ffi c e r a n d dr o v e pa r t i a l l y d o wn a nea rbyal l ey w hi l e a cti vating the ga ra ge dooro pener th at th e officer had earli er obtained from Ge nt ry’s poc k e t
. Th e o f fi c e r wi th the g a r a g e do o r o pe ne r discove re d thatthe gar age dooro pener opened the gar age ofa nearby re si dence owned by J effGil l

. M ean w h ile, the o thero f fi cerw h o re m ai ned w i th Gentryco nti nued the sear ch ofthe w heelbar ro w and dis cove re d a to olbox4 N o. 08

- 3574 at the b ott om o fthe w heelb ar ro w . I n the too lbox was a J i f fy Lu b e re cei pt thathad Gil l ’ s nam e a nd address o n i t. The offi cerwith the ga ra ge dooro pener then ar ri ved at th e s c en e w ith G ill an d G ill i d en tifie d i t e m s in th e w h ee lba r r o w as hi s pr o per ty
. S ubs eque nt l y , Bi l l W he r l i ng f ro m Brant Constr ucti on id enti fi ed the w heelbar ro w and i tem s i n the w heelbar ro w as tho se that w er e s tol en f ro m Brandt Constr ucti on duri ng a burgl ar y a few days ear l i er . Bob Ke n n edy, Gil l ’ s next- doornei ghboral so subsequentl y i denti fi ed i tem s i n the w heelbar ro w as i tem s pre vi ousl y s tol en fro m hi s g ar age . G en tr y w as ch ar ge d w ith bu rg lar y a n d th eft, an d h is case pro ceeded to tr i al

. Gentry’s tri alco unsel neve r mov e d t o s up pr e s s any e v i de nc e o r o b j e c tt o the a dm i ssi on o fany evi dence ob tai ned fr om the sea rch of Gentry’ s per son orthe w heelbar ro w . Gentrydi d fil e a pro sem otion to su p p ress p riorto his trial, (A p p . a t 12-16), but the r eco rd does notr efl ect that the t ri alco urt eve r ruled on the m oti on o r that Gentry’ s t ri alco unsel eve r add re sse d the pro se m ot io n w i th th e c ou rt . In J une 199 9, Ge n try was co nvi cted bya j ury on three cou nt s of bu rglary and three c o un ts of theft. Ge nt ry appeal ed hi s convi cti on to the Court ofA pp eal s o fI nd i ana, ra i si ng va ri ous c l ai m s i ncl ud i ng c laim s that he re cei ved ineffective assistan ce of cou ns el d ue to hi s c ou ns el’ s f ai l ure to ra i se Gentry’ s Fourth A m endm ent defenses . The Court ofA pp ea l s o fI nd i ana f ound that a l though the offi cer w ho i ni ti al l y approached Gentry d id not ha v e r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n t o p a tdo wn Ge nt r y f o r we a pon s , th e t oo lbo x in t h e w h ee lba rro w w as ind ep en d en tly d i sc o ve r ed an d woul d ha ve l ed th e o ffi ce r s to Gill ’sN o. 08

- 3574 5 g a r a g e . T h e C o u r tc o n c l ud e d th a tG e n t r y h a d n o ts h o wn i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel si nce Gentr y d id not show that he w as p rej ud i ced by hi s co unsel ’ s f ai l ure to obj ect to the intro du cti on o ft h e e vi dence thatwas prod uc ed b y the s ea r ch es . The Co ur t o fAppea l s o fI ndi an a affi rm ed G en try’s con viction on Septe m ber 8, 2000
. Ge nt ry filed a p eti ti on f orr evi ew with the S up re m e Cour t o f I nd i ana, rais ing the sa m e i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o f counselcl ai m s. The S uprem e Cour t o fI nd i ana deni ed r e v i e w o n Oc t o b e r 2 3 , 2 0 0 0
. Ge nt r y subse qu e nt l y fi l e d a p r o se peti ti on f orpost
- convi cti on r el i efi n I nd i ana s tat e cou rt, w hich w as d en ied on J an ua ry 27, 2005
. Th ereafter, Ge nt r y fi l ed a p r o se ap p ea l w ith th e C ou rtof A p p ea ls ofI nd i ana, wh i ch affi rm ed the l ower co urt on M ar ch 15, 20 06
. Ge n t r y th e n fi l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w w i th the Suprem e Cour t of I nd i ana, wh i ch w as denie d on A pri l 13 , 2006
. O n Ju ne 2, 20 06, Gentryfi l ed hi s habe as peti ti on i n thi s ca se, se ek in g a w ri t o fhabea s co rpus pursuant to 28 U
. S. C. § 2 254.

I I . Discussi on W e r evi ew de novo the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa habeas p et itio n . Lu ca s v. M o ntg o m ery, 58 3 F
. 3d 1028 , 10 30 ( 7th Cir
. 20 09)
. Pursua n t t o the Antit er ro ri sm and Effecti ve Dea thPe na l tyActo f1 99 6, a fede r al c ou rt can no t g r an t habe as r el i eft o a “ per so n i n c us to dy pur su an t to the j udg m en t o f a S ta te co ur t
. . . unl es s th e adj udi ca ti o n o fthe c laim

— ( 1) r esul ted i n a deci si on that was co ntra ryto , o r i n vo l ved an unre aso nabl e a pp l i cati on o f, cl ear l y e stabli sh ed Fed eral l aw , as de term ined b y the Sup rem e C ou rt6 N o. 08

- 3574 ofthe U ni ted S tat es ; o r ( 2) r esul ted i n a deci si on that was b as ed o n an unre aso nabl e dete rm i nati on o fthe f acts i n l i ght o fthe evi dence pres ented i n the St ate co urt proceed ing.” 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254(d ). A d e c is ion of a state cou rt i s dee m ed to be “ ‘ co nt r ar y to ’ f ede r al l aw, wi th in the m ean in g o f th e federa l ha beas statu te, ifthe sta te cou rt ei th eri nc o r r ec tl y l ai d o utg o ve rning Uni te d S ta te s S uprem e Cour t pr ecedent, o r, having i denti fied t he co rr ect ru le of la w , d ec id ed a c as e d iffer en tly th an a m at er ially f actual l y i nd i sti ngui shabl e S up re m e Cour t ca se. ” Su therla nd v. G aetz , 581 F. 3d 614, 616 ( 7th Cir
. 2009 ) ( quo tin g in p ar t 2 8 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d )(1) ). A st at e c ou rt ’s “ u n re as on ab le a p p l i c a t i o n” o fp r e c e d e n to fth e U n i t e d S t a t e s S u p r e me Cour t“ o c c ur s , wi thi n the me a ni ngo fthe fe deral habeas st atute , wh en a sta te cour t i denti fi es the c or re ct g o ve r ni ngl eg alr ul e butunr ea so nabl y a ppl ies it to the fa c t s of a c as e o r if th e s ta te co u rteit h er u n re as on ab ly extends a l ega l p ri nci ple fr om the Suprem e C ourt ’ s pre cedent to a new co n te x t in w hi ch i t s houl d not a pp l y o r unr e a s o nab l y r e fus e s t o e xt e nd tha t pr i nc i pl e t o a new c o nt e xti n whi c h i ts ho ul d a ppl y. ” Id. ( qu oting in p art 28 U .S.C . § 22 54 (d )(1) ); s e eal s o Em e rs on v. Sh aw , 57 5 F. 3d 680 , 6 8 4 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( s t a t i ngtha tf o r the u nr e asonab l e a pp l i cati on pro ng, a peti tio ner “m ust s how that the [ s t a t e c o ur t ’ s ] de c i s i o n wa s ‘ s o e r r o ne o us a s t o be obj ecti vel y unre aso nab le’ ”) ( quoti ng i n part Bade l l ev. C orre ll, 45 2 F
. 3d 648, 65 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06))
. The phras e “[ c]lea rly e stabl i shed federa l l aw ” in the habeas st atute h as be en int er p re te d t o “ m ea n [ ] th e g ov er n in g p rin c ip le o r p r i n c i p l e s s e tf o r th b y th e S u p r e me C o u r ta tth e t i me th e s tat e co urt re nd er s i ts deci si on. ” Luc as , 5 8 3 F. 3d atN o. 08

- 3574 7 1030 ( i nter nal quotati ons om i tte d) ( quoti ng i n part Lo ckyer v . A ndr ade, 53 8 U.S
. 63 , 71

- 72, 12 3 S
. Ct. 11 66, 15 5 L
. E d

. 2d 144 (2003)).

A
. S ear ches I nci dent to the A rr est W hen th e o f fi ce r s pul l ed up in the i rpa tr o lc ara nd o ne o f fi c e r ex i t e d t he ca r an d t o l d Ge nt r y t o “ k e e p [ hi s ] h a nd s up , ” the o f fi cerexec uted a Te r ry s t o p . ( Ap p . a t6 3 )
. An offi cerexec utes a F ourth A m endm ent s ei zure wh en “by m ea ns o fphy si ca l f o r ce o r s how o fa utho r i ty[ th e offic er ]
. . . in s om e w ay res tr ain [s] t h e lib er ty of a c itiz en .” Sh ell v. U nited Sta tes , 4 48 F. 3d 951, 95 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d) ( quoti ng i n part Ter ry v . O hi o, 3 92 U
. S. 1, 19 n. 16 , 88 S
. Ct. 18 68, 20 L. Ed

. 2d 889 ( 1968 ) )
. The te st f oras ses si n g whether a s ei zure f or Four th A m endm ent purpos es h as o ccurr ed i s whether “i n v i ew o fal l o fthe c i r cumst an ce s su r r o undi ngthe i nci dent, a re aso nabl e per son w oul d have be l i eve d that he w as not f ree t o leave

. ” M i ch igan v. Che s t e r nut, 486 U
. S. 567, 573, 1 08 S
. Ct. 1 97 5, 1 97 9 ( 19 88 ) ( i nt erna l quo ta ti o ns om i tte d) ( quotin g in part U nite d State s v. M endenhall, 44 6 U .S. 54 4, 5 5 4 , 1 00 S.C t. 18 70 , 187 7 (1 98 0)). A rea so n ab le perso n i n G en tr y’s posi ti on, wh o saw a m ar ked pol i ce carpullup and w ho was to l d by a p oli ce o ffi certo ke ep hi s hands up, would not b elie ve that he was fre e t o lea ve . Se e, e . g., S m ith v. Ke nny, 20 09 W L 24319 49, at* 23 ( D.N.M
. 20 09) ( consi deri ng the f act that the s uspect w as “ o r d er [ed ] to ex it [a res id en c e] w ith h an d s u p ” in ass ess i ng wh ethera Four th A m endm ent s ei zure had oc c u rre d ); Uni t e d S tate s v. Br own , 200 3 W L 23 14 48 58 , at *3 ( N
. D. I l l

. 20 03) ( fi nd i ng tha t a Te r ry sto p occur re d based8 N o. 08

- 3574

o n f a c t s s u c h a s t h a t th e o ffi c e r “ o r d e r e d e v e r y o n e to put t he i r h a nd s u p” )
. T hu s , the o ffi c e r wh o i ni t i al l y a ppr o ac he d Ge nt r y e ng ag ed in a F o ur thAm en dm en t sei zure o fGentryi m m edi ate l y a fterar ri vi ng atthe scene. A l aw enforcem en t officer ca n ex ecu te “an i nv estigatory sto p w hen the offi cerhas re as onable suspi ci on that a cri m e m ay be a f oo t. ” U ni t e d S ta tes v. Ham pt on , 58 5 F
. 3d 10 33 , 10 38 (7t h C ir. 20 09 ). In ord er to co n d u c t a n “in ve st ig at o r y st o p” co ns i st en t wi th Ter ry v. O hio , 392 U
. S. 1 ( 1968 ), “a n offic er m u st be ‘aw ar e o f sp ec ific a n d art icu lab le f acts gi vi ng ri se to re aso nabl e suspi ci on’ ” that th er e m ay b e crim in al ac tiv ity oc c u rrin g. Jew ett v. A nd ers , 52 1 F
. 3d 818, 82 3- 25 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti n g i n part U nited Sta tes v. Til m on , 19 F.3 d 12 21 , 12 24 (7t h C i r . 1 99 4)); see also U ni t e d S ta tes v. Ar vizu , 53 4 U.S
. 26 6, 27 3, 12 2 S
. Ct. 74 4, 75 0 (2 00 2) (s ta tin g t h a t “ th e F ou rt h A m en d m en t is sa tis fied if th e o ffice r’s ac tio n is su p p or te d by rea so n ab le suspi ci on t o bel i eve thatcr i m i nal act i vi ty m ay be af oo t”) ( i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d) ( quoti ng i n part Terry, 39 2 U .S. at 3 0); s e eal s o W

hre n v . U nited Sta tes , 51 7 U.S
. 80 6, 80 9- 10 , 1 16 S
. Ct. 1 76 9, 1 77 2 ( 19 96 ) ( i nd i ca tingtha t ev ena te m p or ar y d et en tio n ca n b e a se izu re ); V a la nc e v. Wisel , 11 0 F. 3d 1269 , 12 76 ( 7th C i r. 1997) (i nd i cati ng tha t a Ter ry sto p const i tutes a sei zure )
. A r eas onabl e s usp icion re quir es “mor e th ana hun chb utl es s th an pro babl e ca us e an d ‘c on sid er ab ly les s t h an p re p on d e ra n c e o f th e e vid en c e.’ ” Je w et t, 521 F.3d at 823 -25 (quot ing in pa rtIllino i s v. War dl ow , 52 8 U .S. 11 9, 12 3, 12 0 S
. Ct. 67 3, 14 5 L. Ed

. 2d 570 (20 00 )). D et er m in in g w h et h er an offic er h ad a re as on ab le su spi ci o n i s as se ss ed co ns i der i ng“ th e to ta l i tyo fthe ci r cumst an ce s, ” an d “ ‘ co m m o n- se ns i ca l j udg m en ts a nd i nfe re nces about hum an behavi or . ’ ” Id. ( qu oting in p artN o. 08

- 3574 9 U nite d State s v. B askin , 40 1 F
. 3d 788, 791 (7th Cir

. 20 05) )
. Fo r a n i nt e r a c t i on to r e mai n a v a l i d Ter ry sto p, the sto p m ust be “ l i m i ted i n sco pe and executed through the l eas t re st ric tiv e m ea n s re as on ab le. .

. . ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v. Gr ogg, 53 4 F .3 d 8 0 7, 81 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 30 0 F.3 d 74 0, 74 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 02) ( sta ti ng tha t a “p rop er Terryst o p m us t be r ea so nabl e i n s co pe an d d u ra tio n an d offic er s a r e p er m itt ed to ta ke rea so n ab le step s to i ns ure their ow n safety” ). The o ff ic erwho i ni ti al l y a ppr o ac he d Ge nt r y l ac k ed an y ar ti cul abl e f acts atthatpoi nt to j usti fy a Ter ry stop. The offic er w as ac tin g s ole ly u p on a ge n er al re p or t o f a “s u sp ici ous pe r so n, ” ( App. a t 1, 5 9) , whi chdi d no t pr o vi de an y ar ti cul abl e f acts thatwould sugg estthe perso n w as co m m i tt i nga c r i m e o r w as ar m ed. I n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pack er, 15 F
. 3d 654 ( 7th Ci r. 19 94) , thi s Courthel d that a re portr ecei ved by pol i ce o ffi cer s ofa “suspi ci ous v ehi cl e” i n w hi ch f our m en were si tti ng was not suf fi ci en t to provi de the offi cer s w ith a r eas onabl e s uspici on t o j usti fy a Ter ry st op . Id. a t 65 5. As i n P a ck er, th e o fficer w ho i ni ti al l y a pp ro ached G en tr y was notpro vi ded with su f fi ci en t i nfor m at i o n i n the po l i ce di spa tc h t o war r an t a Ter ry st op . Th e d isp at c h d id n o t i n d ica te an y s p ec ific f acts co ncer ni ng a cri m e a nd the gener alr efer ence to a “suspi ci ous per son” w as notsuffi ci ent t o j usti fy a Terry st o p o fGe nt r y . I n U nite d State s v . L en o ir, 31 8 F
. 3d 725 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03), t h is Cour t hel d that a “pol i ce obser vati on of an ind ivi d ua l, fitti ng a police dis p atch de script ion of a perso n i nvol ved i n a di sturbance, neari n ti m e a nd ge ogr aphic loc ati on t o the di sturbance est abl i shes a r eas o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n th a tth e i n d i v i d u a l i s th e s u b j e c to fthe10 N o. 08

- 3574 dispat ch” and can j usti fy a Ter ry st op . Id. at 729. H ow ever, i n L en oirthe pol i ce di spatch r efer re d to “a disturbance i nvol vi ng an unidenti fi ed m al e with a gun.” Id. The o f fi ce r tha t ar r i ve d o n the s ce ne i n Lenoirwas thus i nfor m ed th a t t h e in d ivid u al in qu es tio n w as inv olv ed in c r i mi n a l a c ti vi t y a n d p o s s e s s e d a g u n . I n th i s c a s e , h o wev er, th e o f fi ce r th ata ppr o ac he d Ge nt r y was t o l d no th i ng m o r e th an th at th e “s us pi ci o us per so n” w as p ushi ng a wheelbar ro w , wh i ch i s no t a cr i m e. T he un di spu te d r ec o r d a l so make s cl ea r tha t Gen try hi m sel fd id n ot g i ve the o ffi cer s a r eas on t o suspect that he had b een engag ed i n any w ro ngdoi ng. The U ni ted St ate s S up re m e C ourthas re cogni zed, f orexam ple , that “unprovo ked fl i ght” by a su sp ect can sug ges t wrongd oin g. See, e. g., War dl ow , 52 8 U.S
. at12 4, 12 0 S
. Ct. at67 6. The offi cerwh o i n itia l l y a pp ro ached Gentryte sti fi ed that he s aw Ge nt r y “ tr o tt i ng, ” butdi d no t te st i fy tha t he sa w G en tr y a tt em p t t o flee u p on be in g s ee n by th e o ffic er s. W h en th e office rs p u lled u p in t h e p at ro l ca r, n ot on ly di d Gen tr y no t fl ee , to th e co nt r ar y , he set dow n the whee lba r r o w, wav ed to the o ffi ce r s an d b eg anwal k i ng tow ard s the m . T he offi cer w ho initial ly ap p roach ed Ge nt ry al so t es ti fi ed th ata l th o ug h Ge nt ry w as ca r r y i ngb ee r a nd pu bl i c i ntoxi cati on i s a bas i s f oran a rr est, i t did notappear t h a t Ge n t r y wa s i n t o x i c a t e d

. T h e r e a r e n o f a c t s i n t he re cor d concer ni ng any a c tio n by Gentry ordetai l s r egar ding the a re a where Gentry w as f ou n d t h at sugge ste d th at G en try w as en gaged i n w ro ng d oing or that G en try p osed a threat to t he officers. Th us , w he n th e officers ar r i ve d a t th e sc en e o fthe a rr es t th eydi d no t ha ve a ny ba si s to f o r m a r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n n ec es sa r y t o c o ndu ct a Ter ry s t o p.N o. 08

- 3574 11 W e r eco gni ze that w or ki ng i n l aw enforce m ent i s a dem anding profess i on, often re quir i ng offi cer s t o m ake spl i t- se co nd d ec i si o ns , whi cha ff ec t th e sa f ety o fthe p u b lic an d th e o ffice rs . See P a ck er, 15 F. 3d at 659 (sta ti ng that pol i ce offi cer s “r egul ar l y ri sk thei r l i ves in t h e i n t e r e s t s o fpu b l i c s a f e t y , a n d y e ta tth e s a me t i me th ey are req u ire d to j u st ify th eir co n d u c t” an d ac kn ow led gin g t h at “fin e le ga l d ist in c tio n s . . . are m or e re ad ily mad e b y a c o u r t, w i th th e b e n e fi to fb r i e f s a n d h i nd

si ght, than on the st re et w here l i f e a nd lim b ar e a t s t a k e ” )
. I n t he c a s e b e f o r e u s , i ts ho ul d h a v e b e e n a pparent to the o f fi cer s that they ha d no bas i s t o execute a Ter ry st op whenthe y fi r sto bs er ve d Ge nt r y . W he n the o f fi cer s r ea ch ed th e sc en e an d s aw a pe r so n fi tt i ngthe descri pti on o fthe “susp icio us pers on, ” no thi ng pro hibited th em from ap p roach ing G en try and observing Ge nt ry on the public w ay wh i l e they a ske d G entr y quest i ons. A n offi cercan “approa ch[ ] i nd i vi du al s o n the str eeto r in ot h er p u b lic p lac es an d p u t [ ] q u es tio n s t o t h em if they ar e wil l i ng to l i ste n” and such co n d u c t doe s no t const i tute a F ourth A m en dm ent s ear ch and sei zure . U ni t e d S t at e s v. D r ayt on , 53 6 U.S . 194, 20 0, 12 2 S
. Ct. 21 05, 21 10 (2 0 0 2 ); Flo rida v. R o yer, 46 0 U.S
. 49 1, 49 7, 10 3 S
. Ct. 1 31 9, 1 32 4 ( 19 83 ) ( st at ing th at“ l aw e nf o r ce m en t offic er s d o n ot vio lat e t h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t b y m er e ly approachi ng an i nd i vi du alo n the str eeto r i n another pu bl i c pl ace, by as ki ng hi m i fhe i s willin g to answer so m e que st i o ns , b y put tingque st i o ns t o hi m i fthe per so n i s wi l l i ngt o l i st en, o r b y o ff er i ngi n e vi den ce in a cri m i nal pro secuti on hi s v ol untaryanswers to such questi ons”)
. Thus, questi oni ng G entr y o n the pu bl i c way12 N o. 08

- 3574 woul d notha ve “ tr i g g er [ ed] F o ur thAm en dm en t sc r ut i ny unle ss i t l os[ t] i ts conse nsua l nature. ” Flori da v. Bostick, 50 1 U. S
. 4 29 , 4 34 , 1 11 S. Ct. 2 38 2, 2 38 6 ( 19 91 )
. W hi l e en g a g i n g i n a c o n s e n s u a l c o n v e r s a t i o n wi th Ge n t r y , t he of f i c e r s c o ul d h a v e a l s o a s k e d f o r p e r mi s s i o n t o s e ar ch thro ugh the w heelba rr ow w i thout turni ng the i nter acti on i nto a Ter ry st op . See, e.g., i d. at 435, 23 86 ( sta ti ng tha t a n office r coul d “re quest c onse nt to se ar ch .

. . l uggag e” w i thout m aki ng the co n ta c t a Terry sto p). I fGentryhad c on se n te d to th e s ea rc h, h e w ou ld n ot h av e h ad an y b as is f orhi s m oti on t o supp re ss . T h e offi cer ’ s co ntact w i th Gentry w as neverconsensuali n nature , however, bec ause th e offi certo l d G entr y t o kee p his hands up. The conta ct was fur th eri nt r us i ve a nd no n- co ns en su alwhenthe offi cerco nd ucted the pat dow n on Gentr y. T h e offi certe sti fi ed that a pat dow n w as “r outi nel y” done “t o m ake sur e there ’ s no weapons i n [ a s uspect’ s] cl othi ng. ” ( A pp . at63 )
. W hi l e we r eco gni ze that offi cer safetyi s i m port ant, under t h e law, offi cer s a re notfre e to pat d ow n ci ti zens at w i l l

. A l aw enf or cem ent o ffi cer can co nd u c t a “pro tect i ve pat- dow n sea rch” du ri ng a Ter ry s t o p o n l y i fth e o ffi c e r h a s “a t a mi n i mu m s o me ar ti cul abl e s uspici on that the subj ect i s co nceal i ng a w ea p on or p os es a d an g e r t o t h e [o ffice r] or ot h er s. . . .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pe dr oza , 269 F.3d 821 , 827 (7th C ir. 2001); Uni t e d S t at e s v . Bu r r ows , 48 F. 3d 1011 , 10 15 ( 7th Ci r. 19 95) (recogn izi ng th at an officer is j us tif ie d un d er Ter ry to “c on d u c t a lim ite d p a t -d ow n for w ea p on s w h en sp ec ific ar ti cul ab l e f ac ts , a s o ppo se d t o a mer e i nc ho at e an d unp ar ti cul ar i zed suspi ci on o r hu n ch, l ead the offi certo be l i eve thatthe i ndi vi duale nc o unt er ed i s ar m ed an dN o. 08

- 3574 13 d an gerou s”). Th e officer w ho initial ly ap p roach ed Ge nt ry ha d no a r ti cul ab l e su spi ci o n tha t Gen tr y was arm ed an d d an ge ro u s. S e e, e . g. , Uni t e d State s v. Br own , 27 3 F
. 3d 747, 74 8- 49 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1) ( fi ndi ngtha t f ac ts suc h a s th e defen dan t’s “m ove m ents i n the car, hi s f ai l ure to produce a l i cense, and hi s qui ck m ove m ent” j u st ifi ed “a l i m i ted p atd ow n for w eap ons ”). A s p reviously d iscus sed , Ge nt ry d id n ot attem p t to flee or refuse to an sw er qu estions
. Th ere ar e no f acts thatwould i nd i cate thatGentry ’ s dem eanor or h i s a cti ons i nd i cate d he w as engag ed i n w ro ngdoi ng, m uch l es s th atGe nt r y was a thr ea t to the s afety o fthe offic er s o r th e p u b lic. See, e.g., U nited St a t e s v. B rew er, 56 1 F.3 d 67 6, 6 7 9 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ) (n ot in g t h at th e v eh icle obs er ved by offi cer“was the onl y v eh icle on the r oad at th at lat e h ou r in [a] h igh cr im e are a” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. H e ndr i cks , 3 19 F
. 3d 99 3, 1 00 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( fi ndi ng re aso nabl e s u spi ci on ba sed o n the f act that the s uspect was b eh i nd a c l o se d c o m m er ci ale st ab l i shm en t an d the officer had been aw are of recen t bu r g la r ie s i n th e area); Jac ks on , 30 0 F
. 3d at 746 ( sta ti n g that the ev al uati on o f w hethera sto p w as re aso nabl e i n sco pe can be bas ed on “ ‘ the b ehavi orand char ac teri sti cs o fthe suspect’ ”) ( quoti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. O dum , 7 2 F.3d 1279 , 1 284 (7th Cir. 1995 ))
. Th us , there w ere no facts kn ow n t o the offi cers at the t im e o fthe pat dow n that w oul d have g i ven the m r e a s o nab l e s us pi c i o n tha tGe nt r y h a d c o mm i t ted a cr i m e o r ar ti cul abl e f acts to sugg estt h at Gentrywas ar m ed an d d an ge ro u s. A lth ou gh th e o ffice rs u ltim at ely uncover ed Gentry ’ s bur gla ryand theft, such di sco ver i es ca nno t be us ed i n r et r o spe ctt o j us ti fy the i ni ti als ea r ch

. See B rew er, 56 1 F
. 3d at 67 8 ( st at i ng th at “ ‘ [ t] he rea so n-14 N o. 08

- 3574 abl eness o fo f fi ci alsuspi ci on m ust be m eas ured by wh at the o f fi cer s knew bef or e they c onducted thei r sea rch’ ”) ( quoti ng Flo rida v. J.L., 52 9 U.S
. 26 6, 271, 12 0 S
. Ct. 13 75, 14 6 L .E d .2d 25 4 (2 00 0)); se e also U nite d Sta te s v. G ri ff in , 58 9 F
. 3 d 1 4 8 , 1 5 4 n . 7( 4 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( i nd i c a t i ngtha t al tho ugh a g un wa s r e c o v e r e d b y the o ffi c e r du r i ng a se ar cho fthe v eh i cl e i n que st i o n, th e di sc o ve r y o fthe g un cou ld n ot be reli ed up on “ a s j us tification for th e search ”). The o f fi c e r wh o i n i t i a l l y a p p r o a c h e d G e n t r y th u s c o ndu cted the pat dow n and di sco ver ed the gar age d oo r o pen erwi th o utthe r equi si te r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n. E ve n if th e o ffice r w h o s ea rc h ed G en tr y h ad a b as is to conduct a Ter ry s t o p a nd a p a tdo wn, the o ffi cer en g aged i n a n un co ns ti tu ti o na l s ei zu r e when he re tr i eve d the g ar age dooro pen er fro m Gentry ’ s pock et an d d id not i m m edi ate l y r etur n the gar age dooro pener to G en tr y. T h e o ffice r te st ified th at h e fe lt a bu lge in G en tr y’s clo th in g t h at “c ou ld h av e b ee n a s t u n g u n . . . .” ( A pp . at63 )
. H owever, o nce the o ffi cerdiscover ed that the i tem i n Gentry ’ s pock et w as a g ar ag e d oo r opener and not a weapon, he ha d no bas i s t o seiz e or r eta i n i t, m uch l ess to dri ve offwith i t to i nvest i gat e whether G en tr y ha d c om m itt e d c r im es . U nite d State s v. P lace, 46 2 U
. S. 69 6, 71 6, 10 3 S
. Ct. 26 37, 26 49 (1 983) ( sta ti ng tha t “[ w ] hi l e Terrym ay author i ze sei zure s o fper sonaleff ects i nc i den t to a l awful s ei zu r e o fth e per so n, no th i ngi n the Terryl i ne o fcas es author i zes the pol i ce t o sei ze perso nal p rop erty, su ch as l ug gage, i nd ep en d en t of th e seizure ofthe perso n”)
. A ga ra ge dooro pener i s a n i tem that m i gh t co m m o nl y b e f o und o n a l aw- ab i di ngpe r so n a nd does not su gg es t any wrongdoi ng. Thus, the offi cerN o. 08

- 3574 15 vi o l at ed Gen tr y ’ s F o ur thAm en dm en t r i g ht s dur i ngthe i ni ti als to p, the pa t do wn o f Gen tr y , an d th e se i zu r e o fthe gar age dooro pener. W e no te that the C ourtof A pp eal s o f I nd ian a agr eed thatthe offi cerdi d not hav e a r easonab l e s uspici on t o j usti fy the pat dow n ofGentry
. I n additi on t o the se ar c h o fGentry, the offi cer s pro ceed ed to search throu gh the con ten ts o f th e w he elbarrow . Th e officer w ho initial ly ap p ro a c he d Ge nt ry tes ti fi ed that at one poi n t duri ng the i ni ti alco ntact w i th Gen tr y , the o f fi ce r po k ed th r o ug h the c o nt en ts o fthe whee lba r r o w . W hi l e o ne o ffi ce r dr o ve o fft o t es t th e gar age dooro pener, ano thero ffi cerenga ged i n a fur ther sea rch ofthe w heelbar ro w and dis cove re d item s s uch as th e toolbox an d receipt. I n d et e r m in in g w he th er a sea rch i s the ty pe ofse ar ch thati s co ntem pla ted under the F ourth A m endm en t, the c ourtsho uld co nsi der “w hetherthe i nd i vi du al, by hi s condu ct, has exhibi ted an ac t u a l e x p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y,” an d “w h et h er th e in d ivid u al’s ex p ec ta tio n o fp r i va c y is o n e t h at so c iet y is prepar ed to r eco gni ze as re ason able. ” B o nd v. U nited Sta tes , 52 9 U .S. 33 4, 33 8, 12 0 S
. Ct. 14 62, 14 65 ( 2000 ) ( i nter nalquotat i ons om i tte d) ( quoti ng Sm i t h v
. M aryl and, 44 2 U .S. 73 5, 74 0, 99 S.C t. 25 77, 61 L .E d .2d 22 0 (1 97 9)); see a lso U nited Sta tes v. Sa nd o va l-V a squez , 43 5 F
. 3d 739, 74 3 ( 7 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( i nd i c a t i ngtha t“ [ t ] he t o uc hs t o ne o f Fo ur t h Am e nd men t a na l y s i s i s whe the r a pe r s o n has a const i tuti onal l y pr ote cted r eas onabl e e xpectati on o f pr ivacy”) ( i nter nal quotat i on o m i tte d) ( quoti ng C alif ornia v. Ci r aol o, 47 6 U.S
. 20 7, 21 1, 10 6 S
. Ct. 18 09, 90 L. Ed

. 2d 2 1 0 ( 1 9 8 6 ) )
. T he r e c o r d r e fl e c t s tha tGe nt r y p l a c e d a r ai nc o ato n t o p o fthe whee lba r r o w p arti al l y c o ve r i ng16 N o. 08

- 3574 the i tem s, wh i ch i nd i cate s s om e e xpectati on o fpri vacy w ith res p ec t t o t h e it em s in t h e w h ee lba rro w . In ad d itio n, to th e e x te n t t h at th e re c or d is n ot fu lly d ev elop ed rela tin g t o G en tr y’s ex p ec t a t i on of p riv ac y, it is du e t o the f act that G en try’ s co unsel neve r m ove d to supp re ss the e vi dence ob tai ned fr om the sea rch of G en try’ s per son orthe w heelbar ro w . The bas i s o f Gentry’ s habe as peti ti on i s hi s con te n tion that hi s t ri al counseldi d not fil e a m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence. H ad G en try’s coun s el fil ed a m otion to su p p ress, Gen try w ou ld have had an o pp or tuni ty to prese nt ev i dence concerni ng hi s e xpectati on o fpri vacy . A l though the offi cer s sea rche d thro ugh the c onte nts of t h e w h ee lba rro w , th e o f fice rs d id n ot h av e re as on ab le su sp icio n to be l i e v e G en tr y h ad co m m itt ed a c rim e u n til aft e rthe s e a r c h whe n o ne o fthe o ffi c e r s h a d l oca ted Gil l, u s i ngthe g a r a g e do o r o pe ne r, a nd Gi l l i de nt i fi ed i tem s i n the w heelb ar ro w as st ol en i tem s. The m er e f act that the wheelbar ro w di d not hav e a c losed l i d does no t m ea n tha t i ts c o nt en ts c o ul d n ot be pr o te ct ed bythe F o urth Am en dm en t. The r ec o r d i ndi ca te s th atthe ye llow rain c oa t p lac ed on t o p of th e w h ee lba rro w on ly parti al l y c ove re d i ts conte nts. H owever, the re cor d al so i nd i cate s that the vi sibl e i tem s were not such that they provi ded the offi cer s with a r eas onable b asi s t o concl ud e that Gentr y had e ngage d i n w rongdoi ng. U n d er th e “ p lain -vie w ” d o c t rin e, “if p olic e a re law fu lly in a p os itio n fr om w h ich t h ey v iew a n o b j ec t, if its in c rim ina tingc ha r ac te r i s i m m edi at el y a ppar en t, a nd i fthe offi cer s hav e a l aw ful ri ght o facc ess to the obj ect, they m ay sei ze i t without a warra nt. ” M i nneso t a v. D i cke rs on ,N o. 08

- 3574 17 50 8 U. S
. 3 66 , 3 74

- 75, 113 S
. Ct. 2 13 0, 2 13 6- 37( 19 93 )
. I n the i nstan t a c t i o n, a l t ho ugh s o me o f the i t e ms o n the t op of the pi l e i n the w h ee lbar ro w were vi sibl e t o the o ffi cer s, th e item s d id n ot ind icate an y w rongd oin g o n th e pa rt o f G e n try. T he f acts do n ot ind icate th at th e officers had r eas onabl e suspi ci on or probabl e cause to se ar ch th e w he elbarrow based on th e item s i n p lain view

. Th ere w as no j usti fi cati on f ora furtherwarra ntl ess se ar ch b en ea th th e s u rfa c e o f th e p ile o fit em s in th e w h ee lbarrow

. Th e o ff ic er w ho initial ly ap p roach ed Ge nt ry te st i fi ed th at Gen tr y was unabl e to g i ve a c o ns i st en t e x p l a n a t i o n f o r wh e r e h e f o u n d th e wh ee l ba r r o w. Ho wev er , th at alon e w ou ld n ot j u st ify a se ar c h of th e w h e e lbar ro w witho ut a w ar ra nt. A r eas onabl e su sp i ci on c o ul d j us t i fy a l i mi t e d Terry stop, and perhaps a l i m i ted detenti on o fthe w heelbar ro w , i fo ffi cer s h ad r eas on t o bel i eve that itcontai ned sto l en i tem s. See, e.g., U nited Sta tes v. M arrocc o , 5 78 F
. 3d 62 7, 6 33 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9) ( in di ca ting that i n cer tai n si tuati ons l aw e n for cem ent c an co nd uct a l i m i ted d et en tio n ofl uggag e)
. A r eas onabl e s uspici on i s no t en o ug h t o j us ti fy a s ea r cho fthe wheelba r r o w. To se ar c h th e w h ee lba rro w , th e o ffice r s n ee d ed p ro b ab le ca us e an d a war r an t. The whee lba r r o w also ha d the nam e “ Brandt” spr ay pai nted on i t, ( A pp . at4) , wh i ch w as visib l e to the o ffi ce r s, b utthe r e i s no th i ngi n the r ec o r d tha t i ndi ca te s th ata ny o fthe o ffi ce r s atthe sc en e we r e a wa r e th a t th e r e wa s a c o mpa n y i n t he ar ea nam ed Brandt Constr ucti on. ( A pp . at88 )
. N ordoes th e fact that Gentry w as “tr ott i ng” down a str eetat ni ght, i n and ofi tse l f, pro vi de j usti fi cati on f orthe sea rch ofthe w heelbar ro w . ( A pp . at60 ). G en tr y di d not fl ee upo n di sc o ve r y a nd i n f ac t tu r ne d a nd a ppr o ac he d the18 N o. 08

- 3574 offi cer s. The o f fi cer s cou ld not, f orexam ple , have se ar ch ed wi th o ut pr o babl e ca us e a sh o ppi ng ca rt b eing pu shed by Gen try down the str eeto r a pi ece ofl uggag e b ein g c ar rie d by G en tr y. See, e . g., Place, 462 U
. S. at70 6- 07, 103 S
. Ct
. a t2 6 4 4 ( s t a t i ngtha tthe Co ur th a s “ a ffi rm ed th ata pe r so n po ss es se s a p riv ac y i nt er es t i n the c o ntents o fper sonall uggag e that i s pro tect ed by the F ourth Am e n d me n t ” )
. T h e o ffi c e r s th u s c o ul d n o tp e r f o r m a se ar c h o f th e w h ee lba rro w inc id en t t o G en tr y’s arr es t in th i s ca se wi th ou t fir sto bt ai ni nga war r an t an d the r ec o r d do es no t r efl ec t an y a ppl i cabl e ex ce pti o ns t o the w ar ra n t re q u ire m en t. See Arizona v. Gant, 1 29 S
. Ct. 17 10, 17 16 ( 20 09 ) ( st at i ng tha t a co ur t sh o ul d b eg i n a ss es sing “a w ar ra ntl ess s earch, with the bas i c r ule that‘ sea rche s conducted outsi de the j ud i ci alpro cess , witho ut pri or approvalby j ud ge orm agi str ate , ar e per seu n re as on ab le u n der the Fo urth Am endm ent- subj ect onl y t o a few speci fi cal l y e stabl i shed and w el l

- del i neate d excepti ons’ ”) ( quoti ng i n part Ka tz v. U nited Sta tes, 38 9 U.S. 347, 35 7, 88 S. C t. 507, 19 L
. E d

. 2d 5 76 (1967)); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Zahurs ky, 580 F. 3d 515, 52 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( sta ti ng tha t “ [ a] war r an tl es s se ar chi s pers e unr ea so nabl e u nd erthe Four th A m endm ent s ubj ect to a f ew well

- est abl i shed e x c ep tio n s” ); Lenoir, 3 1 8 F
. 3 d a t 7 3 0 ( s t a t i ng that “w ar ra ntl ess se ar ches w i l l be al l owed wh en pol i ce hav e a reason able beli ef th a t ex igent circu m stan ces req uire im m ed iate action an d there is no tim e to se c u r e a w arra nt”) ( ci ti ng M ich iga n v . T yler, 43 6 U.S
. 49 9, 50 9, 98 S
. Ct. 1 9 4 2 , 5 6 L. Ed. 2 d 4 8 6 ( 1978 ) and U nite d State s v. Web b, 83 F
. 3d 91 3, 9 16 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 6) )
. The o ffi ce r s en g ag ed i n a w ar ra ntl ess se ar ch ofthe w heelbar ro w and it w as thatN o. 08

- 3574 19

war r an tl es s se ar chtha t al l o wed the offi ce r s to fi nd the re cei pt i n the too lbox a t the bo tto m o fthe w heelb arro w w ith G il l’ s nam e on it. A lthou gh, ultim ately the offi cers w er e abl e t o ver i fy that the i tem s i n the w heelbar ro w w er e sto len ite m s, th e office rs w er e on ly ab le t o ob ta in s u c h e v i d e n c e th r o u g h u n l a wfu l s e a r c h e s . Whi l e we ackno w l edge the ne ed b y o ffi cer s t o conduct se ar ches to i nvest i gat e cr i m es an d t hat, i n thi s ca se, the offi cer s’ searc h es enabl ed them to ti e Gentr y t o m ult i ple unsol ved c r i mes , o f fi c e r s mus tab i de b y c o ns ti t ut i o na l s t a nd a r ds w h en co n d u c tin g s u c h s ea rc h es . H ad th e o ffice rs m er ely questi oned Gentryi nstea d ofse ar chi ng his p er son, o bta in ed co n s e n t to se ar c h th e w h ee lba rro w or p ro p er ly o bt ai ne d a se ar chwar r an t f o r the whee lba r r o w, the re sul t i n thi s ca se w oul d have be en di ff er ent. The I ndi an a Appel l at e Cou r t o n di r ec t appe alc o ncl ude d t ha t t he pa t do wn b y o ne o f the o ffi c e r s was a v i o l a t i o n o fG e n t r y ’ s F o u r th Ame n d me n t r i g h t s . Ho weve r, the Court furtherco ncl ud ed that abse nt the pat do wn, the o f fi ce r s woul d s ti l l ha ve di sc o ve r ed th e id en tit y of G ill th ro u gh th e d isc ov er y of t h e t oo lbo x in th e whee lba r r o w. ( App. a t 15 6- 57)
. Underthe e xc l usi onar y r ule , e vi dence se i zed i n vi ol ati on o fthe Four th A m en d m en t m u st be su p p re ss ed

. U nited Sta tes v. C a rter, 573 F.3d 418, 422 (7th Cir. 2 0 09). Th e inevitable d iscovery doctr i ne p rovi des an e xcepti on t o the e xcl usi onar y r ule , al l o wi ngthe a dm i ss i o n o fe vi den ce i f “the g o ve r nm en t es tabl i sh es b y a pr epo nde r an ce o fthe e vi d en ce ‘ th atthe i nfo rm ati on ul ti m ate l y o r i nevi tabl y would have be en disc ove re d b y l aw ful m eans. ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. A lexa nd er, 573 F. 3d 465, 47 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( q u ot in g i n part N ix v .20 N o. 08

- 3574 Wi l l i a ms , 46 7 U.S
. 43 1, 44 4, 104 S
. Ct. 25 01, 81 L. Ed

. 2d 377 ( 1984 )). In the i nstant acti on, the gar age dooro pener was o bt ai ne d thr o ug h a n il lega l s ea r chwhi chl ed th e offi cer s t o Gil l

. Based o n the ci rcum st an ces ofthe ar re st a nd t he i t e ms i n pl a i n v i e w, the o ffi c e r s c o ul d not have di sc o ve r ed th e t o o lbo x b utf o r the i l l eg als ea r ch es . The I ndi an a Appel l at e Cou r t’ s co nc l us i o n co nc erni ngthe i ne v i t a b l e di s c o v e r y do c t r i ne w a s a n un r e a s o nab l e a ppli cati on o ffedera l l aw to the f acts i n thi s ca se. T he ex clusion ary rule is not li m ited to th e “ p rim ary evi dence ob tai ned as a di re ct r esul t o fan i l l ega l se ar ch or s eiz u re , but al so [ appli es to] ev i dence l ate r disc ove re d an d f o und t o b e d er i va ti ve o fa n i l l eg al i tyo r fr ui t o fthe poi sono us tr ee. ” U ni t e d S ta te s v. Budd, 54 9 F
. 3d 1140 , 11 44 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ) (int er n a l q u ot at ion s o m itt ed ) (q u ot in g in part Seg ura v. U nited Sta tes, 46 8 U.S
. 796, 804, 104 S. Ct. 33 80, 82 L .E d .2d 59 9 (1 98 4)); se e also U nite d S ta te s v. Sw if t, 22 0 F. 3d 502, 50 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00 ) (stati ng tha t “ [ e] vi dence w hi ch i s o btain ed as a re sul t o fan i l l ega l ar re st i s frui t o f th e po i so no us t r ee a nd i t m us t be e xc l ude d unl es s th e gov er nm ent c an sho w thati t was obtai ned as a r esul t no t o fthe i l l eg al i ty, b utr ather ‘ bymean s su ffi ci en tl y di st i ng ui sh ab l e to b e purg ed o fthe pr i m ar y t ai nt ’ ”) ( quo ting Wo ng Su n v . U nited Sta tes, 37 1 U .S. 47 1 , 8 3 S .C t. 40 7, 9 L. Ed. 2d 44 1 ( 19 63 ) )
. The o ffi ce r who i ni ti al l y s ea r ch ed th e whee lba r r o w al so s ea r ch ed Gen tr y’s pe r so n, f o und the gar age dooro pener, and l eft the ar ea w i th the ga ra ge dooro pener to conduct furtheri nvest i gat i on. The fu rther se ar c h of t h e w h ee lba rro w by an ot h er offic er im m ed iat ely f ol l owed t h e departure ofthe offi cerwith the ga ra ge d o o r o p e n e r . T h e r e i s a n ab s e n c e o fi n t e r v e n i n gc i r c u m-N o. 08

- 3574 21 st an ce s l ea di ngt o the s ea r ch of the whee lba r r o w by the se c o n d o f fi c e r . T h u s , th e e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d i n t he whee lba r r o w by the s ec o nd o ffi ce r mus t a ls o b e ex cl ud ed as f rui t o fthe poi sono us tr ee.

B. I neff ecti ve A ssi sta nce o fCounsel Gentry’ s t ri alco unsel i n sta te cour t di d not seekto su ppr es s th e e vi den ce g ai ne d fr o m the unc o ns ti tu
ti onalse ar ches executed bythe offi cer s. U nd erthe Si xth Am en dm en t, a c r i m i na l de f en dan t i s pr o vi d ed wi tha rig h t t o e ffec tiv e a s s i s t a n c e o f co u n se l. Bobb y v . Van H ook, 130 S. Ct. 13 , 16 ( 2009 )
. I n or der t o est abl i sh i neff ecti ve ass i s t a nc e o fc o un s e l, a p e t i t i o ne r mus te s t a b l i s h tha t: “( 1) hi s a tto rney ’ s per f or m ance fel l bel ow an o bj ecti ve sta nd ard ofr eas onabl eness , and ( 2) he s uffer ed prej ud i ce as a r esul t. ” W

ya tt v. U nited Sta tes , 574 F
. 3d 455, 45 7- 58 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( ci ti ng St r i ck l and v. Was hi ngt on, 46 6 U.S
. 66 8, 68 7-8 8, 69 3, 10 4 S .C t. 20 52 , 80 L .E d .2d 67 4 (1 98 4)); see al s o S m i t h v
. Sp i s ak, 1 30 S
. Ct. 6 76 , 6 84-85 ( 20 10 ) ( ex pla in in g the t w o prongs o fthe St r i ck l andan aly sis ). In re gar d to the per f or m ance ofthe att or ney, a peti ti oner “m us t overcom e the ‘strong p resu m p tion th at cou ns el’ s conduct f al l s withi n th e w i de ra nge o fr eas onabl e pr ofessi onalas sis tance. ’ ” W yatt, 574 F.3d at45 7-5 8 (q u ot in g in part St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S. at 6 87- 88)
. I n or der t o est abl i sh su f fi ci en t pr ej udi ce r es ul tingfr o m the de fi ci en ci es i n a counsel ’ s per f or m ance, a peti ti oner“ ‘ m ust sh ow that th ere is a reason able prob abili ty th at, but for coun sel’s u n p ro fes sio n al e rro rs , th e re su lt of t h e p ro c ee d in g w ou ld have been diff er ent. ’ ” Port e rv. M cCol l um , 130 S. Ct. 447, 45 222 N o. 08

- 3574 ( 2009 ) ( quoti ng i n part St r i ck l and, 46 6 U.S
. at69 4) ; see also Shell, 44 8 F
. 3d at 955 ( sta ti ng tha t “ ‘ [ w ] hen the cl ai m o f i neff ecti ve ass ist an ce i s ba sed o n counsel ’ s f ai l ure to prese nt a m oti on t o supp re ss, we have r equired that a de f e n d a n tp r o v e th e mo t i o n wa s me r i t o r i o u s ’ ” ) ( q u o t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ci e s l owsk i, 410 F.3d 353 , 3 60 (7th C ir. 2005)). As e xpl ai ned abo ve , the r ec o r d r efl ec ts tha t th e sea rche s per f or m ed by the o ffi cer s a t t h e sc ene o f Gen tr y ’ s ar r es t w ere unco ns ti tu ti o na l a nd the r e i s th us no i nd i cati on that a m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence re sul ti ng fro m suc h s earches w oul d have be en futi l e. See A .M . v. B utler, 3 60 F
. 3d 78 7, 79 5 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4) ( st at i ng that “[ i ] fther e w as no underl yi ng co nsti tuti onalvi ol ati o n, a m otio n t o s uppr es s woul d ha ve b ee n fut i l e an d counselco uld notbe vi ew ed a s i neff ecti ve f orf ai l i ng to prese nt such a m oti on”). W e r eco gni ze that tr i al str ate gi es ar e g ener al l y l eft to t he di scr eti on o fco unsel an d s ec o nd- g ue ss i ngs tr at eg i c dec i si o ns i n h i nds i g ht w il l gen erall y not be a m eritori ou s basis to fi nd i ne ffec tiv e a ss ist an c e o f co u n se l. See, e . g., Sm it h v. G aetz , 56 5 F
. 3d 34 6, 3 52

- 53 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 9)
. Howev er, i n thi s ca se , the deci si on by G en try’ s t ri alco unsel notto se ek to su p p ress evid en ce bas ed on a viol ation of Gen try’s Four th A m endm ent r i ghts i s be yond the pal e o fan o bj ecti vel y r eas onabl e st ra teg y. The appli cati on o fthe fund am entalpri nci ple s o fFo urth Am endm ent c as e l aw to Gentry’ s s i tuati on s houl d have be en appare nt to hi s t ri al c ou n se l. T h e re c or d d oe s n ot ind ica te th at an y s tr a t eg ic benefi t would hav e been a ccor ded to Gentryby hi s t ri al counsel ’ s f ai l ure to see k t h e s up press i on o fthe evi dence. Gen tr y e v e n b r o u g h tth e s u p p r e s s i o n i s s u e t o th e a t t e n-N o. 08

- 3574 23 ti on o fhi s co unsel by fi l i ng a pro sem oti on to supp re ss a nd yet, e v e n t he n, h i s c o un s e l f a i l e d t o a t t e mptt o s up press the evi dence . G en tr y has sho w n that he r ecei ved i neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o fco unsel and t hat he suf f er ed prej ud i ce. The r eco rd d oes notr efl ect w hat e vi dence c o u l d h a v e b e e n u s e d t o c o n v i c t Ge n t r y e x c l u d i ng t he g ar ag e do o r o pen er, the i den tit i es o fthe r es i den ts , the stolen item s and the evid en ce foun d i n th e w h e e lbarr o w. W e c o n c l u d e th a tth e C o u r to fAp p e a l s o fI n d i an a un r e a s o nab l y a pp l i e d St r i ck l and v. Was hin gt on , 466 U
. S. 668 ( 1984 ) to the f acts i n thi s ca se. A t oral argu m en t, R esp ond en t a ls o m ad e a cu rsory ar g um en t th atGe nt r y f o r f ei te d hi s cl ai m c o nc erning i ne f f ecti ve ass i st an ce o fc o uns ela s to the s ea r cho fthe w h eelbar ro w because Gentry never proper l y ra i sed it before. T he record , how ever, r efl ects t ha t w hile Gen try’s st at e tria l an d ap p ella te c ou n se l d id n ot ra ise th e c laim re lat in g t o s u p p re ss ion , G en t r y h im se lf rais ed th is c laim , pro se, d u rin g s ta te co u rtp ro c ee d i n g s. Inad d iti on, Ge n tr y rai sed the cl ai m o fi neff ecti ve ass i sta nce o f c ou n se l as to t h e s ea rc h of th e w h ee lba rro w in h is openi ng br i efi n thi s Court, and Resp ond ent di d not i nc l ude the f o r f ei tu r e ar g um en t i n i ts a ppel l ee bri ef

. The R es p on d en t’s forfe itu re arg u m en t is th u s w aiv ed

. See, e. g., Aw e v. A shcroft, 324 F.3d 509 , 512-13 (7th C ir. 2003).

I I I . Concl usio n F o r the abo ve s ta te d reason s, we co nc l ude tha t th e Court ofA pp eal s o fI nd i an a u nrea sonab l y a pp l i ed f ede r all aw wh en th e Cou r t det er m i ne d tha t th e24 N o. 08

- 3574 evi dence co ncer ni ng the s ea rch ofthe w heelbar ro w was adm i ssibl e a nd hel d that Gentr y’ s co unsel ’ s per form ance did notfal l bel ow an o bj ecti ve sta nd ar d ofr eas onabl eness . W e R EV ERSE the de ci si o n o fthe di st r i ctc o ur t an d R EMA ND with instr ucti ons to G RANTthe p etition er’s r eque s tf o r a wr i to fh a b e a s c o r pu s , p ur s ua ntt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 22 54
. If th e Sta te ele c ts n ot to re tr y G e n t r y w ith in 120 days, he s hal l be re l eas ed f ro m co nfi nem ent.

2- 26- 10