## 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 os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. K ATR ICE E TC HIN , A LBE RT M. C OLE , a nd M AURI CE B OWMAN, D efend a nts-A pp ella nts.

Appeals from the United States District Court fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No s. 07- CR-139- C- 03, 07- CR-139- C- 02 & 07-C R- 139-C -01

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 4, 2010

Befo re C UDAH Y, W OO D , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges. W OOD , Cir cu i tJudg e . Ma ur i c e Bo wm a n, Alb e r tCol e, and K atr i ce Etchi n ple aded gu ilty to drug cri m es after pa rt i ci pa t i ngi n a n o pe r a t i o n r unb y Bo wm a n tha ts up pl i ed crack co ca i ne t o s tr ee t dea l er s i n Madi so n, W i sc o nsi n. Ona pp e a l, Bo wm a n a nd Et c hin c ha l l e ng e the l ower c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n t o a d mi te v i d e n c e , in c l u d i n g15 0 g r a ms2 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 ofcr ack, di sco ver ed i n a s earch o fEtchi n’s apar tm ent. I n additi on, al lthr ee conte st thei r sente nces. W h en p olic e o ffice rs kn oc ke d on E tc h in ’s d oo r, s h e t old th em th eyc o ul d n ot com e i n wi th o uta war r an t. The pol i ce e nter ed an yw ay , se curing the ar ea to prese rv e the s t a t us quo wh i l e a no the r o ffi c e r a pp l i e d fo r a s e ar ch war r an t. I t was no t unt i lf o urho ur s l at er, wi thwar r an t i n ha nd, th at th e po l i ce se ar ch ed Etc hi n’s ap ar tment and di s c o v e r e d d r ug s . We do n o tdo ub ttha tthe o ffi c er s’ war r an tl es s en try v i o l at ed th e F o ur thAm en dm en t, b ut th e S u p r em e C ou rth as ex p lain ed th at ou r an aly sis cannot end there. Seg ura v. U nited Sta tes , 46 8 U.S
. 79 6 ( 19 84 )
. Pr o babl e ca us e to s ea r chEt ch i n’ s apartm en t ex i st ed when th e o ffi ce r s en te r ed, a nd s o the t empor ary sei zure o fEtchi n ’s h om e di d not cr eat e a ny i ncre m ental vi o l at i o n o fthe Co ns ti tu ti o n, abo ve a nd b ey o nd the probl em with the i n i ti alentry. Because the o ffi cer s’ sea rch re l i ed on a l ate r- ar ri vi ng warr an t th at w as base d on info rm ati on s ufficiently unre l ate d to the ini ti alentry, th e ev i den ce di sc o ve r ed i n Et ch i n’ s a par tmentwas untainte d by the office r s ’ il legal beh avior. W e the refore co nc l ud e tha t the di s t r i c t c o ur t pr o pe r l y de ni e d the defen dants’ m oti ons to supp re ss and, fi nd i ng no er ro r in th e s e n t e n c e s i mp o s e d , w e a ffi r m.

I F o r a de ca de, Bo wm andi st r ibu ted c r ac kt o a r ev o l ving c as t o f st re et d ea ler s w h o s old h is p ro d u c t b et w ee n th eir st i nt s i n j ai l

. Et ch i n, who ha d a c hi l d w i thBo wm an, al l owed Bow m an to use her ap ar tm ent forst or age and toN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 3 conduct deal s. In 200 4 Col e j oi ned the t eam as a coo k, re sponsibl e f or turni ng Bow m an’ s pow der coca i ne into c ra c k b efo re it w as so ld . B y 2 00 6 la w en for c em en t o fficia ls had take n an i nt er es t in Bow m an, and theybeg an to i nter vi ew a ss ocia tes o fhi s who w er e no w behind bar s. A br eaki n the case cam e o n the ev en in g o fOctobe r 2, 200 7, w hen pol i ce s topped Terr el lBanks, Bow m an’ s new re c ru it, a s h e w as d riv in g t h ro u gh M ad iso n w ith h is gir l f r ien d . A s a res u lt of t h e s to p , B an ks an d h is gir lfri end gave the pol i ce per m i ssi on to search thei r hom e. A g r o up o fo ffi c e r s t o o kB a n k s ’ s g i r l fr i e n d b a c kt o the apart m ent where she a nd Banks l i ved and dis cove red m or e than fi ve gr am s o fcr ack. M eanw hi l e, Banks st a y e d b e hind a nd De t e c t i v e S t e v e W e g ne r b e g a n to qu estion h im i n th e back of a sq ua d car. Befo re Banks l earned that pol i ce had di sco ver ed d rugs at hi s a partm ent, he t ol d D ete ctive W egnerthathe ha d sol d the l asto fh i s sup plyo fdrugs, and he nam ed “Chico ” as the perso n w ho had suppli ed hi m drugs i n the past. A s t h e in te rv iew p ro gr es se d , B an ks rea lize d h e w as in tr ou b le. Per haps beca use he w as on s up er vi sed r el eas e at the t i m e, Banks c hanged hi s tune and tol d D ete cti ve W eg n er ev er yt h in g h e k n ew : he n a m e d B ow m an as h is sour ce a nd expl ai ned th at t h e cr ack f ound in hi s a partme n twa s l e fto v e r fr o m a b a t c h h e p u r c h a s e d fr o m B o wm an two days ear l i er ; h e adm i tte d that he had go tte n c r a c kfr o m Bowma n f o u r t i me s i n th e p r e c e d i n gt wo m on th s; h e d es c rib ed h ow th e t ra n sa c tio n s t o o k p lac e in Etc hi n’ s apa r tm en t a t 5 83 4 Rus se ttRo ad i n Madi so n ( he di d no t kno w herna m e o r the pr ec i se a ddr ess atthe ti m e) wi thb o thEt ch i n a nd Bo wm anpres en t; a nd he4 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 expla i ned that Bow m an st or ed drugs i n a Cro w n Royal bagtha t was hi ddenwi tha s ca l e ei th eri n Et ch i n’ s ba th

ro om o r i n a c up boar d above herki tchen s tov e. D etec tive W egn er drov e B an ks to Ru ssett Road to veri fy h i s sto ry, and Banks poi nted out Etchin’ s apart m ent. A dat ab as e ch ec ko n Bo wm anr etur ne d t wo war r an ts , o ne re lat ed t o a chi l d supp or t cl ai m fi l ed by Etchin that l i ste d 5834 Russet t Roa d as the address. D ete cti ve W egner al so o bt aine d m ugs ho ts o fBo wm ana nd Etc hin , a nd B an ks con fi rm ed that they w ere h is sources
. J us t before m id n igh t, D e t e c tiv e W eg n er orc h es tr at ed a p h on e c all between Banks a nd Bow m an in an ul ti m ate l y unsucce ss fula tt empt t o c o ax Bo wm anint o a meet i ng . As the i nvest i gat i on pro gr ess ed, Detect i ve Doro thy Ri etz l er an d a no th erM adi so n po l i ce o ffi ce r tra ve l ed to the RussettRoad address t o i nvest i gat e. They c onfi rm ed th atEt c h i n l i v e d i n th e a p a r t me n tth a tB a n k s h a d i d en tified an d rel ayed that i nform ation to D e t ective W egn er, w ho co ncl ud ed that ther e was e nough ev i dence to apply f ora sea rch w ar ra nt. A s Detecti ve W egnergo t to w or k o n a warr ant a pp l i cati on, Detect i ve Rei tzl er deci ded i t was be st to secur e t h e apartm ent. S he l ate r r e po r t e d tha ts he h e a r d ma l e a nd fe mal e v o i c e s i nsi de Etchin’ s ho use a nd , ar ound 11: 30 p. m . , she deci ded to kn ock on the front d oor to ask f or perm is s ion to enter. Etchin appeared atthe doorand Rei tzl eri denti fi ed he rself

. W he n E tch in refused her en t r y w ith ou t a w arra nt, Detect i ve Rei tzl erand other offi cers h id i ng nea rby igno r ed Etc hi n’ s wi sh es a nd f o r ce d the i r wayi n, t el l i ng E tc h inth at th ey int en d ed t o s e c u re th e a p ar tm en t u n til a w ar ra n t a rriv ed . W h i le th er e w as m ar ij u an a ly in g inN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 5 pl ain v i ew, the o ffi ce rs d i d no t se ar chthe ho m e. Inste ad, they w ai ted w hi l e Detecti ve W egner prep ar ed an affi davi t r eco u nti ng the i nvest i gat i on up to thatpoi nt. Fourhour s a fterthe offi cer s ha d ente re d Etchin’ s a partm en t, a s ta te j u d ge sign ed a se ar c h w ar ra n t. A t 3 :30 a.m ., war r an t i n h an d, o ffi ce r s ex ec ut ed th e war r an t an d f o und 1 5 0 g r a ms o fcrack ina j a c k e t, a di g i t a ls c a l e i n the c up bo ar d abo ve the k i tc he n s to ve , a nd mar ij ua na i n a num bero fpl aces ar ound E tchi n’s apar tm ent. Etc hi n an d Bo wm an fi l ed m o ti o ns to su ppr ess th e evi dence. The dist ri ct cour t, adopti ng a m agis tr ate j ud ge’ s r eco m m endati on, deni ed the m oti ons. Etch in the n pl e a de d gui l t y t o mai nt a i ning a dr ug ho us e , 2 1 U. S
. C. § 856 ( a) ( 2) , a nd Bo wm ant o po ss es singwi ththe i nt en t to dist ribute c ra ck coca i ne, 21 U
. S. C. § 8 41 (a)( 1) , bo th p re se rv in g t h eir righ t t o a p p ea l t h e d en ial of t h eir m o t i o ns t o s up pr e s s . Co l e , who di d no t fi l e a mot i o n to su ppr es s, pl ea ded g ui l tyt o the sa m e cr i m e as Etc hi n. The di s t r i c tc o u r ts e n t e n c e d B o wm a n a n d E t c h i nt o t e r ms of36 0 a nd 46 m onths, atthe very b ott om of the ra nges re c om m en d ed by th e U .S. Sen te n c in g G u id elin es . C ole r e c e ived the sta tu tory m ax im um 240 m ont hs , a term bel ow th e range that the gui del i nes would o ther w i se ha v e a dv i s e d. T he de fe nd a nt s a pp e a l e d.

II W e turn fi rst t o Bow m an and Etchi n’s chal l enge to the deni alo ft h eir m oti ons to supp re ss the e vi dence f ound in Etchin’ s apart m ent. Ou r re vi ew of the d istri ct cour t’ s l ega lco ncl usi ons i s de n o vo , and w e use the cl ear6 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308

er ro r st an d ar d for its find in gs of fac t. U ni ted State s v. D o w t ha rd, 5 0 0 F
. 3 d 5 6 7, 5 6 8

- 6 9 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 )
. At t he outse t, we note that the g ov er n m ent doe s no t di spute th e fa c t t h at B ow m an h ad an ex p ec ta tio n of p r i v a c y in Etc hi n’ s ho m e, and b eca us e we c o nc l ude i n the e nd th at su p p re ss ion is n otw a r r an te d , w e t oo tre at E tc h in and B owm an as tho ugh theyhave equi val ent F ourth A m endm ent inter est s in Etchi n’s apar tm ent.

A The s an ct i ty of th e ho m e i s a ce nt r alc o nc ern o fthe Fo u rt hA m en d m en t. It is th er efo re “a b as ic p rin c ip le ofFo urth Am endm ent l aw thatsear c h es and sei zure s in si d e a h om e w ith ou t a w ar ra n t a re p re su m p tiv ely unreas onabl e. ” P a yto n v . New Yo rk, 445 U
. S. 57 3, 58 6 ( 1980 ) (in te rn al q u ot at ion m ar ks om itt ed ). B u t w h en th e re is ane m er g en cy, i n s o - ca l l ed “e xi g en t ci r cumst an ce s,” the po l i ce may en te r a nd s ea r cha home wi th o uts ec ur i ng a w ar ra n t
. Wel sh v. Wis consin , 466 U
. S. 740, 749-50 (1984 ). The fi rs t s tep i n ouranal ysi s i s to consi der whether th e i ni ti al en try o f th e o ffi ce r s i nt o Etc hi n’s apar tment wa s i n r e s po ns e t o e xi g e ntci rcums t a nc e s . We c o nc l ud e that i t was not
. M agi str ate J ud ge Crock erf ound that “ i t was r easonab l e a nd prudent f orthe pol i ce t o en ter[ Etchin’ s] ap artm en t” in l igh t of “gen uin e con cern s tha t B an ks’s coo perat i on al re ady w as known on the st re ets , and Banks ha d reached o ut to Bow m an thatev eni ng. ” In J ud ge C rocker’s view , R eitzler’ s fai led effort to get E tch in’s conse nt t o se arch “l et the c at out ofthe bag” ( w e par a-N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 7 phrase sl i ghtl y) , wh i ch r equi re d offi cer s t o entero r el se r i skthat e vi den ce woul d b e des tr o y ed. The g o ve r nme n th a s e n d o r s e d th e p o s i t i o n t h a te x i g e n tc i r c u mst an ce s su ppo r te d the o ffi ce r s’ e nt r y, re l y i ngo n o ur dec i si o n in U ni t e d S t at e s v. Col l i ns , 510 F.3d 697( 7th C ir. 2007 ). I n Coll i ns , we ackno w l edged thatpol ice a re fre e t o approach a hom e and knock on a door, and we stre sse d thatdo i ngs o ma y s o met i mes g i v e r i s e t o a n e mer gency that j usti fi es a warr antl ess entry into the ho m e. 510 F
. 3d at 700. W e reali zed that there is a r is k o f th e po li ce’s “m anufa cturing” e xige n t ci rcum sta nces, i n the sense th atthe i r pr es en ce i s whatl ea ds to the u rge nc y o fthe need to ent er, but thi s pos sibi l i ty, l i ke pract i cal l y e ver ythi ng el se i n the Four th A m endm ent a re a, m ust be asses sed c a s e-by-case. W e con tinu ed , “[I ]fpolice hear a cri m e be in g c om m i tte d w i thi n a ho use ( and spoi l ati on of e vid en c e is a c rim e), th en th ey c a n en te r im m ed iate l y . . . ; i fthe y do n o th e a r a c r i me ( mor e p r eci sel y, i fth e y d o n o th a v e p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o be l i e v e a c r i me i s in p ro gr es s), theyhave to ge t a warra nt. ” Id. at 701. Pol i ce who w i thout a warr ant kn ocko n the dooro f a drug house see kin g c on sent to ente r tak e the r i sk that perm i ssi on wil lbe w i thhe ld a nd an e m er gencywil lnot m ate rial i ze. W here an o ccupant turns the pol i ce a w ay o r a sk s to s ee a w ar r an t, the o ffi ce r c anno t, wi th o ut som e othe r suspi ci ous acti vi ty, j usti fy a w ar ra ntl ess entr y b ase d s ole l y o n the fearthatev i dence m i ght b e d es tr oy ed

. U nite d State s v. E ll is , 499 F.3d 686 , 692 (7th Cir. 2007 )
. I f“[ a] m er e possib i l i ty that evi dence w i l lbe destroyed ” w ere enou gh, then “t h e requ irem en t of a w ar-8 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308

ra nt would have l i ttl e m ea n in g in the i nvest i gat i on o f dru g c rim es. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa lgado , 80 7 F
. 2d 603 ( 7th Cir
. 19 86)
. Our c ases r efl ect the rule thatan e m er gency j usti fyi ng ent ryand a s ear ch ari ses o nl y i fthe offi cer knock i ng at t h e d oo r obs er ves obj ecti ve evi dence that ther e i s a n ongo i ng cr i m e withi n th at m ust be st opped be f o r e i t i s co m pl eted

. The s o und o fs o m eo ne wal k i ng a r o un d, f o r e xa mpl e , o r a v o i c e tha ta nn o un c e s , “ Th e c o ps ar e he re, ” i s no t en o ug h b y i ts el f

. Buto th ers i g ht s an d s o un ds

— to ilet s flus h in g, a d oo r sla m m ed , p e op le r unning, a n obv i o us l i e bythe pe r so n a ns w ering th e do o r, o r e ff o rt s to r emov e co nt r ab an d fr o m the house

— m ay be e vi dence thatther e i s a n e m er gencythat ca l l s f o r a n i m m edi at e, war r an tl es s i nt rus ion
. E. g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Am aral

- Est r ada , 50 9 F
. 3d 820, 82 8- 29 (7t h C ir. 20 07 ); U nited S ta tes v . Riv era , 24 8 F
. 3d 677, 68 0- 81 (7th C ir. 2001). Detecti ve Rie tzl erdi d not s ee or hearanythi ng to sugge st that an e m er gencywas tak i ng pl ace i nsi de of Et c hin’ s a pa r t men t
. T he wo r s ttha ts e e ms t o h a v e h a pp en ed , ac c or d in g t o t h e g ov er n m en t, is th at E tc h in “r eact ed bel l i ger entl y” w hen Detect ive Rie tzl eras ked perm i ssi on to ente r. Putti ng as i de the questi on wh ether a be l l i g er en t r ea ct i o n t o po l i ce i nt er r upt i o n l at e i n the eve ni ng r eve al s a nythi ng but the o ccupant’s annoy ance at being both ered , D etec tive Rietzler’s ow n p oli ce rep ort squa r ely c o nt r adi ct s th e g o ve r nm en t’ s vi ew o fthe events. Detect i ve Rie tzl err el ate s that when she as ked f o r E t c hi n ’ s c o n s e n tt o e n t e r, “ [ E t c h i n ] wa s i n s i s t e n twe cou ld n ot com e into her resid en ce u nless w e had a w arr an t. ” Det ec ti ve Ri et zl erthe n l i st s as r ea so ns fo r e nt er i ngN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 9 th ats he he ar d a man’ s voi ce i ns i de, tha t sh e th o ug ht the m an m i ght b e B ow m an, and that she fear ed that evid en ce m ight b e d e s t r oyed

. Th is i s too vagu e to j us tify a fi nd i ng tha t there was an o ngoin g cri m e in the house r equi r i ngi m m edi at e en try . W e pr o ce ed, the r efo r e, o n the ba si s th atDe te ct i ve Re i tz l era nd othe r s vi o l at ed th e Fourth Am endm ent when they enter ed Etchi n’s apar tm ent without a warra nt.

B The f act thatpol i ce b ehave d i l l ega l l y doe s no t m ean th at th e re m ed y of e x c lu d in g e vi d e n c e is n ec es sa rily ap p ro p ria te
. Herringv. U nited Sta tes , 129 S. Ct
. 695 (2009). I n th is case, a straight-forw ard ap p li cation of Seg ura lead s us to tw o conc lusions: first, De tect ive Reitzler’s fourhour occu pati on o fEtchi n’s apar tm ent di d not a dd anythingt o the v i o l a t i o n o fthe F o ur th Am e nd men ttha t ha d a l r ea dy o cc ur r ed wi ththe en try ; a nd s ec o nd, the drugs l ate r f ound w er e a dm i ssibl e. 1. The Se izureof Etchin’s A partm ent
. Seg ura h ol ds that o ffi cers w ho e nt era nd s ei ze a ho m e to pr es er ve the sta tus quo w hi l e wai ti ng f ora sea rch w ar ra nt do no t co m m i t ani nde pen den tly s an ct i o nabl e vi o l at i o n o fthe Four th A m endm ent a s l ong as they had p ro b able cause at the mo men to fe nt r y a nd the s e i z ur e i s n o tu nr easonab l y l ong. 46 8 U.S
. at79 8. The Courtr eas oned that “the hom e i s s acr ed in F ourth A m endm ent t er m s no t p rim aril y beca us e of th e occu p a n ts’ po ssessory i nter est s in the prem ises, bu t beca us e of th eir pr i vacy i n te re st s in the a cti vi ti es that ta ke pl ace w i thi n, ” a nd so a pol i ce10 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 occupati on ( w hi ch i nfr i nges on p ossess i on) i s per m i tte d eve n w hen a sea rch ( w hi ch i m pli cate s pri vacyi nt er ests) w ou ld be u n re as on ab le. Id. at8 10
. The s ec o nd o fthe Cou r t’ s co nc erns

— du ra ti on

— i s no t ati ss ue he r e, a s th e seizure he r e was s ho r te r tha n the o ne uphe l d i n Seg ura . W e there f or e focus excl usive ly on the questi on wh ether the p r o b ab l e c a us e c r i t e r i o n wa s s a t i s fi e d. Befo re co nsid er i ng wh etherDetect i ve Rei tzl erhad p robab le cause to seize Etc hin ’s hom e, w e m us t clari fy how th e Co ur t was us i ngthi s co nc epti n Seg ura . There, i t was l o o k i ng a t the qu e s t i o n whe the r the r e was pr o babl e ca us e to s uppo r t a war r an t to s ea r chthe prem i ses ; i t wa s n ot concerned w i th the questi on w hetherther e was pro babl e ca use to s up porta fi nd i ng o f ex ige n t c irc u m st an c es . Id. a t 81 0 ( “[ A]g en ts ha d abun dan t probabl e ca u se in a dvance o fthei r entr y t o bel i eve that th er e w as a c rim in al d ru g op er at ion be in g c ar rie d on in p etitioner’s apa rtm en t.”)
. A co m p ar iso n w ill he lp to illus tr at e t h e d ist in c tio n . I f the p olic e co m e a cro ss evi dence ofan o ngoing vi ol ati on o fthe E nd an ger ed S pec i es Actc o m m i tt ed bya man who h as displ aye d a n A fri can cheet ah pel t on the w al l of his hom e, se e U nited S tate s v. Winnie, 97 F. 3d 975 (7th C ir. 1996 ) , o ffi cer s m ay have probable c au se to supp or t a sea rch w ar ra nt and thus a sei zure of the prem ise s u nd er Segura ( th at is, the y may ac t to s ec ur e th e pr emi se s an d occu p an ts an d w ait f or the w arran t before se a r c hin g), but the re i s no em er gencyr equ irin g i m m edi ate entry. On the other hand , wh en p olic e obser ve fro m the str eet an o ngoing br aw li nsi de ofa h om e, se e Brigham City,N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 11 U ta h v . Stua rt, 547U .S. 39 8 (2 0 06 ), th ey h av e p ro b ab le ca us e t o bel i ev e no t o nl y tha t a cr i m e i s i n pr o g r es s but th at it m u st b e sto p p ed im m ed iat ely

— i.e. , thatan e xi gency j usti fi es e nter i ng and se ar chi ng the hom e without a w ar ra nt. Our co ncer n i s with the fi rs t o ftho se scenar i os. Seg ura i ts el fdrew a c l ea r l i ne b etwee n c as es i nv o l ving ex igen t c ircum stan ces an d those i nv olvi ng a tem p orary se i zu r e o f pr emi se s su ppo r te d by pr o babl e ca use. T he Court note d that the di str i ct c ourtther e had f ound that ther e were no e xi ge n t ci rcum sta nces. A ccepti ng tha t fi ndi ng, the Co ur t ex pr es se d i ts ho l di ngi n Segu ra as f ol l ows: [ W] h e r e o ffi c e r s , h a v i n gp r o b ab l e c a u s e , e n t e r p r e mi se s, a nd wi thpr o babl e ca us e, arres t th e o cc up an ts w h o h av e le git im at e p os se ss or y in te re st s in i ts c o nt en ts a nd t ak e th em i nt o c us to dy an d , f o r no mo r e th a n th e p e r i o d h e r e i n v o l v e d , s e c u r e th e p r e mise s f r o m w ith into p re se rv e t h e s ta tu s q u o w h ile o th er s, i n g o o d f ai th, a r e i n the pr o ce ss o fo bt aini ng a wa r r a nt, the y do n o tv i o l a t e the Fourth Am e nd

m ent’ s pro scr i pti on a gainst unre aso nabl e s ei zure s. 468 U .S. a t 798. S ee al so U nited Sta tes v. A lexa nd er, 57 3 F. 3d 465, 47 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( noting t h at “[ t] he pre sence (or n ot ) of ex ige n t circ u m st an c es . . . is b es id e t h e p oin t” in a Segura anal ysi s)
. The defendants ar e thus i ncor re ct i nsof ara s they a rgue that Seg ura per m i ts the s ei zure o f a ho m e o nl y in an e m er gency . Turning to the questi on w hetherpro babl e ca use e xi ste d i n thi s ca se, we consi der fi rs t w hetherDetect i ve R eitz l er and the o th er o ffi cer s had probabl e ca use t o bel i eve that12 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 th ey w ou ld d iscover evid e n c e of a crim e in Etc hin ’s ap artm en t at th e m om en t th at th ey kn ocked on h e r d oor. T his w ou ld be en ou gh, un d er Segura, to j us tify the seizure ofthe apart m ent, despi te the f ac t that Etchin voi ced an obj ecti on to thei r entr y. St ri ctl y speaking, the questi on whethe r the p ol i ce pr es en te d e no ug h e vi den ce t o the st at e jud ge w h o iss u ed th e w ar ra n t t o s u p p or t p ro b ab le cause i s a se parat e inquir y. Pro babl e ca use t o sea rch a plac e e xi sts wh en, bas ed on al lo fthe ci rcum st ances, a re aso nabl y pr ud ent per son w oul d be per suaded that e vi dence ofa cri m e w i l lbe f ou n d th er e. O rnela s v. U nited Sta tes , 5 1 7 U. S
. 6 9 0 , 69 6 (19 96 ); Illin o is v. G a tes , 462 U
. S. 213, 238 ( 1983 ). W hen an inform ant s uch as Banks suppli es the b asi s for probabl e ca use we consi der, am ong othe r thi ngs, w hetherpol i ce hav e co rr obo ra ted the i nform ant’ s s tat em ents; the d egr ee to w hi ch the i nfo rm ant’ s know l edge i s b a s e d o n fi r s tha nd o bs e r v a t i o n; the de t a i lp r o v i de d; an d the i nt er va l be twe enthe e ve nt s des cr ibe d a nd the ap p lica tio n f o r a s ea rc h w ar ra n t. U nited Sta tes v. Fa rm er, 543 F. 3d 363, 377 ( 7th Cir
. 2008 )
. This i s not a c heckl i st; i nde ed, a ny th i nglike thatwoul d b e i nc o ns i st en t wi ththe t o t a l i t y - o f

- c i r c u ms t a n c e s a p p r o a c h th a tth e S u p r e me Cou r t en do r se d i n G a tes. Othe r f ac ts m ightpr o ve he l pful i n a di ffer en t ca se , an d th er e i s no th i ngne ce ss ar i l y wro ng i fone of these co m m on f acto rs i s weak o r nonexi ste nt. S ee U nite d S t at e s v. Cars on , 582 F.3d 827, 832 (7th C ir. 2009). N o r mal l y, we g i v e l i t t l e we i g htt o c o nc l us o r y s t a t e m ents ofan unknown inf or m ant, but i n so m e ca se s ev en tho se s t a t e men t s may c o nt r ib ut e t o the mi x, i f the r e i s s up port i ng f actuali nfo rm ati on o r w e a re gi ven s om e o therN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 13

reason to beli eve th at t h e i nform an t’s statem en ts are r e liab le. U nite d State s v. Koerth , 3 1 2 F
. 3 d 8 6 2 , 86 7- 68 (7th C ir. 2002). Detecti ve W egnerswore thathe b el i eve d the in f or m ati on he obt ai ned fr om Banks was “t ruthful and rel i able inth atit w as ob ta in ed ag ain st h is p en al in te re st s.” The defe nd ants c onte st thi s char acte ri zati on, sa yi ng tha t Banks was act i ng i n hi s o w n i nter estwh en he turned o n the m . The t r uth pr o babl y l i es s o m ewhe re in the m i ddl e. Ba nk s admi tt ed th athe bou g hts i g ni fi ca ntqua nti ti es o fc r ac kfr o m Bo wm ano n s ev er alo cc as i o ns , b ut m osto fhi s co nver sat i on with Detect i ve W egnerf ocuse d o n th e b a d act s o fBo wma n a n d E t c h i n a n d n o th i s o wn m i sde eds

. The de g r ee t o whi chBa nk s was s peak i ng ag ain st hi s o w n penal i nter esti s debat abl e, and thus th is m ay not be the be st re aso n to cr edi t hi s s tat em ents. B ut even i f w e h ad a stronger reason to dou bt B an ks’s mo t i v e s , p r o b ab l e c a u s e r e s t s o n t he to t a l i t y o fc i r c u msta nces, and Banks’ s “ expli ci t a n d detai l ed descr i pti on o fa l l eg ed wro ng do i ng, a l o ngwi tha s ta tem en t th atthe eve nt was o b se rved fi rs t- hand , enti tl es hi s t i p to gr eat er w ei ght th an m i ght o ther w i se be the cas e. ” G a tes , 462 U
. S. at 2 34. Banks t ol d pol i ce that Bowm an and Etchi n had a c h i l d ; h e kn e w th a tB o wm an s t o r e d c r a c ki n a C r o wn Ro y alb aga t Etc hi n’ s ho us e an d k epta sc ale insi de th e k i tc he n c upboard; a nd he de sc r ibe d f o urv i si ts t o the apart m ent duri ng wh i ch he bo ught drugs

. The m ost re cent p u rc hase had take n pla ce j ust a co up l e o fdays earli er. In ad d iti on, police corroborated Ba nk s’s story b y h av in g B an ks p oin t o u t E tc h in ’s h ou se from th eir14 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 crui ser, having hi m i de nti fy photo s, deter m i ni ng tha t Etchin ac tu ally l i ved i n the apart m ent, and ver i fyi ng tha t Bow m an was w anted o n a warr an t forsupport paym en ts related to the ch il d he h a d w ith E tch in. C ont rary to the defendants’ sugg est i on, Banks’ s a rr anged cal lto Bow m an i ncre ased the r el i abi l i ty ofhi s s tory b y e stabl i shi ng tha t the t w o knew one ano ther, ev en i fBanks w as ult i m at ely unabl e t o setup a drug deal

. Though Ban k s i ni ti al l y lie d t o the po l i ce a nd ha d a l en g thy cr i m i na lr ec o r d, the i nf o r m at i o n h e p ro vi ded be f o r e th e offi cer ’ s e ntrysuppli ed probabl e ca u se to bel i eve drugs wou l d b e f o u n d i n E t c h i n ’ s h o u s e . Ac c o r d i n g l y, t he sei zure of Etchin’ s hom e did not vi ol ate th e F ou rth Am e nd men t, a nd the s e a r c h wa r r a ntwa s al s o s up port ed by probabl e ca use. 2. The Se ar ch of

Etchi n’s Apar t m e nt
. Wi th tha te sta bl i shed, we are r ead y to consi der whether the e vi dence dis c ov er ed w hen the offi cer s e xecuted the w ar ra nt m ust be e xc l ude d a s i l l eg al“ fr ui t” o fthe i r i ni ti alunl awful entr y. Seg ura help s here, too. I t hold s tha t w he n a laterar r i vingwar r an t i s ba sed o n inf o r m at i o n “ whol l y unc o nne c t e d ” t o th e i l l e g a le n t r y, e v i d e n c e d i s c o v e r e d d u r i ng the s ear ch i s a dm i ssibl e be cause i ts disc ove ry is b ase d on an ind ep en d en t s ou rc e. Seg ura , 46 8 U.S
. at81 3- 16; se e al so Silv ertho rne Lu m ber C o . v. U n i t e d S ta tes , 25 1 U.S
. 38 5 ( 19 20 )
. The S upr eme Co ur t ha s us ed th i s “who l l y unc o nn ec te d ” lan gu ag e re p ea te d ly. E.g
. , H uds on v. M i ch igan , 54 7 U .S. 58 6, 60 0 (2 00 6); M u r r a y v. U nited Sta tes , 48 7 U.S
. 53 3, 5 3 5 ( 1 9 8 8 )
. Al th o u g h th e l a n g u a g e s o u n d s b r o a d , we have not re ad i t as an i nfl exibl e ru le that anyi nfo rm ati on (no m atter h ow tri vial) obtained du ring an il lega l en tryN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 15 and i ncl ud ed i n a warr ant a pp licati on t ai nts the subse

q u en t s ea rc h

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. M arkl i ng, 7 F. 3d 1309 , 13 15- 18 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. Such a ho l di ngwoul d b e i nc o ns i st en t w ith th e re lat ed “in ev ita b le d isc ov er y d oc tr in e.” S ee U nited St at e s v. Te

j ada, 5 24 F .3d 80 9, 81 2-1 3 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ). Seg ura i nstea d fo cused on the f act th at “[ n]o i nfo rm ati on o bt a i n e d d u r i n g th e i n i t i a l e n t r y o r o c c u p a t i o n o ft he ap ar tm ent was ne e de d orus e d b y th e a g e n t s t o s e c ur e th e w ar ra nt. ” 4 68 U
. S. at81 4 ( em phasi s a dd ed). Thi s s ugg es ts t wo l i ne s o fi nqui r y: fi r st, we as kwhethe r a ny i l l ega l l y obtained i n for m ati on a ffecte d the j ud i ci al offic er ’s d ec isio n to iss u e a w ar ra n t, cf. Fra nk s v. D ela w a re, 438 U
. S. 15 4, 17 1- 72 (1978 ) ; and sec ond, we consi der w hetherthe pol i ce offi cer s’ deci si on to see k a warra nt was pr o m p ted b y a ny th i ngtha t was di sc o ve r ed dur i ngthe illeg al e n tr y, M arkl i ng, 7 F. 3d at 1315

- 16. The i nqui r y i s f ac t- spe ci fi c. In th e c as e be f o r e us , the re cor d str ongl y s up port s the di str i ct c ourt ’ s co nc lu sio n th at“ ag en ts a l way s i nt en d ed t o o bt ain a war r an t” a nd “the w ar ra nt would have i ssued ev en i n the abs en c e of i nfo rm ati on g l eaned fro m the entr y into Etchin’ s a partm en t. ” I nv es ti g at o r s ha d l o ngf o cus ed o n Bo wm an . Theirquesti onin g ofBanks o n the eve ni ng o fOctobe r 2, 2007, l ed them to bel i eve thatEt c h i n’s apar tm ent was a p l ace w here atl eas t s om e o fBow m an’ s i l l ega lact i vi ti es w er e t aking pl ace. D ete cti ve Rei tzl err epor ted thato nce she v er i fi ed that Etchin l i ved i n the p lac e that Banks i denti fi ed, Detect i ve W egnerco ncl ud ed ther e was enough info rm ati on f ora w ar ra nt, and he s et to w or k o n an affi davi t. I t i s di ffi cult t o see how m ar ij uana oranythi ng el se i n pla i n si ght insi de ofEtchin’s apar tm ent was16 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308

necess ar y t o confi rm the o ffi cer s’ vi ew thattheyhad i nd eed f ound the r i ght pl ace. The f act that De te cti ve Rei tzl ertho ught s h e m i ght g et Etchin’ s per m i ssi on t o e nt e r wh i l e De t e c t i v e Wegne r wo r k ed o n hi s wa r r a nta pp li cation doe s not ca st an y d ou bt on De tect ive W eg n e r’s ear l i er - express ed i ntent to secur e a warra nt. I n a d d i t i o n, th e i n f o r ma t i o n th a twa s o b t a i n e d i n the il lega l e n try and then m en tioned in D etec tive W egn er’s affi davi t w as not necess ar y to the deter m i natio n that probabl e ca use s up port ed the w ar ra nt. The singl e paragr aph ofDetect i ve W egner ’ s a ffidavi t that co uld be se en as probl em ati c expl ai ns thatE tc h i n re fused to co nsent to a se ar cho fhe r ho m e, tha t o ffi ce r s en te r ed “t o pr ev en t th e dest ructi on o fev i dence, ” that there were seve ra l c h ild re n in t h e h ou se , th at E tc h inco n firm ed on e c h ild was Bo wm an ’ s, an d tha t “[ o ] ffi ce r s f o und the a par tment lay ou t t o b e th e s am e a s [B an ks ] h ad d es c rib ed .” T h e b u lk ofthe affi davi t r eco unts i nfo rm ati on p ro vi ded byBanks, w hi c h w e hav e already de scribed , exp lainin g B ow m an ’s act i vi ti es and the poss ibi l i ty that cra ck coca i ne would be foun d i n th e hou se. T ha t the l ayou t of th e ap artm en t’s i nter i orhappened to s upp or t B anks’ s s tory was notan es se n tia l fac to r int h e p ro b ab le c au se an aly sis , pa rt icu lar ly when o ne c o ns i der s th e o th ere ff o r ts t o c o r r o bo r at e th e i nfo rm ati on that Banks provi ded

. S ee B roc kv . U nited Sta tes , 573 F
. 3 d 4 9 7, 5 0 2 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( “ Th e h e a r to f[ the ] question is w he th er, taking aw ay an y i ll e g a lly ob tained i nform ation, the affi d avit stil l d em ons trated prob able cau se.”). W e wo ul d h a v e a muc h di ffe r e ntc a s e i f, f o r e xa m ple , Detecti ve W egner ’ s a ffi davi t r eve al ed that Detecti ve R eitzler observ ed m arij ua na i n p la in v iew
. Bu t tha t infor-N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 17

m at ion w as co rre c tly ex c lu d ed from th e w ar ra n t a ffid av it an d the pr o babl e ca us e an aly si s. Acco r di ng l y, the l i nk between the i ni ti alentry a nd the l ate r- disc ove re d evi dence “was s uffi ci en tly a tt enua te d t o di ss i pate the t aint ” o fthe illeg al s ea rc h, Seg ura , 4 6 8 U. S
. a t8 1 5 , a nd we c o nc l ud e that evi dence di sco ver ed w as adm i ssibl e. I t f oll ows fr o m thi s co nc l us i o n tha t th e m ar ij ua na ob se rv ed atth e t im e of th e illeg al e n tr y w as als o p ro p er ly adm i tte d. Se e M ur r ay, 487 U
. S. at 53 7- 41; Sa lgado , 80 7 F.2 d a t 608. Give n our concl usi on that the evi dence is ad m issible un d er Seg ura , we ha ve no ne ed to reach the gov er nm ent’ s a l ternati ve ar gum ents that the pol i ce re lied in g oo d fa i t h on a fac ially va lid w ar ra n t, U nited St at e s v. Le on , 46 8 U.S
. 89 7 ( 1984 ) , and that excl usi on w ou ld b e a d isp ro p or tio n at e r e m ed y, He r r i ng, 12 9 S
. Ct. at 695.

III W e turn no w to thr ee chal l enges thatthe defe nd ants pr e s e ntt o the i r s e nt e nc e s . No ne g e t s o ffthe g r o un d.

A B ow m an and Cole argu e tha t the ir sen ten ces w ere base d on e xagge ra ted drug quanti ti es. Fo l l owing a tw oday se ntenci ng hea ring, the dist ri ct j ud ge deter m i ned th a tB o wm a n wa s r e s p o n s ib l e f o r mo r e th a n 4
. 5 k i l o g r a ms o fc r a c ka n d th a tC o l e w a s r e s p o n s ib l e f o r j u s to v e r t wo kilo gr am s. W e re vie w th es e fin d in gs for c lea r er ro r. U nited18 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 Sta tes v. B a rnes , 6 0 2 F
. 3 d 7 9 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 )
. B o wma n a nd Col e a rgue thatthes e quanti ti es ar e ba sed enti re ly on the t est i m ony of u n re l i abl e g ove rnm ent witnesse s. They po i nto uttha t th e wi tn es se s wer e t o r ec ei ve l o wers en te nc es f o r test i m o ny f av o r ab l e to the g o ve r nm en t, a nd so they had a m oti ve to l i e about th eir p astdeal i ngs w i th B owm an and Col e. A drug- quanti ty fi nd i ng at sente nci ng m ust be supported b y i nfo rm ati on that pos

se ss es su fficie n t in d icia of re liab ility , U nit e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 227 F. 3d 807, 813 ( 7th Ci r. 20 00) , and a guidel i nes ra nge b ase d on f al se evi d en c e can cer tainl y c onst i tute c lea r er ro r, U ni t e d St at e s v. Sa l i nas , 36 5 F
. 3d 582, 58 6- 87 ( 7th C i r . 2 0 0 4 )
. B u twh e r e a s e n t e n c i n gc h a l l e n g e bo i l s d o wn to a cre dibi l i ty deci si on, as thi s one does, our re vi ew is es pec i al l y de fer en ti alt o the di str i ctj udg e’ s as se ss m en t of th e t es tim on y. U nite d State s v. A cost a , 53 4 F. 3d 574, 58 4 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ho use , 110 F. 3d 1281 , 12 85- 86 (7th C ir. 1997). I n 2 00 6, when inv es ti g at o r s be g ant o a skque st i o ns ab ou t B owm an o fvar i ous peo ple wh o them sel ves had been arrested , several volun tee r e d st atem en ts th at w ere us ed to ca l cul at e dr ugqua nt i ti es i nc l ude d i n the de fen dants’ Pre sente nce Invest i gat i on Repor ts ( “PSR”)
. Fo ur o f these witnes ses

— Demont er r y o Bl ac k, Ti m o thy Ham pto n, J ose ph Th i gpen, and J am es W i l der

— agre ed to testify ag ain stB ow m an an d C ole atse n te n c in g a b o u t t h eir ac ti vi ti es i n the pr ec edingde ca de. Ham pto n s ai d he bought an ave ra ge of63 gr am s o f c ra ck per w eekfro m Bow m an overa tw o- yea r peri od, and he t est i fi ed that he t ra vel ed w i th Bow m an to Chica go to buy drugs dozens of ti m es. Blac k add ed that he w or ke d withN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 19 B ow m an to unl o ad 10 0 to 25 0 g r ams per wee kf or a p e r i o d o f t i me , a n d T h i g p e n e x p l a i n e d th a t h e a nd Bo wma n p o o l e d mo n e y t o b uy be t we e n s i x a n d 1 0 k i l o g r a ms of p ow d er co c ain e, w h ich th ey tu rn ed int o c ra c k. A ll four w itness es con fi rm ed that Cole cooked Bow m an ’s cr ac k, and a l ls ai d the y ha d s ee n Co l e i n a ct i o n. Dur i ng cr o ss - ex ami na ti o n, Bo wm ana nd Co l e hi g hl i g ht ed th e wi tn es se s’ l en g thy c r i m i na lr ec o r ds, the i r pas t g an g ac tiv itie s, an d t h e p er so n al g ain ea c h so u gh t b y t es tifyi ng. Bow m an and Col e a l so cal l ed thr ee w i tness es ofthei r own wh o al ldeni ed that they ha d e ve r see n Bow m an and Col e invol ved w i th d rugs . Fi nal l y, Bow m an to o kthe s ta nd t o c o nt es t ne ar l y e ve ryth i ngthe g o ve r nmen twi tne s s e s s a i d. R ecogn izi ng th at th e govern m en t w itness es ha d “ very stron g reason s to say w ha t the y d o ,” t h e d istri ct cou rt nonethel ess f ound t hei r tes ti m ony cre dibl e. The j ud ge obs er ved that they m ade “go od sense ” and co rr obo ra ted one a no the r . Mea nwh i l e , the j ud g e tho ughttha t Bow m an’ s s tory w as “so im pla usibl e that i t bor der[ ed] on bei ngc o nt emptuo us . ” Bo wm ana nd Co l e ha ve o ffer ed no re as on to d ou b t t h is c re d i b i l i ty d et er m in at ion . W h ile w i tness es’ m oti ves ar e i m port ant, we have s tr ess ed that th eir rea so n s fo r ta kin g t h e s ta n d “ ‘d o n otren d er th eir tes ti m ony i nherent l y unre l i abl e. ’ ” Ho use, 110 F. 3d at 1285 (quoti ng U nite d State s v. G arci a , 6 6 F
. 3d 58 1, 5 87( 7th Ci r. 1995 ))
. N or i s it a requ irem e n t t h at a biased w itness ’s te st im on y b e c or ro b or at ed by oth er ev id en c e, U nited St at e s v. M e ndoz a , 576 F. 3d 711, 718 (7th Cir
. 20 09) , tho ugh i n thi s ca se the di str i ct c ou rt r eas onabl y c oncl ud ed th atthe g o ve r nm en t wi tn es se s co r r o bo r at ed o ne a no ther.20 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 Fi nal l y, the f act that Blac k, H am pton, Thi gpen, and W i l der w er e unsavor y chara cter s i s of no i m port ance at thi s s tag e. T h e d i st r i c tc o u r t ’ s c o n s e r v a t i v e c o n c l u s i o n s th a tB o wm an di str ibuted “welli n exces s o f4. 5 k i l ogr am s” ove r 15 yea rs and that Col e’ s l i m i ted ro l e m ea n t h e w as r e s po ns ib l e f o r l e s s tha n ha l ftha ta mou ntwe r e s up po rted by a c o ns i st en t na r r at i ve de l i ve r ed byf o ur se par at e wi tn es se s who ha d de ta i l ed k no w l edg e o fthe defe nd ants’ act i vi ti es. The di stri ct c ourtwas enti tl ed to cre ditthatte st i m ony, and i ts drug- quanti ty fi nd i ngs we r e we l l

- s up po r t e d.

B B o w m an and Cole also conte st th e d istri ct cou rt’s d eci si on t o deny them o ffense- l eve lr educti ons und er U. S
. S
. G. § 3 E1. 1, w hi chpr o vi des a b r ea kt o a de fen dan t w ho “ cl ear l y dem onst ra tes acc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty f orhi s o ffen se .” A gain, the dist ri ct j ud ge i s in the best posi ti on “ to ass ess w hethera defe nd ant i s m oti vate d by genui ne acc eptance ofr esponsibi l i ty, ” U nit e d S t at e s v. G i l b e r t s on , 4 35 F
. 3d 79 0, 7 99 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 6) , a nd o ur re vie w is on ly for cle ar err or , Uni t e d S t at e s v . Pa n i ce, 59 8 F
. 3d 42 6, 4 35 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. The de fen dan ts t ak e th e po si ti o n tha t because the y ha d a r i g htt o r equi r e th e gov er nm ent to prove r el evantco nd uct atse ntenci ng, it is e rr orto deny them a re du cti on f oracc eptance of re sponsibi l i ty si m plybec ause they exer ci sed thatr i ght. B ut that argum en t d o e s n ot d o the d istri ct cou rt’s deci si on j usti ce. W e r eco gni ze that the deci si on t oN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 21 d em an d p ro of of re lev an t c on d u c t d oe s n otau to m at ica lly b a r the r e du c t i o n tha tBo wm a n a nd Co l e s e e k

. Indee d, a defendant m ay i n a r ar e ca se exer ci se al lo fhertr i al ri ghts and sti l lbene fi t under § 3 E 1.1. S ee U nited Sta tes v. D e Le on , 6 0 3 F
. 3 d 3 9 7, 4 0 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 1 0 ) ( d i s c us si ng A p p lica tio n N ot e 2 to § 3E 1.1 ). Th e q u es tio n is w h at d id the defe n d ant do w i th thato pp or tuni ty to tes ti fy, o r ot h er w ise to p ar tic ip at e. A p p lic at ion N ot e 1 (a) t o § 3E 1.1 te lls j ud ges to co nsi der whether a defendant has “ f al s el y den[i ed] any a dd i ti onal r el evantco nd uct” when deci d in g whether to gr ant a r educti on f oracc eptance of r es po ns ibi l i ty
. ( Em phasis a dded. ) W hi l e a defen dan t m ay w ant cr oss - exam i nati on o fwitnes ses to di spro ve f al se tes ti m ony re l ate d to re l evantco nd uct, she m ay also t ryto pre sent tes ti m ony i n an at tem pt f al sel y t o d en y p a st activities. Bow m an and Cole d id th e latter, not the form er. The dis tr i ct c ourtdeci ded th at Bow m an ga ve “f al se te st i m o ny ” an d s ai d tha t Col e “fr i vo l o us l y de ni ed th e am ounts ofcrackcocai ne attr ibuted to [ hi m ]
. ” Col e a rgues th athe is r es po ns ibl e f o r r o ug hl y 1 0 per ce nto fthe q uanti ty ofcr ack coca i ne thatthe gov er nm ent a ttr ibutes to him

. H e i ns i st s be f o r e th i s co ur t th atthe g o ve r nm ent’ s witnesse s m ade up fac ts about hi m , but he pre

sente d onl y o ne witnes s t o conte st thei r ver si on o f eve nts a t s en tenci ng. Giv en the defer enti alst andard of review that ap p li es, w e can no t say th e d istri ct cou rt’s concl usi on that Col e fri vol ousl y denie d r el evan t condu ct w a s c l e a r e r r o r . Bo wm a n’ s a r g ume ntf o r a c c e pt a nc e o f r e s p o n s ib i l i t y wo u l d f a i lu n d e r any s t a n d a r d o fr e v i e w. Fat alto hi s ca se i s the f act that, afterhe w as a rres ted o n22 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 an unrel ate d w ar ra nt o n O c to ber2, 20 07, he e scaped fro m pri son and rem ai ned on the l am unti lea rl y 2 008. S ee § 3 E1. 1, c m t. n. 1(c) ( no tingthe i m po r ta nc e o f“ vo l untar y s urr ender to author i ti es p ro m ptl y a fterco m m i ssi on ofthe offense” )
. I t i s w or th not i ng, to o, thatBow m an i s no t co ntestingo n a ppea lthe di st r i ctc o ur t’ s dec i si o n t o e nha nce hi s s entence under § 3C1. 1 foro bstr ucti ng j usti ce . “ [ A] defen dan t whos e se nt en ce was properly e nhanced f oro bstru cti on o fj usti ce i s pre sum ed not to have accep te d res ponsibi l i ty. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gonzal ezM e ndoz a , 58 4 F
. 3d at 726, 73 0- 31 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ; se e a l so § 3 E1. 1, cm t. n. 4.

C W e ar ri ve fi nal l y at the defe nd ants’ ar gum ents th at th eir se n te n c es w er e u n re as o n a b l e in ligh t o f th e w ellknown feature of th e guidel i nes dra w i ng a dist i ncti on betw een crack an d pow d er cocai n e sen ten ces. W he re the guidel i nes hav e be en pro perl y a pp l i ed, we eval uate the r eas onabl eness ofa sente nce under a n abuse ofdi scr eti o n s ta nda r d, a nd we m aypr es um e a se nt en ce f al l i ng w i th inth e g u id elin es ran ge is re as on ab le. G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 552 U .S. 38 , 56 (2 00 7); R i t a v . U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U
. S. 338, 347 (2007 ). A l lthr ee defe nd ants sugge st that th e crac k/pow der di spa r i ty i s th e ve r y defi ni ti o n o f an “u nwar r an te d se nt e nc e di s pa r i t [ y ] , ” a s the p hr a s e i s u s e d in 1 8 U. S
. C. § 3553 ( a) ( 6)
. U nd er thi s theo ry, al l sente nc es im posed pur su an t to the g ui del i ne s’ s cr ac kc o ca i ne pr o vi si o ns w oul d be “ per se unreas onabl e. ” Th e C ourthas m ade cl earN os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 23 that a j ud ge m ay depart from the cra ck coca i ne gui del i nes because of a pol i cy disa gr eem ent w i th th e c ra ck/ p ow d er d isp ar ity
. K i m bro ug h v . U nited Sta tes , 55 1 U.S
. 85 (20 07 ); S p e a rs v. U nited Sta tes , 1 29 S
. Ct
. 8 40 ( 20 09 )
. At the s a me t i me, ho we v e r, a di s t r i c t c o ur t “ i s e qu a l l y wi thi n i ts au th ority to a d he re to the G uid eli ne s beca us e it con cu rs w i th the pol i cy j ud gm ent the Guidel i nes r efl ect. ” U nited State s v. Scott, 55 5 F
. 3d 605, 61 0 (7t h Cir

. 20 09)
. W e hav e l i tt le to add here to the com prehensi ve disc ussi on o f th i s i ss ue i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gonzal ez, 60 8 F.3d 10 01, 10 03- 05 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10)
. Because Ki m b r ough per m i ts dist ri ct co ur ts t o de vi at e fr o m the c r ac kc o ca i ne g ui del i ne s but does not requi re them to do s o, we rej ect the defendants’ ar gum ent that thei r sente nces ar e unre aso nabl e per se . Etc hi n d ev el o ps he r a r g um en t a bi t fur th er, s ubmi tt i ng that the di str i ct j ud ge f ai l ed to pay properatte n tio n to he r argum en t tha t a d ow nw ard de p artu re w as w arranted ( eve n i fnotr equi re d) due t o the c ra ck/pow der dispar i ty. A s with any ser i ous a rgu m en t a t s entencing, we r equi r e th e se nt en cing co ur t to co ns i der th e point an d provi de an expl anati on o fi ts dec isio n that i s deta i l ed en ou gh to p er m it m ea n in gfu l ap p ella te rev iew
. E.g
. , Scott, 55 5 F .3d at60 8-0 9; U nite d State s v. Harris , 567 F
. 3d 846, 85 4- 55 ( 7 t h C ir. 20 09 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cunn i ngh am , 42 9 F
. 3d 673, 679 (7th C ir. 2005). InE tc h in ’s P SR, th e P ro b at io n O ffice r to ok th e p os iti on that a departur e fro m the cal cul ate d gui del i nes ra nge was n ot warra nted. Etchi n obj ecte d, ar gui ng tha t the c ra ck/pow de r d ispari ty w as a g oo d rea son to devi ate
. I n r es po nse, th e Pr o ba ti o n Offi ce r a m en ded th e PS R,24 N os. 09

- 1079 , 09

- 1276 & 09

- 1308 wri ting, “ Pur su an t to the d ecis i o n in Kim b r ough

. . . the [ di s t r i c t c o ur t ] i s pe r mi t t e d t o c o ns i de r the di sp a r i t y b e t we e n p o wd e r c o c a i n e a n d c r a c kc o c a i n e . ” At sente nci ng, the dist ri ct j ud ge note d thatEtchi n had fi l ed obj ecti ons to the PS R and sai d, “One i s t o the gu id elines f o r de te r m i ni ngb as e o ffen se l ev el s fo r c r ac kc o ca i ne us er s. ” The c o ur t c ont i nue d, “ [ A]s t o the o bj ec ti o n t o the cra ck coca i ne, Iwil lj ust no te that and proc ee d. Do yo u w ant t o sayanythi ng furtherabo ut i t?” Etchin’ s l aw yer re sponded , “On that, pro babl y b ri efl y, J ud ge. ” Afte r th at, ho wev er, the r e was no fur th erdi sc us sion o fthe cr ac k/po wderdi spa r i ty
. At the he ar i ng ’ s co nc l us i o n, the j ud ge said , “Iw ill t ake into con side ration th e ad visory sente nci ng guidel i nes . . . . Ihave n ot ed that bo th parti es have fi l ed obj ecti on s . . . . Giv en the natur e o f th e offen se a nd y o urhi st o r y a nd c ha r ac te r i st i cs , I ’m persuaded thata senten ce withi n the gui del i nes r ange i s warr anted. ” S ent. Tr. a t 1 9- 20. A l though thi s was o n th e b rie f en d of th e s p ec tr u m , th e re c or d as a w h ole pr o v i de s e no ugh i nfo r mat i o n t o p e r mi tu s t o c o nc l ud e th at th e jud ge w as aw ar e o fh er d isc re tio n an d p ro p er ly too k Kim b r ough i nto acco unt. * * * W e A FFIRM the j ud gm ents ofthe dist ri ct c ourtwith re spect to al lthr ee defe nd ants.

8- 4- 10