## 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
- 1938 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C AL VI N W A T S ON, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant .
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 07- CR-140- C- 01

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Chief Ju dge
. A RG UE D J AN UA RY 27, 2009

— D ECI DE D M AR CH 12, 2009

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The defendant appea ls fro m h is c on vic tio n for illeg al p os se ss ion o f g u n s a n d am m u n iti o n, for w hi chhe was s en te nc ed to s i x y ea r s i n pr i so n. The o nl y que st i o n i s t he l eg al i tyo fthe s ei zu r e o fthe w eapons, wh i ch w er e e sse nti alev i dence ofhi s guil t. A p ol i c e o ffi c e r r e c e i v e d a n a no ny mou s t i p tha ta b l ack m an was deal i ng g uns out ofthe tr u nk o fa m ar oo n Do dg e I nt r e pi d dr i v e n b y a whi t e wo man . Th e wo r d “ t i p” i s a m i snom er, si nce the ti pster, w h o cl ai m ed to have2 N o. 08
- 1938 actual l y witnesse d the cr i m i n al a cti vi ty, had tal ked to the pol i ce o ffi cerby phone f oran ho ur, gi vi ng a w ea l th ofdetai l abo ut the carand i ts occupants. H e r efused to gi ve hi s nam e o n the gr ound that he fe ar ed r eta l i ati on b y the c r i mi na l c o mm un i t y ( whi ch, h e s a i d, h a d h a ppen ed to hi m o nce bef o r e) , b uthe g av e hi s pho ne n u m b er an d ot h er i n for m at ion th at w ou ld h av e m ad e it a cinch f orthe pol i ce t o i d en tify h i m . The pol i ce l oca ted a m ar oo n D odge I ntre pid dri ven bya w hi te w om an wi tha b l ac kmal e pas se ng er( th e defen d an t) a nd or dered the dri ver to sto p, w hi ch she did . Six p ol i ce o ffi ce r s appr o ac he d the c arwi thg uns p ointed a t th e oc c u p an t s , w h om th ey ord er ed to lea ve th e c ar an d w alk back w ar ds to w ar d them
. The dri verco nsen te d to a s e a r c h o fth e ca r, w h i c h th e p o l i c e kn e w f r o m a c o mpu terchecko fthe l i c en se p late was hers , and they f ound the weapons i n the tr unk. A n on ym ou s t ip s h av e o fte n be en h eld to b e a n ins u ffic ien t b as is b y t h em se lve s fo r a fin d in g of re as on ab le su sp icio n th at w ou ld j u st ify a s t o p . E .g., Fl or i da v
. J
. L. , 52 9 U .S. 26 6 (2 00 0); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 53 7 F
. 3d 79 8, 80 2 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); Uni t e d St at e s v . Brown , 40 1 F
. 3d 588, 59 5-96 (4th Cir
. 20 05)
. But ther e i s no fl at rul e that su cha t i p c anne ve r pr o vide a val i d b as i s f o r s ucha fi n d in g, especi al l y s i nce the f act that a t i pstergi ves a nam e doe sn’ t neg ate the possib il i ty that the t i p i s a nonym ou s; th e n am e m ay be a fak e. U nited Sta tes v. Wo o den , 55 1 F
. 3 d 6 4 7, 6 4 9 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. Th e t i p i n thi s ca se, m or eover, was onl y quasi
- anonym ous, si nce the pol i ce coul d easi l y hav e i denti fi ed the ti pster

— a n d th a ti s i mp or ta n t. E dw a rds v. Ca brera , 5 8 F.3d 290, 29 4 (7th C ir. 1995);N o. 08
- 1938 3 U nited S t a t e s v. A nd rad e, 551 F. 3d 103, 11 0 ( 1stCi r. 20 08) (p er cu ria m ); U nited S ta tes v. C a sper, 53 6 F
. 3d 409, 414- 15 ( 5th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. A ti p i s l es s l i k el y t o b e m al i ci o us ori rr esponsibl e i fthe ti psterknow s th at the pol i ce c an f in d h im , U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ke nt, 5 3 1 F
. 3 d 6 4 2 , 6 4 8
- 4 9 ( 8th Cir
. 20 08) , tho ugh th er e is a l w ays the possibi l i ty that the i denti fyi ng detai l s a re f ake
. A nd the am ount o fdetai l the tip ste r gave the pol i ce, m uch ofwh i ch theywere able t o cor ro bor ate , was evi den ce that the ti psterhad i nd eed se en the carand i ts occupants. S ee U nited Sta tes v. To rres , 534 F. 3d 20 7, 21 0- 11 (3d C ir. 20 08 ). I t r em ain ed co n c eiv ab le t h at h e c ou ld have f abr i cate d his witnes si ng o fgun deal i ng, but that w as n ot so likely as to d ep riv e t h e p olic e o f rea so n ab le suspi ci on that the carco ntai ned w eapons, se e U nited St at e s v. H i cks , 531 F.3d 55 5, 56 0-6 1 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited St at e s v. Vongkays one, 434 F.3d 68 , 74 (1s t C ir. 20 06 ); U nited St at e s v. Johns on , 3 64 F
. 3d 11 85 , 1 19 1 ( 10 thCi r . 2 00 4); com pare U n i t e d Sta tes v. M o nteiro , 447 F.3d 39, 46 ( 1st C ir. 2006 )

— a s o fc o ur s e i tdi d. The i ci ngo n the c ak e i s th atthe po l i ce di d no t st o p the carunti l theyo bser ved a vi ol ati on

— the r ea r l i cense pla te w as not i l l um i nated, as st ate l aw r equi re d

— w hi ch gave them a l ega l bas i s f orst opping the c ar . That they wo u l d n o t h a v e s t o p p e d i t h a d th e y n o t s u s pe c t e d a m or e s er i ous v i ol ati on

— as th ey obvi ousl y di d, orthey w oul d not hav e a pp ro ached w i th drawn and poi nted gu ns

— is of n o m om en t. Arka ns as v. Su l l i van , 5 3 2 U. S
. 7 69, 77 1-7 2 (2 00 1); Wh r e n v. U nited Sta tes , 51 7 U.S
. 80 6, 81 3 (19 96 ); U nite d State s v. Franklin , 547 F.3d 726 , 733 (7th C ir.4 N o. 08
- 1938 2 0 0 8 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. St ac howi ak, 5 2 1 F
. 3 d 8 5 2 , 8 5 5 ( 8th Cir. 2 00 8)
. A nd f orfurtheri ci ng we note thatthe dri ver c o ns e nt e d t o the se ar c h, a s s he h a d e v e r y r i g htt o do bec au se it w as he r car. T h e d efe n d an t a rg u es th at ev en if th e p olic e c ou ld l awful l y s to p a nd l awful l y s ea r chthe c ar, the y ha d no right to f righten him by poin ting th eir gu ns at him
. Th ere ar e ca se s i n whi ch, a l th o ug h the po l i ce h av e ev er y r i g ht to conduct a sea rch orar re st a per son orseize proper ty, the m anner i n w hi ch they do so vi ol ate s th e F ou rth Am en dm en t. The us ua l c as e i s th ato fthe u se of e xc es siv e p h ys ica l forc e t o e ffec t a n arr es t. E .g., Grah am v. Connor, 4 90 U .S. 38 6 (1 98 9); Wal ke rv. Sh e ahan , 52 6 F
. 3d 973, 97 8-7 9 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); P a rker v . Gerrish , 54 7 F
. 3d 1, 4- 5 ( 1st C ir. 20 08 ); Gil l v. M ac i ej e wski, 546 F.3d 557, 561 (8th C ir. 20 08 )
. Butthe “ ex ce ss ” m i g htc o ns i sto fthrea ts thatput th e a r r e s t e d ( o r s t o p p e d ) p e r s o n i n f e a r o fb o d i l y h a r m. D o rsey v . B a rber, 517 F.3d 389 , 401-02 (6th C ir. 2008). The defe nd ant’s cas e i s weak; si nce the pol i ce had re aso nabl e s uspici on t o thi nk the y were approa chi n g an i l l ega l se l l ero fguns, wh o had guns i n the car( and not ne cess aril y j us t in the tru nk of th e car), they w ere e nt i t l e d fo r the i r o wn pr o t e c t i o n t o a pp r o a c h as they di d. E .g., U nited Sta tes v. Hensley, 469 U
. S. 221, 23 5 (1 985); U ni t e d St at e s v. A skew , 403 F.3d 49 6, 507 (7th Cir. 2005); U nited Sta tes v. Fisher, 3 64 F
. 3d 97 0, 97 3 ( 8th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. But in an y e ve n t, h ad th ey u se d ex c es siv e fo rc e h is r e med y wo ul d b e a s ui tf o r da m ag e s u nd e r 4 2 U. S
. C. § 1 983 ( or s ta te l aw ) r atherthan the e xcl usi on fro m hi s cr i m i nal tr i alo fev i d en c e that had been s ei zed i n anN o. 08
- 1938 5
o th er wi se l awfuls ea r ch
. C hri st o phe r S l o bo g i n, “ W hy Libe ra l s S houl d C huck the Ex cl usi onar y Rul e, ” 1 999 U. Ill. L. Rev
. 36 3, 40 1-0 2 (19 99 ); c f. W illiam J. St u n t z , “ P rivacy ’ s Pr obl em and the Law o fCri m i nal Pro cedure, ” 9 3 M ich . L. R ev . 1 01 6, 1 07 2 ( 19 95 )
. As in H uds on v. M i ch igan , 547 U
. S. 58 6 ( 2006 ) , w h er e the S up re m e Cour t r ule d that a vi ol ati on o fthe rul e that ( w h ere feas ibl e) the pol i ce m us t “kn ock an d ann ou n c e ” th eir p resen ce before bre aki ng i nto a ho use that they a re autho ri zed to se ar ch d oe s n ot j u st ify s u p p re s sio n of th e e vid en c e fo u n d in th e ( o th er wi se l awful ) s earch, the r e i s no c au sa lc o nne c ti on be t we e n the ma nn e r in whi c h the p o l i c e a pproa ched the defendant i n thi s ca se and th e se ar ch of the c arthatdi scl ose d th e w eapons used i n evi dence a g a i n s t h i m. Ha d th e y s a i d o r d o n e n o th i ng t o h i m, draw n and poi nted no guns, but m er el y a ske d the dri ver f orco nsent to sea rch the c ar, the evi dence w ou ld have b e e n di s c o v e r e d. Even clos eri s U nited Sta tes v. R a m irez , 52 3 U.S
. 65 , 71 (1998), w he re w e read that “exc essiv e o r un ne cess ary destr ucti on of p ro pertyi n the cour se ofa sea rch m ay viol ate th e Fourth A m en d m en t, even tho ug h th e ent ry i t s e l fi s l a wfula nd the fr uits of the s earc h arenot s ubje ct to s upp r e s s i on ” ( em phasi s a dd ed). W e th u s d i sag re e with th e d i ctum i n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Anke ny, 50 2 F
. 3d 829, 83 6 (9th C ir. 2007), w hich fli es in t he f ace of R a m irez , tha t th e use o fexcessive f or ce in the cour se ofa sea rch can re quir e s up press i on o fthe evi dence se i zed i t. This i s no t e ven a cas e o fi ne vit ab l e di sco ver y, as w here the pol i ce obtai n evi dence by m ea ns o fan i l l ega l6 N o. 08
- 1938
se ar c h bu t if th ey h ad n ’ t v i ola te d th e la w th ey w ou ld have obt ai ned the e vi dence lawful l y, and on that gr ou n d th e e vi d e n c e is ad m itt ed . E .g., Nix v . Wi l l i a ms , 46 7 U .S. 43 1, 44 4 (1 98 4); U ni t e d St at e s v. Te j ada , 52 4 F
. 3d 80 9, 8 13
- 14 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 8)
. The r e was no c au sa l c o nnecti on i n thi s case b etw een the al l ege d pol i ce c onduct and the o btai ni ng o fthe e vidence that the defendant ask s us to suppress . The pol i ce did n ’t obtain the evi dence bypo i nt i ngthe i r g uns a t th e defen dan t, b utb y o bt ai ni ng the c onse nt o fthe dri ver . A nd ev en i fthe pol i ce obtai ned her conse nt byinti m i dati on ( a quest i on we need not and do not ad d re ss) , the defe nd ant ca nnot o bj ect. H e was j ust a passe nger ; he c l ai m s nei thera proper ty nora posse sso ryi nter esti n the car, s o even a n i l l ega l s e a r c h o fi two ul d n o th a ve i nfr i ng e d his F o ur th Am e nd

m en t rig h ts . R aka s v. Il li nois , 439 U
. S. 128, 133-34 (1978 ). Appli ca ti o n o fthe e xc l us i o na r y r ul e woul d b e par ti cul ar l y g ra tui tous i n thi s c ase beca use the defendant has an adequate re m edy byway ofa ci vi l act i on

— a r e med y be tt erc al ibr at ed to the a ctua lha r m do ne the de f en dan t th an th e e x c l u s i on ar y ru le w ou ld be
. U ni t e d S t at e s v. S i ms , 55 3 F
. 3 d 5 8 0 , 5 8 3
- 8 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 9 )
. I fh e wa s fr i g ht

ened by pol i ce o ffi cer s’ usi ng exce ssiv e f or ce ( the for ce wa s n ’ te x c e s s i v e , b u tf o r c o mpl et en e s s o fa n a l y s i s we a r e as su m in g for th e m om en t t h at it w as ), a j u ry w ill ass ess the dam age s that a re r equi re d to com pensate hi m a nd de t e r the p o l i c e fr o m futur e s uc h mi s c onduct. T o ex c l ud e the ev i dence on w hi ch hi s co nvi cti on was ba se d woul d ret urn a g un de al ert o hi s l i f e o fc r i m e, a nd the c ostto so ci etym i ght wel l exce ed the dam ages that a jur y or ju d ge w ou ld aw ar d h im for h is frig h t. InN o. 08
- 1938 7 shor t, wh en ev i dence i s la w full y s ei zed, pol i ce m i sc o nd uc tcol l a t e r a l t o the s e i z ur e do e s n o tt r i g g e r the a ppli cati on o ft h e excl usi onar y r ule
. Fo r “the f act that a Four th A m endm ent v i ol ati on o ccurr ed .
. . does not necessar i l y m ean that the excl usi onar y r ule appli es. ” H err i ng v. U nited Sta tes , 129 S. Ct
. 695, 700 (2009 ). T he j ud gm en t is th erefore A FFI RMED .

3- 12- 09