# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls

For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

No. 1 5- 39 47

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Tory Dj ua n P at te rs on

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __
App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Dis tri ct of M in ne so ta - St. Pa ul

__ __ __ __ __ __

Su bm it te d: Octo be r 21 , 20 16
Fil ed : Dec em

be r 22 , 20 16 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __

Befo re MUR PHY, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __

PER CURI AM.

Tory Djuan Pat te rs on ap pe al s a di st ric t co ur t o rd er de nyin g hi s m ot io n to 1

s u p p res s ev id en ce ob ta in ed du rin g an al le ge dl y un la wfu l se arch

. Fo r th e reas o n s
di sc us se d b el ow, we af

fir m

.

The Hon or ab le Ri ch ard H. Ky le

, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e Dis tri ct 1

of Mi nn es ot a.On Apr il 15

, 20 14

, a Mi nn es ot a st at e co ur t jud ge is su ed a warra nt au th or iz in g

th e se arch of a pr iv at e dwe ll in g lo cat ed at 10 06 East 6t h Stre et in Dul ut h and of th e

pe rs on of Barb ara Nico le Gil li am , a kn own dr ug de al er be li ev ed t o r e s i de at th is

ad dr es s. Law en fo rcem en t agen ts be li ev ed th ey m ig ht fin d her oi n, o th er co nt ro ll ed

su bs ta nc e s , a n d v ari ou s it em s as so ci at ed wit h dr ug tra ffi ck in g ba se d on th ei r

su rv ei ll an ce of Gil li am an d kn owl ed ge of he r pr io r cri m in al act iv it y

. Sp eci fic al ly, th e

affi da vi t in su pp or t of th e warra nt reco un te d Gil li am ’s hi st or y of an d co nv ic ti on s fo r
di st r i b ut in g crac k co cai ne in 20 09 an d 20 10

, an d it es ta bl is he d he r tra ns it io n to

se ll in g he ro in in la te 20 13

. The re was so m e di sc rep an cy , ho wev er, as to th e pr eci se
lo cat io n of he r dr ug -tr affi ck in g act iv it ie s at th e ti m e. On th e on e ha nd

, a co nf id en ti al

rel ia bl e in fo rm an t rep or te d th at Gil li am ha d so ld he ro in fo ur ti m es in th e vi ci ni ty of

10 th Ave nu e W es t an d 6t h St reet

, wit h on e of th e sa le s oc cu rri ng in th e se ve nt y -two

ho ur s pr eced in g th e war r an t ap pl ic at io n. Als o wit hi n se ve nt y -two ho ur s of th e

ap pl ic at i o n , in ve st ig at or s ob se rv ed Gil li am m eet in g wit h se ve ral in di vi du al s,

in cl ud in g a kn own dr ug de al er, ne ar th e sa m e in te rs ec ti on

. On th e ot he r ha nd

, in ve st ig at or s no te d th at

, be twee n th e su sp ic io us m eet in gs , Gil li am en te red an d ex it ed

a h ou se ne ar 10 th Ave nu e East on 6t h Stre et

, la te r de te rm in ed to be lo cat ed at 10 06

Ea st 6t h St reet

. The affi da vi t th en co nf irmed th at Gil li am ’s ad dr es s of r e c o r d w a s

10 06 East 6t h St reet ba se d on “ po li c e r e c or ds

, pr op ert y in fo rm at io n, an d ot he r
da ta ba se s,” in cl ud in g Gil li am ’s own rep or t to th e Mi nn es ot a Dep art m en t of

Co rrec ti on s as pa rt of he r su pe rv is ed rel eas e. The warra nt ap pl ic at io n al so ex pl ai ne d

th at “ it is co m

m on fo r th os e in vo lv ed in th e di st rib ut io n o f co nt ro ll ed su bs ta nc es to

m eet wit h cu st om ers in th e vi ci ni ty of th ei r res id en ce bu t no t rig ht at th e res id en ce.”

Po li ce ex ecu te d th e se arch warra nt on Apr il 16

, th e da y aft er it was is su ed

, on ly

to di sc ov er th at Pat te rs on , hi s gi rlf rie nd

, an d se ve ral ot he r in di vi du al s were li vi ng in

t h e ho us e. Gil li am was a freq ue nt vi si to r who us ed th e res id en ce fo r st or ag e

. Nev ert he le ss , th e se arch st il l y ie ld ed ev id en ce of cri m in al act i v i t y

. In Pat te rs on ’s

be dr oo m cl os et

, po li ce di sc ov ered a sa wed -o ff sh ot gu n, m ari juan a, an d dr ug

-2

-p a r a p h e n a l ia

. The sh ot gu n fo rm ed th e ba si s of th e su bs eq ue nt ch arg es ag ai ns t

Pat te rs on , whi ch in cl ud ed on e co un t of po ss es si on of an un reg is te red sh or t-b arre le d

sh ot gu n a nd on e co un t o f fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

.

Befo re tri al

, Pat te rs on fil ed a m ot io n to su pp res s th is ev id en ce, arg ui ng th at th e

se arch warra nt fai le d to es ta bl is h pr ob ab le cau se be cau se m uc h of th e in fo rm at io n in

th e affi da vi t was st al e an d, rel at ed ly, be cau se th ere was an in su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n

th e co nt rab an d to be di sc ov ered an d th e pl ace to be se arch ed

. The m ag is tra te jud ge

ag reed

. His rep or t an d reco m m en da ti on co nc lu de d t h a t th e se arch vi ol at ed

Pat te rs on ’s Fo ur th Am en dm en t rig ht s, ex pl ai ni ng th at th e ev id en ce li nk in g Gil li am ’s

cri m in al act iv it ie s ar ou nd th e in te rs ect io n o f 6t h S tre et an d 10 th Aven ue W es t wi th

th e res id en ce on 6t h St reet ne ar 1 0 t h A v e n u e East was “ far to o at te nu at ed ” to

es ta bl is h th e req ui si te ne xu s fo r a se arch

. The m ag is tra te al so de em ed th e Leo n go od

fai th e x c e p t i o n in ap pl ic ab le be cau se of hi s fin di ng th at la w en fo rcem en t pr es en te d

“ no ev id en ce o f an y reas on ab le co nn ect io n bet ween Gil li am ’s cri m in al act iv it y an d

th e res id en ce at 10 06 Ea s t 6 t h S t reet .” Afte r co ns id eri ng th e m at te r de no vo , th e
di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e m ag is tra te ’s reco m m en da ti on

. Of pa rti cu la r rel ev an ce, th e

co ur t m ad e th e fac tu al fin di ng th at “ th e refe ren ces to 10 th Ave nu e W es t were cl ear
typo gr ap hi cal erro rs , [in te nd ed to m ean 10 th Ave nu e East ,] ev id en ced by th e co nt ex t

in whi ch th e refe ren ces were us ed .” Fu rth er, ev en if Gil li am ha d be en de al in g dr ug s

twen ty bl oc ks fro m th e ho us e, th e di st ric t co ur t co nc lu de d, th e affi d a v it st il l

es ta bl is he d a su ffi ci en t ne xu s be twee n th e h o u s e a nd dr ug co nt rab an d to jus ti fy a

se arch

. W it h th es e pr et ria l is su es res ol ve d, th e cas e pr oc eed ed to tri al

, Pat te rs on was

fo un d gu il ty, an d t h e di st ric t co ur t se nt en ced hi m to 96 m on th s’ im pr is on m en t.

Pat te rs on ti m el y ap pe al ed

, ren ewin g hi s in su ffi ci en t-n ex us an d st al en es s arg um en ts

as gro un ds for in va li da ti ng th e se arch of t he res id en ce.

“ On an ap pe al o f a d en ia l of a m ot io n to su pp res s ev id en ce, we rev ie w th e
di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng s fo r cl ear erro r an d it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .”

Uni te d St at es v. Co lb er t

, 60 5 F.3 d 57 3, 57 6 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 10 ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. In

-3

-cas es su ch as th is

, “ [o ]ur ro le is to en su re th at t h e e v i d e n c e a s a who le pr ov id es a

su bs t a n t i a l b as is fo r fin di ng pr ob ab le cau se to su pp or t th e is su an ce of th e se arch

warra nt .” Uni te d St at es v. So lo mon , 43 2 F.3 d 82 4, 8 2 7 ( 8 t h Ci r. 20 05 ) (ci ta ti on

om it te d )

. “ Pro ba bl e cau se ex is ts whe n a ‘pract ic al

, co m m on -s en se ’ in qu iry th at

co n s i d e r s t he to ta li ty of th e ci rcu m st an ces se t fo rth in th e in fo rm at io n be fo re th e
is su in g jud ge y ie ld s a ‘fair pr ob ab il it y th at co nt rab an d or ev id en ce of a cri m e wil l be

fo un d in a pa rti cu la r pl ace.’” Uni te d St a t e s v . S te ven s , 5 30 F.3 d 71 4, 71 8 (8 th Ci r.

20 08 ) (q uo ti ng Ill in oi s v. Ga te s , 46 2 U.S. 2 13 , 23 8 (1 98 3) ).

Alt ho ug h Pat te rs on cas ts hi s ch al le ng e to th e se arch as a qu es ti on of la w, bo th

of hi s arg u men t s tu rn on an im pl ic it reject io n of th e di st ric t co ur t’s fact ua l fin di ng

th at th e affi da vi t’s “ refe ren ces to 10 th Ave nu e W es t were cl ear typo gr ap hi cal erro rs .”

Thro ug ho ut hi s br ie f, Pat te rs on su gg es ts th at Gil li am ’s dr ug pe dd li ng oc cu rred ne ar

th e in te rs ect io n of 6th St reet an d 10 th Ave nu e W es t, rat he r th an 6t h Stre et an d 10 th

Ave nu e East

. Bas ed on t h i s l i t e r al in te rp ret at io n, no t on ly were th e rep or ts of

Gil li am ’s il li ci t act i v i t i e s ne ar 10 th Ave nu e W es t un he lp fu l to th e in ve st ig at or s’

at te m pt to sh ow a ne xu s as to 1 00 6 Eas t 6 th Str eet , bu t t he y act ua ll y cu t agai ns t th e

li ke li ho od th at co nt rab an d wou ld be fo un d at th e res id en ce. Add it io na ll y , gi ve n th at

th e av erm en ts co nc ern in g 10 th Ave nu e W es t were th e on ly two th at oc cu rred wit hi n

se ve nt y -two ho ur s of the warra nt ap pl ic at io n, Patt ers on su gg es ts th at th e rem ai ni ng

in fo rm at io n ty in g Gill ia m to th e res id en ce was st al e. Even if th es e arg um en ts were

va li d on th ei r face

, we reject Pat te rs on ’s un de rlyin g pr em is e. The di st ric t co ur t am pl y

an d co nv in ci ng ly ex pl ai ne d why th e affi da vi t re f e r e n ces to 10 th Ave nu e W es t

“ ob vi ou s l y refe rred to 10 th Ave nu e East .” As th e co ur t ob se rv ed

, th e warra nt

ap pl ic at io n it se lf st at ed th at Gil li am rep eat ed ly cam e an d wen t fro m a ho us e in cl os e

pr ox im it y to he r su sp ic io us m eet in gs , whi ch wou ld m ak e li tt le se ns e if th e il li ci t

act iv it ie s ha d ta ke n pl ace ne ar 10 th Ave nu e W es t, on th e ot he r si de of to wn. It is far

eas ie r to acce pt th at th e ag en t-a ffi an t m ean t t o refe r to 10 th Ave nu e East

, whi ch is
jus t do wn th e s t r e et fro m 10 06 East 6t h St reet

, th an th at he be li ev ed th at an

in te rs ect io n lo cat ed twen ty bl oc ks away was “ in th e vi ci ni ty of ” th e res id en ce. Rea d

-4

-in th is li gh t, th ere is no do ub t th at th e affi da vi t was su ffi ci en t to es ta bl is h p r o ba bl e

cau se

. S e e U

n i t e d St at es v. But le r , 5 94 F.3 d 95 5, 96 1- 62 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ) (“ A m ere
typo gr ap hi cal erro r do es no t

. . . cas t do ub t on th e aff i d a vi t’s sh owi ng of pr ob ab le

ca use to search th e res id en ce.”) (ci ta ti on s om it te d)

. Mo reo ve r, pr ob ab le cau se ex ist ed

a t th e ti m e of th e se arch gi ve n th e ob se rv at io ns of il li ci t act iv it y in th e area w i t h i n

se ve nt y -two ho ur s of th e affi da vi t. Se e Uni te d St at es v. For mar o , 15 2 F.3 d 76 8, 77 1
(8 th Ci r. 19 98 ) (n ot in g th at “ th ere is no br ig ht -li ne te st fo r de te rm in in g whe n

in fo rm at io n is st al e” bu t reject in g on e su ch arg um en t in a na rco ti cs cas e in vo lv in g

in fo rm at io n m or e th an two -week s o ld ) (ci ta ti on om it te d)

.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

th e d is tri ct co ur t’s d en ia l o f th e m ot io n t o s up pr es s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-5

-