## 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. 07
- 2294 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D ANIEL J. B E R K OS, D ef endant-Appellant.

____________ A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 06 CR 148

—Wayn e R. Andersen, Judg e.

____________ A RGUED F EB RU AR Y 22, 2008

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2008

____________
Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, a nd B AU ER an d P OSNER, C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . Defen d an t-A p p ell an t D an ielJ
. Berko s w as charg ed w i th, and ente re d a co nd i ti onal gui l ty ple a to, w i l l fully fa i l i ng to pay m or e than $14 5, 000. 00 in ch il d su p p ort for th e su p p ort of his only son , Stua rt2 N o. 07
- 2294

B erk os w as also ch arg ed w ith co nsp iracy to av oid sup p or t, in 1 v iola tion of 18 U .S. C . § 3 7 1 ( C ou nt T w o), an d m ak ing a false st atem ent to a federal agent, in violat ion of 18 U
. S.C . § 1 0 01 ( CountThr ee )
. Both c ount s wer e di s m i s s ed a ft erBer kos ente red his conditi onal guil ty plea to Coun t One. B erkos (“Stua rt”), i n violation of 18 U
. S. C
. § 228(a)( 3 ). 1 B erkos reserved his ri gh t to ap p eal the d istri ct cou r t ’s rul i ngs o n two m oti ons t o supp re ss evi dence ob tained fro m tw o s ea rc h es : on e o n anin t e r n e t se rv ice p ro vid er in Texas, and the seco nd o n Berk os’ s Ari zona re si dence.

I . B AC KGR OUND Debra Berkos (“Debr a”) and Berk os w er e m ar ri ed on Val enti ne’ s Day of19 87 i n I l l i noi s. Debra ga ve bi rth to th eir so n, S tuar t, the next y ear . The wed ded bl i ss ended s h o r t ly th ereafter and the cou p le divorced i n 19 94. Deb ra was a wa r d e d s o l e c u s t o d y o fS t u a r tp u r s u a n tt o t he J ud gm en t ForDis soluti on o fM ar ri age , and Berk os w as or dered to pay $1, 019. 31 per m on th i n chi l d supp or t. Berko s co nsi ste ntly fai l ed to m ake chi l d supp or t paym ents i n acco rdance w i th the 1994 co urt or der. In f act, B er ko s m ad e o n ly on e v olu n t a r y p ay m en t o f $1 ,78 0.4 8 in 1996
. Th e only othe r p a y m en ts m ad e tow ard Be rkos’s su p p ort obli g a t ion w ere involun tary Fed eral Tax i nt ercepts, to tal i ng $7, 924. 94; as o fOctobe r 31, 20 06, Berk os w as $149 , 012. 56 i n ar re ar s. So m et im e in 19 96 , B e r k os m ov ed from Il lin ois to C alif o r ni a wi thhi s g i r l fr i en d, Da r l en e Pe pev nik. De br a an dN o. 07
- 2294 3

Duri ng the i r di vor c e p ro ceedi ngs , Ber kos t ol d Debra on 2 num er o u s o ccasi ons that i t wou ld be his l ife’ s m is si on to “beat th e sy ste m .” S t ua r tr e maine d in I l l i no i s . Whi l e r e s i di ngi n Ca l i f or ni a, Ber k o s l i ve d wi th P epe vn i ka nd wor k ed f o r v ar i o us c om p an ies , ea r n in g m or e t h an en ou gh to sa tis fy h is c h ild su ppo r t o bl i g at i o ns , b uthe c o nt i nue d to a vo i d m ak i ng paym ents. Between Decem bero f1 99 6 and D ecem bero f

2 1998 , Berk os w or ked f orU ni ver sal Schedul i ng Com pany. Berko s r outi nel y deposi ted hi s earni ngs i nto bank acco unts excl usi vel y in Pepevni k’ s nam e. Between Sep te m bero f 1999 and M a r c h of 2000, Be rkos w as em p loyed by ESI I nter nati onal
. A t Berko s’ s dir ecti on, hi s ESIInt ernati onal pay ch ec k s wer e di r ec tly de po si te d i nt o Pe pev ni k ’ s ba nk acco unts; he l i ste d her as hi s wife. Between Octobero f20 00 an d M ay of 20 01 , B er ko s w as em p loy e d b y C onj oin Inc ., w here hi s payc hecks were again d ire ctl y deposi ted i nto Pepevni k’ s a ccounts, and h e aga i n re prese nted to Conj oi n I nc. thatPepevni k was hi s wife. W hi l e w or ki ng f or an oth er com p an y, Strategic M an agem en t G roup ( “SM G ”), i n N ove m ber of20 02, S M G w as ser ved w i th a dem and fo r wag e wi thho l di ng fr o m th e S ta te o fI l l i no i s f o r the pa stdue ch i l d s uppo r t o bl i g at i o n. S M G p rovi ded Ber k o s wi tha co py o fthe l et te r o n F riday, N ove m be r 1 5, 2 00 2. On th e f ol l owing M onday, Berko s subm i tte d a l ett er of resi gnatio n, pro vi ding no e xplanat i on f orhi s s ud den deci si on to quit
. I n Sum m ero f20 05, Berk os and Pepevnikm ove d to A ri zona . P epevni k t ol d her co- w or ker s in Cal i f or ni a that4 N o. 07
- 2294
s h e wa s mo v i n gt o T u c s o n wi th B e r k o s . In T ucs o n, Pepevni k go t a j ob w i th Di l l ar ds Departm ent S tor e. D il lards’s em p loym en t record s stated that Pep evn ik’ s re p o r te d h om e a d d re ss w as 89 03 N . M ajes tic M ou n ta in Dr i ve , i n Tu cs o n. Du ring the go ver nm ent’ s invest i gat i on o fBerk os, a g e n t s l e a r n e d tha t B e r k o s a n d P e p e v n i ko p e r a t e d t wo com panie s, C-Leve lS ales and Sinsi naw a, bo th o fwh i ch w er e l i nked to w ebsi tes hos ted byRese l l er - Center. com , o f H ousto n, Texas. Based o n that i nfo rm ati on, o n F eb ruary10 , 2006 , the i nvest i gat i ng ag ents appli ed f orand obt ained a w arran t f r o m a district cou rt j ud ge in the N orthe rn D ist ric t o f Ill in ois

— wher e th e i nv es ti g at i o n was b eing conducted

— com pel l i ng Rese l l er - Cent er . com to di scl ose el ectr on ic com m unica ti ons re cor ds re l ate d to C-Level Sal es and Si nsi naw a. The i nfo rm ati on e stabl i shed that Berko s s ol el y o perat ed these co m panie s a nd had re cei ved su bs ta nt i ali nc o m e fr o m the m fr o m 2 00 4 to 2 00 6. The ag en ts a l so di sc o ve r ed th atC- Lev elSa les b eg anr en ting an d rec eiv in g m ail a t a U P S M ailb ox in T u c so n in Ju ly of20 05, and that C

- LevelS al es w as payi ng the r ent for the r esi dence l oca ted a 8903 N
. M aj est i c M ountai n Dri ve. On M ar ch 1, 20 06, a cri m i nalco m p lai nt was i ssued ag ains t Ber k o s a nd Pe pev ni kf o r f ai l ur e to s uppo r t an d c o ns pi r i ngt o a v o i d s up po r t, i n v i ol ati o n o f1 8 U. S
. C. §§ 228( a) ( 3) an d 371, r espect i vel y, and aga i nst Ber kos f or m aking a f al se sta tem ent to a federa lag ent, i n vi ol ati on o fN o. 07
- 2294 5

A ll char g es agains t Pepevnik w ere dism is se d on Ap ri l 18, 3 2007. 18 U. S
. C. § 1 00 1. A m ag i st r at e j ud ge in T ucs o n, Ari zo na 3 au th or ize d a se ar c h w ar ra n t fo r th e M ajes tic M o u n ta in re si dence on that sam e day. On M ar ch 2, 20 06, ag ents ar re s te d bo th B er ko s a n d P ep ev n ik a t t h eir M ajes tic M ountai n re si dence and execute d the sea rch w ar ra nt, sei zi ng va ri ous docum ents and i tem s fro m the hom e.

I I . DI S C US S I ON Ber k o s m ak es two a r g um en ts o n a ppea l : ( 1) tha t th e dist ri ct c ourter re d i n fi nd i ng tha t e vi den c e obtained by the s ear ch w ar ra nt f orthe el ectr oni c co m m u ni cati ons of Re se l l er - Cen te r . co m r el at i ngt o C- Leve lS al es a nd Si nsi naw a was adm i ssibl e despi te the j uris d i cti onal l i m i tat i ons ofRule 41 ( b ) o f t h e F edera lRule s o fCri m i nal Pr o ce dur e; a nd (2) th at th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n fi ndi ng that probabl e ca use s up port ed t he se ar ch w ar ra nt f or th e M aj es ti c M o unt ain r esi d en ce . W e addr es s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.
A . W arr ant Pu r suant t o 1 8 U.S. C. § 2703 ( a) Berko s’ s fi rs t a rgum ent on a pp ealpre sents the questi on ofwh ethera m agi str ate j ud ge in t h e Northern Dis tr i ct o f I l l i no i s m aypr o per l y i ss ue a s ea r chwar r an t ord er i ngthe sea rch and producti on o fel ectr oni c ev i dence pursuant t o 18 U
. S. C. § 2 703( a) , wh er e the warra nt i s di re cted t o an o ut-6 N o. 07
- 2294 of- d istri ct intern et service p rovide r locate d in th e South ern D is tr i cto fTe xa s. P erha ps i na dve r te nt l y, Be r k o s’ s ar g umen tp r e s e nt s the que s t i o n o fwh e the r a v i o l a t i on ofFe deralRule o fCri m i nalProced ure 41(b) , wh i ch dis

cus se s au th o r i tyt o i ss ue s ea r ch war r an ts , mer i ts i nv o k i ng th e exc lu sionary ru le. In B erkos’s op inion, R ule 41(b)’s j uri sdic ti onall i m i tat i on

— that a m agi str ate with a uthor i ty w ithin the d ist ri ct in w hi ch the w ar ra nt i s t o be e xecuted

— re nd er s the warra nt f orRese l l er s- Center. com i nval i d. The dis tr i ct c ourtr ej ecte d B er kos ’ s a rgum ent, and found the w ar ra nt to be proper and the ev id en ce obt ai ned f ro m Rese l l er - Center. com adm i ssibl e. Th i s Co ur th a s h e l d tha t“ v i o l a t i o ns o ffe de r a lr ul e s do not j usti fy the excl usi on o fev i dence thathas been sei zed on the bas i s o fpro babl e ca use a nd with a dvan c e j ud i ci al approval
. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Cazare s - O l i vas , 51 5 F
. 3d 726, 73 0 (7t h C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta tes v. Trost, 15 2 F
. 3d 715, 72 2 ( 7th Cir
. 19 98)
. The r em edy o fal l owing a d efe n d ant t o go fre e ba sed o n a v i ol ati on o fRule 41 ’ s r eq u irem ents f or o bt aini ng a pr o per se ar ch war r an t woul d be “wi l d ly o ut ofpro port i on t o the wrong. ” Ca z a r e s - Ol i vas , 51 5 F
. 3d at 730. Thi s a l one m er i ts affi rm i ng the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni al ofBerk os’s fi rs t m oti on t o supp re ss. H owever, the gov ernm en t f ai l ed to a r g ue thi s i n i ts b r i ef( o r a t o r ala r g um ent, f orthatm att er ) , and thus c annot avai li tse l fo fi ts ben efi t. A cc o r d ingly, w e ad d ress th e m erits ofBe rkos’s ar gum ent. I n re vi ew i ng a dist ri ct court ’ s d eci si on to deny a m oti on to s uppr es s ev i den ce , we r ev i ew i ts leg alc o nc l us i o ns deno vo an d its fac tu a l f i n d in gs for c lea r er ro r. U nitedN o. 07
- 2294 7 St at e s v. H i cks , 531 F .3 d 555, 558 (7th Cir. 2008). B erkos’s ar gu m ent pr ese nts us w i th a l ega lquesti on

— ani ss ue ofst atuto ryco n structi on

— and so w e r evi ew the dist ri ct co ur t’ s dec i si o n deno vo . Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. He nde rs on , 37 6 F.3d 730 , 731-32 (7th C ir. 2006). St atuto ryi nt er preta ti on be gi ns with the pl ai n l anguage ofthe sta tute. W e “ ass um e that t h e le gi sl ati ve pu rpos e [ ofthe sta tute] i s e xpresse d by the o rd i narym eani ng o f the words use d.” U nite d State s v. Lock, 4 6 6 F
. 3 d 594, 59 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( quoti ng Am
. Toba cc o Co. v. Pat t e rs on , 45 6 U
. S. 63 , 68 ( 1982 ) )
. A bsent cl ear l y e xpresse d C ongr ess i onal i ntent to the c ontr ar y, the pla i n l anguage should be c o n c l u siv e. Id
. Th e l a ngua g e a nd de s i g n o f the s t a t ut e as a whol e m aya l so pr o vi de g ui dan ce i n de te r m ining th e pla i n m eani ng o fi ts provi si ons. K M art C orp. v. C arti er, Inc. , 486 U
. S. 28 1, 29 1 ( 1988 )
. W e a voi d i nter preti n g a st atute i n a way t h at re nd er s a word orphrase r edun dant or m ea n in gle ss . G ust afson v. A ll oyd C o., Inc. , 51 3 U.S
. 56 1, 574- 75 (19 95 ); K un gy s v. U nited Sta tes , 485 U
. S. 759, 778 (1988 ). The re l evantst atute , Ti tl e 1 8 U.S
. C. § 2 703(a) pro vi des, inp er tin en t p ar t, th at : A go ver nm entalenti ty m ay re quir e the disc l osur e bya pr o vi dero fe l ec tr o ni c co m m uni ca ti o n s er vi ce o fthe c on te n ts of a w ire or ele c tr on ic c om m u n ica tio n, t h at is i n e l ec tr o ni c st o r ag e i n a n e l ec tr o ni c co m m uni ca ti o ns sy st em for on e hu n d re d an d eig h ty d ay s or les s , o n ly pur s ua ntt o a wa r r a nti s s ue d u s i ngthe p r o c e du r es d escribed i n th e Fed eral Ru les ofCrim inal Proced ure by a cour t w i th j uri sdic ti on ove r the offense u n der8 N o. 07
- 2294

S ho r t l y a ft e r S e ptem be r 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , § 2 7 0 3 ( a ) wa s a m e nd e d b y 4 § 2 20 ofth e U ni t i ng a nd S t re ngthe ni ng Am er i c a by Pr ovi di ng App r o p r i a t e T o o l s t o I n t e r c e p ta n d Ob s t r u c tT e r r o r i s m Ac tof 2001, PL 107- 56 ( H R 3162) ( the “U SA Patriot A ct ” ). Sec ti on 220 o f the U SA Pa triot A ct m ad e tw o sig nifican t cha ng es to § 27 03 (a), b oth b ro ad en ing the g ov ern m en t ’ s ab ility to o b tain w arr an ts f or electro nic c om m u nica tion s. First, search w arr an ts c ou l d b e i s s ue d “ u si ngthe procedu res descr ibed in the Federal R ules ofC ri m inal Procedure, ” ( em phasis add ed), rather than
“ un de r ” tho s e Rul e s , a s wa s the c a s e pr i ort o § 2 2 0
. S e c on d, s ea rc h war ra nt s c oul d b e i s s ued “ by a c our twith j ur i s di c t i on ov e r the offe ns e un de r i nv e s t i ga t i on, ” r a the r tha n e x c l us i ve l y by the cou rt w ith g eo g rap hica l jurisd iction of the electro nic prop erty sou ght by the w arrant . Berkos i napp ropriat el y rel ie s on Uni t e d S t at e s v. Be a umont, 97 2 F
. 2d 5 53 ( 5th Ci r. 19 92 ) , f or the ass ert ion that Ru le 41 only authori zes t h e dis tr ic t i n w hich the prop erty sought i s locat ed to i ssu e a warrant, w hich w as tr ue in 1992, but is not t rue i n li ght of§ 220. W e note that w he n C on g ress alters the w or d s of a statute

— as it d i d i n th is case

— w e p r e su m e th a tit in t e n d e d to c h a n g e t h e st a t u t e ’s m ea n in g . U nited S tat es v. Wi l so n , 50 3 U .S. 3 2 9 , 33 6 (19 9 2 ). H ow ever, w e need not r el y on the e xt ensi ve legi sl ati ve his tory of the 2 00 1 am en d m en t since, as disc u ss ed her ein, w e can rely on the pl ai n l ang uage ofthe s t atut e t o r ea c h o ur c onc l us i on. SeeLock, 466 F. 3d at 598 ( absent cl earl y expres se d C ongress ional in te n t to t h e co n tr a ry , t h e p la in l a n g u a g e sh o u ld b e c o n cl u siv e). i nvest i gat i on o r equi val ent S tat e warr ant. 4 Se c tio n 27 03 (a), h o w ev er , sh ou ld n otbe vie w ed in i sol ati on, since i t p ro vides that when “a co urt w i th j uri sdi ct i o n o ve r the o ffen se ” i ss ue s an o ut
- o f

- di st r i ctwar r an t f o r the s e i z ur e o fe l e c t r o ni c c o mm un i c a t i o ns , i tmus tdo so “usi ng the proce du re s descr ibed i n the Feder alRule sN o. 07
- 2294 9
o fCr i m i na lPr o ce dur e. ” Thus , w e m us t co ns i derthe i nter pla y b etween Fe deral Rule ofCri m i nalPro cedure 41, whi chdi sc us se s th e i ss ua nc e o fs ea r chwar r an ts , a nd § 2 703( a)
. Rule 41 ( b) , i n pert i nent par t, r eads: A ut hority to I s s u e a W arran t. A t the requ est of a fede r all aw e nf o r ce m en t offi ce r o r a n a tt o r ne y f o r the gov er nm ent: ( 1) a m agi str ate j ud ge w i th authori ty i n the dist ri ct

— or ifnon e is reason ably available, a jud ge of a stat e cou rt ofr eco rd in t he di str i ct

— has a uthor i ty to i ssue a w ar ra nt to se ar ch f or a nd se i ze a per son orpro perty loc at ed w ith inth e d ist ric t[.] Berko s doe s no t chal l en ge that the Northe rn Di str i ct o f I l l i no i s was th e j ur i sdi ct i o n wi th au th o r i ty o ver the offense und eri nvesti gat i on, and ri ghtfully s o, since Berko s’ s obl i gat i on t o p ay c h il d supp or t was o rder ed by a n I l l i no i s co ur ta nd the i nv e s t i g a t i o n o fh i s f a i l ur e t o do so w as conducted i n I l l i nois. Berk os’ s di sag re em ent with the di str i ct c ourt ’ s r uling l i es i n the § 27 03(a) phrase “pursuant t o a warr ant i ssued u si ng the pro cedures des cr ibe d i n the F ede r alRul es o f Cr i m i na lPr o ce dur e. ” The pr o bl em wi th Ber k o s’ s argu m en t

— th at all ow ing out -of

dist ri ct warr ants vi ol ate s the pro cedures re q u i re d by Rule 41(b)

— i s th atRul e 41(b) i s a su bs ta nt i ve pr o vi si o n, no t a pr o ce dur alo ne . S ec ti o n 2 70 3( a) refers o nl y t o the speci fi c pro vi si ons ofthe Rules o fCri m i nalPro cedure, nam el y, R ule 41, thatdetai lthe pro ced ures f o r o bt aini nga nd i ssui ng warr ants. The word “pro ced u re” i s defi ned as “ a speci fi c m etho d orco urse o fact i on, ” Bl ack’ s Law Dic ti on a r y, 1 2 4 1 ( 8 th e d
. 2 0 0 4 ) , o r “ a p a r t i c u l a r w a y o fa c c o m-10 N o. 07
- 2294

Fur the rm or e, we no t e thatCong re s s am en ded the r el eva nt 5 l ang uage of§ 27 03 ( a) , s t ri ki ng “ underthe Fe der al Rul es of Crim inal Procedure” everyw here itapp eared and replaci ng that language w ith “usi ng the procedu res desc ribed i n the Fed eral R ules ofCrim inal Procedure. ” S ee PL 10 7- 56 , § 22 0( a) ( 1)
. T he w ord “p rocedures” w as als o m od ifie d b y “d es cribed i n, ” w hich further expres se d C ongress ’s i ntentthatonly the procedural a sp ec ts o f R u le 41 ap p ly to § 2 7 0 3 (a ). S ee id. I f all p rovi s i ons of R ule 41 ( or the Federal R ules ofCrim inal P rocedure, f or that m at t er ) wer e s t ri c t l y pr oc edur al, the phr as e “de s c ribed i n” w o u ld b e m ea n in g le ss. SeeG ust af so n , 513 U.S
. at 574- 75 ( federal courts s hould avoid i nter preti ng st atute s in a w ay that renders w o rd s o r p h ra se s m ea n in g le ss o r r ed u n d a n t). pli shi ng so m ethi ng o r acting. ” M er ri am W ebst er ’ s Col l eg i a t e D ict ion ar y, 99 0 (1 1t h ed . 200 3). T h e c om m on d efin iti on o f“p ro cedure” supp or ts the c onclusi on that § 27 03( a) i ncor pora tes o nly those provi si ons ofRule 41 that add re ss the “ speci fic m ethod” or“par ti cul arway” to i ssue a w ar ra nt. M or eov er, Rule 41 ( b) i s t i tl ed “A uthor i ty 5 to I ssue a W ar ra nt” a nd di scusse s the ci rcum st an ces as t o wh e n a c o ur tma y i s s ue a wa r r a nt, n o tthe p r o c e dure s to be use d f oriss uingthe w ar ra nt. In f act, the proce du re s f ori ssui ng a w ar ra nt ar e e num er ate d at Ru l e 41( e) , wh i ch of c ou rs e, w ou ld ap p ly to § 27 03 (a). See F ed. R. Cr i m . P. 41 (e). Fi nal l y, bec ause § 2 703( a) has i ts own j uri sdic ti onal provi si on a uthor i zi ng di str i ct c ourt s to issue w ar ra nts onl y where i t has “j uri sdic ti on o verthe offense, ” Rul e 4 1 i tse l fpro vi des thatthe Ru le m ay “not m odi fy a ny st atute r eg ar di ngs ea r cho r s ei zu r e, o r the i ss uanc e a nd e xe cu-N o. 07
- 2294 11

W e agree w ith the gov ernm ent thatCong res s p ro v id ed such 6 a “sp ecial circu m stan ce” thro u g h § 270 3(a) si nc e w ar r a n ts pu rs uant to § 2703( a) do not direct ly i nf ri nge up on the pers onal privacy ofan individu al, bu t ins tead com pel a s ervic e provider t o di vul ge r e c or ds m a i nt a i ne d b y the pr ov i de r f orthe s ub

sc ri b er . t i o n o fa s e a r c h wa r r a nti n s pe c i a lc i r c umsta nc e s . ” F e d. 6 R. Cr i m. P. 4 1 ( a ) ( 1 )
. I n s um, Ru l e 4 1 ( b ) de a l s wi th substa nti ve j ud i ci alautho ri ty

— not proc e d ure

— an d thus d oes not ap p ly to § 2703(a).
B. W arr ant To Sear ch M aj est i c M ountai n R esi den ce Ber k o s a l so ar g ue s tha t th e di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed i n f ai l i ng to s uppr es s ev i den ce o bt aine d fr o m the se ar cho fthe M aj est i c M ountai n re si dence. S peci fi cal l y, Berk os ass er ts tha tthe a ffi da v i ti n s up po r to fthe s e a r c h wa r r a nta ppli cati on f ai l ed to e st abli sh pro babl e ca use that Ber kos oc c u p ied th e re sid en c e. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtrejec te d th is ar gum en t, fi ndi ngtha t th e affi dav i t ade qua te l y de m o nst ra te d th e c on n ec tio n be tw ee n t h e M ajes tic M ou n ta in re si dence, Pepevni k, Berk os, and Berk os’ s co m panie s. W hen a sea rch is au th or i zed bya w ar ra nt, we gi ve “great defer ence” to the i ssui ng j ud ge’ s co ncl usi on that p ro b ab le cau se h as be en es ta b lish ed
. U nite d State s v. G arci a , 528 F. 3d 481, 48 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng U ni t e d St ates v . M cIn tire, 516 F.3d 576 , 578 (7th C ir. 2008)). So long as th ere i s “ su bs ta nt i ale vi den ce i n the r ec o r d” to s uppo r t th e iss u in g jud ge ’s p ro b ab le c au se d et er m in at ion, w e w ill12 N o. 07
- 2294 d efe r to th at d ec isio n . U nited Sta tes v. C urry, N o. 07
- 2455 ,

___ F. 3 d

___, 2 0 0 8 W L 3 5 6 3 6 3 6 , a t * 8 ( 7 th Ci r . Aug. 15 , 2008 ) ( quoti ng U nited S ta te s v. Koerth , 31 2 F
. 3d 862, 86 5 (7t h C ir. 20 02 )). “[T ]h e t as k of t h e is su in g m ag ist ra te is si m plyto m ake a pract i cal, co m m onsense deci si on whethe r, g i ve n a l lthe c i r cumst an ce s s etf o r thi n the affi davi t be f or e h im , . . . ther e i s a f ai r probabi l i ty that co n t r ab a n d o r e v i d e n c e o f a c r i me wi l l b e f o u nd i n a parti cul arpl ace. ” Id. ( citation om itted ). W e can dis pose ofBerk os’ s s eco nd ar gum ent with m uch l ess effor t than the fi rs t. Berk os i gnor es the f act that ther e was si gni fi cant evi dence that B er kos ’ s co - defe nd ant, Pe pev ni k, r es i ded atthe M aj es ti c M o unt ain h o m e. The affid av it for th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t a lleg ed th at P ep ev n ik re cei ved m ai l there thr ough the U ni ted S tat es Post al Se rv i ce, and thatshe m ai ntai ned i nter net s er vi ce in her nam e a ttha tr e s i de nc e . Be c a us e P e pe v ni kwa s a l so i ni ti al l y c harg ed i n thi s ca se and because ther e was substa nti aland und i sputed evid en ce that s he l i ved ther e, th e w ar ra n t w as su p p or te d by p ro b ab le c au se th at ev iden ce o fthe c ons p irac y t o a vo i d s uppo r t, s ucha s ba nk re cor ds showing Berko s’ s fund s bei ng funneled i nto acco u n ts i n hernam e, would be f ound at the r esi dence. Such ev i dence i s pro perl y a dm i ssibl e a ga i nst Ber kos si nce i t i s r el evantto the exi ste nce o fthe conspi ra cy. See Fed. R. Evi d. 402; s eeals o U nite d State s v. P ri ce, 41 8 F
. 3d 771, 779-80 (7th C ir. 2005). E ve n i fPe pev ni kha d no t be ena c o - defen dan t, the affid avi t was suffi ci ent t o al l ow a r eas onabl e per son to bel i eve thatther e was a str ong l i kel i hood thatev i denceN o. 07
- 2294 13 ofBerk os’ s cri m i nalco nd uct would be f ound there
. Berk os an d Pe pev ni kl i ve d t o g ethe r f o r s ev er aly ea r s bef ore ( ac co r di ngt o P epe vn i k ’ s Cal i f o r ni a co - wor k er s) moving tog etherto Tucson, A ri zona. Pepevni k r ecei ved m ai lat the r e s i de nc e , wh i l e Be r k o s h a d n o kno wn mai l i nga ddr e s s . Be r k o s ’ s c o mpa ny, C- Le v e lS a l e s , ma i ntai ne d a m ai lbo x a t a Tuc so n UPS S to r e atwhi chb o th Ber k o s an d P e p e v n i kr e c e i v e d ma i lb e g i n n i n ga r o u n d th e s a me t i me as P ep ev n ik’s m o v e to T u c so n, an d C -L ev el Sa les p aid the r ent forthe M aj est i c M ountai n re si d en c e. A r easo n ab ly p ru d en t p er so n w ou ld co n c lu d e t h at P ep ev n ik and Berko s m ai ntai ned a per sonalr el ati on shi p and that Berko s was l i kel y r esi ding w i th heratthe re si dence p aid fo r b y h is c om p an y. Se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. La ke, 50 0 F
. 3d 62 9, 6 32 (7 thCi r . 2 00 7) ( r ei te r at i ngpr o babl e ca us e st an dar d)
. Acco r di ng l y, the r e was s ubs ta nt i alev ide nc e i n the re cor d to su p portthe i ssui ng j ud ge’ s probabl e ca use d et er m in at ion, an d th er efo re th e d ist ric t cou r t p ro p er ly d et er m in ed th at th e e vid en c e s eiz ed from th e M ajes tic M ountai n re si dence w as adm i ssibl e.

I I I . C ONC L US I ON Forthe re aso ns se t for th abo ve, we A FFIRM the distri ct cour t’ s deni alo fBerk os’ s m oti ons to supp re ss evi dence.

9- 9- 08