## 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. 11

- 1662 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. C O REY S EA R CY, 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 E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 10- CR-33

— Charle s N . Cleve rt, Jr. , Chief Ju dge
. A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2011

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 30, 2011

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd W I L L I A MS, C ircu it Judges . C UDAH Y, Ci r c u i tJudg e . Thi s i s a cas e about a searc h w arran t based on an affidav it c o nt aining inform at ion p ro vid ed by a c on fid en tia l info rm an t. A lthough the co nfi denti ali nform ant co uld have pro vi ded ad d it io n a l in fo r m a t io n re g a r d in g a n y p a s t i nt eracti ons w i th the defendant orr ega rd in g th e m odelo f fi re ar m the defe nd ant i l l ega l l y pos ses sed, w e bel i eve the a ffi davi t s et f or th suffi ci ent f acts to e stabl i sh pro ba b l e c a u s e . F o r th i s r e a s o n w e a ffi r m.2 N o. 11

- 1662 On Jul y 1 , 20 09, Offi cer A nd re w M ats on o fthe Great er R acine Ga ngTa skF o r ce a ppl i ed f o r a s ea r chwar r an t to se ar c h th e h om e o fd e fen d an t C or ey D . Sea rc y. H is supp or ti ng affi davi t was bas ed pri m ar i l y o n i n for m atio n p ro vid ed by a c on fid en tia l info rm an t. T h e a ffidav it s ta te d, i n r el ev an t par t, tha t th e co nfi den ti ali nfor m an t c on ta c te d O ffice r M at so n an d info rm ed h im that he o bser ved S ear cy w i th a fi re ar m i n the re si dence loc at ed at22 20 H ar rie t St re et, Ra c in e, W isc on sin w ith in the past72 h ours . T he inf or m ant fur therst ate d that S ear cy l i ve s attha t addr es s wi tho th erf ami l y m embe r s an d that the r esi dence w as shotati n the p asttwo w eek s b y g a ngme mbe r s d ue t o a n o ng o i ngg a ngfe ud

. Offi cerM ats on’ s a ffi davi t s tat ed tha t he consi dered the info rm ant r el i abl e beca use the i nfo rm ant had provi ded infor m ati on i n the past s i x m onths that re sul ted i n the ar re st ofthr ee differ ent ind i vi du al s. T h e a ffid av it a lso st at ed th atO ffice r M at so n w as ab le to parti al l y c or ro bor ate the i nfo rm ant’ s s tat em ents. R acine Poli ce D ep artm en t record s s how ed that Searcy’s pri m ar y ad d re ss w as 2220 H ar ri et St re et. The uti l i ti es for t h at a d d re ss w er e list ed u n d er L en n a G ar d n er , a fam ily m embe r o fS ea r cy . Offi ce r M at so n’ s ch ec ko fS ea r cy ’s cr i m i na l hi st o r y c o nfi r m ed th atSe ar cyha d a fel o ny con viction ( Pos session of C ocaine w ith I nt en t to De li ver). M or eov er, Offi cerM atson k new fro m hi s e xperi ence on the Gre ate r Raci ne Gang TaskFo rce t h at Sear cy w as an ac ti ve mem be r o fthe Vi ce Lo r ds st r ee t g an g, whi ch, he s ta te d, i s k no wn f o r i l l egala ct i vi ti es , i nc l udi ng w ea p on s-r ela te d offe n se s a n d illega l d ru g t ra ffick in g.N o. 11

- 1662 3 Based on thi s a ffi davi t, a state cour t j ud ge author i zed a s ear ch w ar ra nt f orS ear cy’ s r esi dence. Execu tio n of the warr ant r eco ver ed two fi re ar m s. On Febr uary23 , 20 10, a gr and j ury i nd i cted Se ar cy w i th one count of fe l on in p os se ss ion of a fire ar m . On M ar ch 16, 20 10, S ear c y filed a pre- tr i alm oti on to su pp re ss evi dence. H e co ntended that the se ar ch w ar ra nt di d not e stabl i sh pro babl e ca u se because th e i nf o r m an t’ s st at ement s l ac k ed su ffi ci en t det ai l a nd i nde pen den t co r r o bo r at i o n. The magi st rate j udg e co nc l ud e d tha tthe t o t a l i t y o fthe c i r c ums t a nc e s s upport ed the fi nd i ng o fpro babl e ca use, and th at , in any eve nt, th e ev i den ce s ur vi ve d unde r the g o o d f ai the xc ept i o n. O n th e d e f e n d a n t ’ s o b j e c t i o n t o th e m a g i s t r a t e ’ s r e c o mm en d ation, the d istri ct cou rt ad op ted the m ag is trate’s re com m endation and deni ed the defe nd ant’ s m oti on to s up pr e s s . T he de fe nd a ntthe n e nt e r e d int o a pl ea ag r ee m en t wi ththe g o vern m en t, r es er vinghi s r i g ht to ap p ea l th e d en ial of h is m ot ion to su p p re ss .
I. On app eal, S ear cy re new s hi s a rgum ent that the se ar ch w ar ra nt exec uted at hi s ho m e was not supporte d by probabl e ca use. On thi s quest i on, we re vi ew the distr i ctc o ur t' s dec i si o n deno vo , but gi ve “gr ea t d efer ence” to the c oncl usi on o fthe j ud ge w ho in iti al l y i ssued the warr ant. U nite d State s v. G arci a , 52 8 F
. 3d 481, 48 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng U nited Sta tes v . M cIn tire, 51 6 F
. 3d 5 7 6 , 5 7 8 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) )
. “ Whe n a n a ffi d a v i t i s th e only evid en ce p resen ted to a j ud ge in sup p ort of a4 N o. 11

- 1662

sea rch w ar ra nt, the val i dity o fthe w ar ra nt r est s s ol el y o n the s tr engt h o f the affi davi t. ” U nite d State s v. P ec k, 31 7 F. 3d 754, 75 5- 56 ( 7th C i r. 20 03)
. Probabl e ca use i s e stabl i shed w hen, bas ed on the to tal ity ofthe ci rcum sta nces, the affi davi t s ets f or th suffi ci ent e vi dence to i nd uce a r e a s o nab l y pr ud e nt pe r s o n t o b e l i e v e tha t a se ar ch w ill un c ov er ev id en c e o f a c rim e. See Illin o is v. G a tes, 46 2 U .S. 21 3, 23 8 (1 98 3). W here pro babl e ca use i s ba sed o n i nform ati on su pp l i e d b y a n i nfo r man t, we e mpl o y a t o t a l i t y - o f

- theci rcum sta nces i nquir y encom passi ng seve ra l fact or s: firs t, th e d eg re e t o w h ich th e in for m an t a c q u ire d kn ow le dg e o fthe e v e nt s thr o ugh fi r s tha nd o b s e r v a t i o n; s e c o nd , the det ai l and speci fi ci ty of the info rm ati on pro vi ded by the info rm ant; thi rd , t h e inter valbetw een the date of th e e v e n t s a n d a p o l i c e o ffi c e r ' s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r t he se ar c h w ar ra nt; and f ourth, the extent to w hi ch l aw enf or cem ent c or ro bor ate d the i nfo rm ant' s s tat em ents. G arci a , 528 F. 3d at 485- 86. N o one f acto r is d et er m i nati ve an d a “defi ci ency i n one f acto r m ay be c om pensated f orby a st ro ng sho w i ng i n another orby so m e o ther i nd i cati on o fr eli abi l i ty. ” P ec k, 3 17F
. 3d at7 56 ( ci ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br ac k, 188 F.3d 748 , 756 (7th C ir. 1999)). I n the pr es en t ca se , we co nc l ude tha t, b ased on the to ta lity of cir c u m st an c es , Of fice r M at so n ’s a ffid av it p rovide d suffi cient ly reliable inform ation to su p p ort th e issuan ce of a search w arran t. W e the re fo r e affirm the di str i ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe defe nd ant’s m oti on t o supp re ss. Though w e a gr ee w i th the d efend ant that the info rm ant’ s cr edib ility i s o fpri m e i m port ance he re ,N o. 11

- 1662 5

an ana lysi s of th e totality- of- th e-c ircu m stan ces factors sh ow s w h y th e in for m at ion co n ta in ed in t h e a ffid a vit w as su fficie n tly reli a b l e t o s u p p or t a find in g of p ro b ab le cause. First, the ke y i n form ation p rovide d by the i nform an t

— that he or she obs er ved Se ar cy w i th a gu n in h i s h o me

— was o bt aine d thr o ug h fi r stha nd o bs er va ti o n. T h is in for m at ion w as als o t r an sm itt ed w ith in a re lat ive ly s h o r tp e r i o d o ft i me

— 72 h ou rs

—bef or e th e a pp l i cati on f orthe se ar c h w ar ra nt and cer tai nl y was notst al e. M o r eo ve r, the in f o r m at i o n fur ni sh ed bythe i nf o r m an t w as l ar gel y c or ro bor ate d by l aw enf or cem ent. Offi cer M ats on, by c hecki ng the pol i ce r eco rds, wh i ch l i ste d that l oca ti on a s hi s pri m ar y a dd re ss, verifie d that S ear cy i n f act re si ded at 2220 H ar ri et St re et. Offi c er M atson al so confi rm ed that the uti l i ti es ser vi ng tha t l oca ti on were i n the nam e o fLenna Gardner, wh om O ffi cerM ats on knew to be a m em bero fS ear cy’ s f am i l y. L a s t l y , th e i n f o r ma n t ’ s s t a t e me n tth a tS e a r c y ’ s h o me w as sh ot at by a ri val gang w as con s is t e nt w ith O fficer’s Ma t s o n’ s u n d e r s t a n d i n gth a tS e a r c y w a s a n a c t i v e me mbero fthe Vice Lor ds gang, wh ich is oft en i nvol ved in w ea p on s-r ela te d inc id en ts
. Se ar c y foc u se s o n th e a ffid av it’s lac k o f d et ail a b o u t th e p h y s i c a l l o c a t i o n a n d c i r c u ms t a n c e s o ft he i nf orm an t’ s o bs er va ti o ns . Tho ug h we ag r ee tha t th e affi davi t was l acking i n sp ec i fi ci ty, thi s s hor tco m i ng, o n b ala n c e, is n otsu fficie n t t o ov er tu rn a fin d in g of p ro b ab le cause. Fa cts i nd i cating how the info rm ant ca m e to be i nsi de Se ar cy’ s ho m e o r w here exact l y in the hom e he saw6 N o. 11

- 1662 Se ar cy w i th the gun wou ld have b een he l pful, but they ar e b y n o m ea n s re q u ire d to es ta b lish p ro b ab le c au se . See G arci a , 5 28 F
. 3d at 486. Ra th er, g i ve n the f ac t th atthe i nfo rm ant’ s pre vi ous deal i ngs with the pol i ce l ed to th r ee a r r es ts i n th e p as t si x months , a nd, a s th e m ag i st r at e j udg e in the c ur r en t ca se no te d, b ec au se the i nf o r m an t f ac ed cr i m i na l pr o se cut i o n for fur ni sh i ng f al se i nfo rm ati on t o pol i ce, the i nfo rm ant’ s info rm ati on w as suffi ci entl y r eliab l e t o com pensate f ori ts l ack of d et ail. See U nite d State s v. Koerth , 312 F. 3d 862, 87 1 (7 th Cir

. 20 02) ( “[ A ] m agi str ate i n the exer ci se ofso und j ud gm ent i s e nti tl ed to gi ve gr eat erweight to a ti p f ro m a k n ow n in f o r m an t, w h o c an be h eld res p on sib le shoul d he be f ound t o have gi ven m i sl eadi n g info rm ati on t o pol i ce o ffi cer s, and thus h as an i ncenti ve to p rovide truth ful i nform ation to th e d etec tives.”)
. Se ar cy re lies on thre e ca ses

— U nite d State s v. P ec k, 31 7 F.3 d 75 4, U nite d State s v. Koerth , 3 1 2 F
. 3 d 8 6 2 , a nd U nited State s v. B el l , 58 5 F .3d 1 045 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09)

— th athe ar gues com pel a differ ent r esul t. They do not. In ea ch of th o s e c a s e s , th e a ffi d a v i t ’ s l a c ko fs p e c i fi c i t y w a s c o mpo unde d b y o th eri ndi ci a o funr el i ab i li ty notpr es en t he r e. I n B el l a nd P ec k, for in st an c e, th e c on tr ab an d in questi on co nsi ste d ofdrugs that ar e e asi l y m i sta ken f oro ther, l ega l subst an c es . T he sa m e i s no t t rue offi re ar m s. Fur ther, the am ount a nd fre quency ofdi str ibuti on o fthe dr ugs w er e i m po r ta nti n B el l a nd P ec kbec ause thos e f acts were el em ents of t h e offense f orwh i ch p ro b ab le c au se w a s b ein g e st ab lish ed . I f a m ag ist ra te is to r ea so nabl y c o nc l ude tha t th e i te m s be i ngs o ug htare as so ci at ed wi th a crim e (i
. e. , poss ess i on with i ntent toN o. 11

- 1662 7

O fcours e, the s uspect m ust als o be a convict ed f el on, but that 1 e l e m e n tw a s c l e a r l y sa t i sf i e d b y M a t so n ’s c h e c k o f S e a r c y ’s cri m inal his tory Sea rcy c on ten d s th at the in form an t is no t reliab le b eca u se his 2 p rev ious pro vi s i on ofi nf or m at i on t o pol i c e di d notr es ult i n su c c e ss fu l c o n v i c t i o n s. T h e fa c tth a tth e in fo r m a n t ’s furn ished inform atio n led to ar re st s rath er th an con v iction s, w h ile p o te n tia lly re le v a n t , i s n o t d isp o sit iv e i n th is c a se . S ee G a rc ia , 52 8 F .3d at 48 6 ; cf. K oe rth , 312 F. 3d at 867. dist ribute) , speci fi c i nfor m ati on had to be add uced relating to the elem en ts of that crim e. H ere, t he m ere posse ssi on o fa fi re ar m i s a l l thatis r eq u i re d to est abl i sh the co m m i ssi on o fthe offense. 1 M o r eo ve r, the l ac ko fs pec i fi ci tyi n Koerth , P ec k, a nd B el l to o k o n i nc r ea se d s i g ni f i canc e be ca us e th e i nf o r m an ts i n tho se c as es ha d no hi stor y o fpr o vi di ng r el i ab l e i nfo r m at i o n t o po l i ce. Su chhi st o r y i s i m po r ta nt i n de te r m i ni ngwhethe r, o r the ex tent to whi ch, a n i nf or m ant’ s info rm at ion i s co l or ed by a bi as aga i nst a defen d an t. In S ea rc y’s ca se , th e in for m an t h ad rec en tly pr o vi ded i nf o r m at i o n t o po l i ce abo utthre e di ffer en t ind ivid ua ls, alll ead ing to arrests. Th e inform an t’s 2 pattern ofr epor ti ng i nfo rm ati on t o pol i ce w ith res pect t o othe r i nd i vi du al s ind i cate s that the i nfo rm ant i s no t tar get i ng S earcy . W e a re ther ef or e l ess co ncer ned than we w er e i n B el l abo ut wh etherthe i nfo rm ant “ i s a r i val drug deal er, an a ngrycusto m er, o r had som e beefwith [ the defendant]. ” B el l , 58 5 F
. 3d at 1050
. A s the m agi str ate j ud ge be low n ote d, “[ I t] i s o ne thi ng to si c the autho ri ti es ont o a person against w hom you m ight ha ve a p ersonalgr ud ge. I t i s a n enti re l y di ffer ent m att erto gi ve8 N o. 11

- 1662 the a u th ori ti es i nfo rm ati on t o supp or t the ar re sts o fthr ee se p ar at e in d ivid u al s .” D ef’s B r. atA . 23; see also G arci a , 528 F. 3d at 486. Onb al ance , a r e a s o nab l e f a c tfi nd e r c o ul d c o nc l ud e that the a ffi davi t s et f or th suffi ci ent fac ts to es tabl i sh probabl e ca use. The i nfo rm ant provi ded fre sh i nfo rm ati on that he obs er ved fi rs thand and w hi ch law enf or cem en t ad eq ua tely corrobor ated

. Th e inform an t’s history o fp r o v i d i n gr e l i a b l e i n f o r ma t i o n t o th e p o l i c e c o mp e n s a t e s f o r a n y ab s e n c e o fd e t a i l i n th e a ffi d a v i t
. We ther ef or e a ffi rm the denia l o fthe m oti on t o supp re ss.

II. Eve n if w e were to ass um e that pr obab l e ca use was l ack in g, the evi dence her e would s ti l l sur vi ve und er th e good f aith ex cep tion p rinciple of U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 46 8 U .S. 89 7 ( 1984 )
. I t i s wel l se ttl ed that und er Le on , the supp re ssi on o fev i dence se i zed pursuant to a sea rch w ar ra nt thati s l ate r decl ar ed i nval i d i s inapp ro p ria te if th e o ffice rs w h o e x ec u te d th e w ar ra n t re lied in go o d f a ith on th e is su in g jud ge ’s fin d in g of p ro b ab le c au se . Le on, 46 8 U.S

. at92 0- 24. A n offi cer ’ s deci si on t o obt ai n a warr ant i s prim a faciee v i d e n c e th a th e o r s he w as ac tin g in goo d fait h

. U ni t e d S t at e s v. O tero , 49 5 F
. 3d 393, 39 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 07)
. A defendant can rebut the pre su mpt i o n o f g o o d f a i th o n l y b y s h o wi n g ( 1 ) th a t th e i ssu in gj udg e ab an do ne d hi s o r he r de ta ch ed an d n eu tr al ro le, (2) t h e o ffice rs w er e d ish on es t o r re c kle s s in pr epa r i ng th e affi dav i t, o r ( 3) th e war r an t was so l ackingN o. 11

- 1662 9 i n pr o b a b l e c a us e a s t o r e nd e r the o ffi c e r ’ s b e l i e f i n i ts ex ist en c e e n tir ely u n re as on ab le. Id. A d d itio n ally , po lice offic er s are “c h ar ge d w ith a kn ow ledge of w el l

- est abl i shed l ega l p ri nci ple s, ” Koer t h, 31 2 F. 3d at 869 (quoti ng Uni t e d S t at e s v . Brown , 83 2 F
. 2d 99 1, 99 5 (7 th C ir. 19 87 )), an d t h e c or re sp on d in g “ re sp on sib ility to lea rn an d follow ap p lica b l e lega l p re c ed en t.” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M ykyt i uk, 402 F. 3d 773, 777- 78 ( 7th Cir

. 2005 )
. Thu s, the evi dence i s adm i ssibl e u nl ess ( 1) cour ts have cl ear l y hel d that a m ate ri al l y s i m i l ar affi davi t pr evi ousl y f ai l ed to es tabl i sh pro babl e ca use und erf acts thatwere in dist i ngui shabl e fro m tho se presente d i n the case athand, o r ( 2) the affi davi t i s s o pla i nl y defi cien t that a ny r eas onabl y wel l

- tr ai ned office r “w oul d have know n that hi s a ffi davi t f ai l ed to est abl i sh pro babl e c au se and that he sho uld not have a pp l i ed f orthe w ar ra nt. ” Koerth , 31 2 F
. 3d at 869 ( quoti ng M al l ey v . Br iggs , 475 U
. S. 335, 345 (1986 ))
. Because Offi cerM ats on o btained a se ar ch w ar ra nt, the defen d ant s houl ders the b urden ofsa ti sfyi ng o ne o f the Le on ex c ep ti o n s. T h e d efe n d an t c an n otm ee t t h is bur den

. The de f en dan t co nt en ds th ati n Be ll, P ec k, a nd Koerth

— al l t h re e ofwh i ch f ound the exce pti on a pp l i cab le

— the r e we r e f a c t s s up po r t i ngthe exce pt i o n tha tdo n otex ist h er e. W e d isa gr ee . I n B el l , thi s Court not ed the pol i ce o ffi cer s’ abi l i ty to cor ro bor ate the i nfo rm ant’ s info rm ati on; her e Offi cer M ats on was abl e t o c orrobor ate S ear cy’ s ho m e a dd re ss, convi cti on, ga ng affi l i ati on, and m oti ve f orposs ess i ng a fi r ea r m . I n Koerth , th e i n f o r m an t wa s n o tu n k n o wn10 N o. 11

- 1662

an d f ac ed po te nt i alc r i m in alc ha r g es f o r fur ni sh i ng fals e in for m at ion t o law en for c em en t. T h e s am e is tr ue he r e. F i na l l y, i n P ec k, the offi cer ’ s g oo d fa i th wa s e v i d e n c e d b y th e f a c t th a t h e r e q u i r ed th e i nf o r m an t to appe ar be f o r e th e m ag i st r at e. H er e, o n the ot h er h an d , th e in for m an t’s h ist or y of p ro vid in g re liab le i nfo rm ati on was suffici ent t o dem onst ra te at l eas t a m od icu m of cr ed ibilit y a n d relia b ility

. B u t, the pri m ar y b ase s o fapply i ng the Le on e xc e pti on i n B el l (co rro b or at ion ), Koerth ( i nc en ti ve t o pr o vi de tr ue i nfo r mat i o n) a nd Peck(e n su rin g re liab ility ) are all p r e s e n th e r e . T he r ef o r e , a s we d i d i n th o s e c a s e s , we fin d th at t h e in ve st iga to r p re p ar in g t h e a ffid av it d id no t ac t unr ea so nabl y i n r el y i ngupon the i nf o r m an t’ s i nfor m at ion to ob ta in a se ar c h w ar ra n t. Addi t i o na l l y, we n o t e tha tS e a r c y h a s f a i l e d t o p r o v i de u s w ith an y c as es h old in g t h at an aff i d a vit m at er ially si m i l arto Offi cerM ats on’ s would fai l to m eetthe tes t o f est abl i shi ng pro babl e ca use ( m uch l ess sa ti sfy the Le on tes t) bas ed upon i nfo rm ati on fro m a n am ed i nfo rm ant. I n f act, we agree w i th the m agi str ate thatthes e f acts ar e ee r i l y s i m i l art o tho se i n U nite d State s v. G arci a , 52 8 F. 3d 481 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08)
. I n tha t c ase, the i nf o r m an t

— who ha d pr ev i o us l y pr o vi ded i nf o r m at i o n l ea di ngt o the a rre st of at lea st th re e in d ivid u als

— pe r s o na l l y o b s e rv ed contr aband i n the defe nd ant’ s ho m e that he bel i eve d to b e co ca i ne b ec au se o fhi s pas t ex per i en ce w ith the s u b st an c e. G arci a , 5 2 8 F
. 3 d a t4 8 6
. T he i nfo r mat i o n l ed to the e xecuti on o fa sea rch w ar ra nt within 72 hour s. Id. Giv en the se f actualsim ilari ti es, i t i s e nti re l y r ea-N o. 11

- 1662 11 sonab le, if no t inescapabl e, f ora l aw enf or cem ent o ffi ci al to b eli eve thatthe w ar ra nt i n the prese nt cas e was b as ed u p on p ro b ab le c au se . For th e fo re going r eas ons, the j ud gm ent o fthe distr i ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

12- 30- 11