The H o n o rab le W il li am J
. H ibbler, Un it ed Stat es D is tr ic t  Co ur tJ udg e f or the Nor t he r n Dis t r i c to fI l l i no i s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## 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. 09

- 3537 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J EOVAN TE J ONES, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the Western Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 3:09- cr -00023-bb c- 1

—Barb ara B. C rab b , Judge .
A RGUED A PRI L 23, 2010

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 30, 2010

Befo re M ANI ON an d R OV NER, C ircu it Judges, an d H IB BLE R, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R OV NER, Cir cu i tJudge . J eov ante J ones was ar re ste d on J uly18 , 20 08, and i nd i cted o n char ge s ofposs ess i on o f 5 g ra m s o r m or e o fa m ix tu re co ntai ni ng co cai ne bas e2 N o. 09

- 3537 wi t h t he int e ntt o di s t r ib ut e in v i o l a t i o n o f2 1 U. S
. C. § 84 1( a) ( 1)
. The amoun t o fthe dr ug s ch ar g ed i nc l ude d the drugs f ound in th e co urse o fa sea rch ofJ ones ’ r esi dence f ol l owing hi s a rr est
. J ones fi l ed a m oti on t o supp re ss bo t h t he e v i de nc e f o un d a th i s r e s i de nc e a nd h i s subse

quent confess i on a s the frui t o fan i l l ega l se ar ch. A fter co nduc tinga n e vi d en ti ar y he ar i ngo n the matt er, the m ag i st r at e j udg e r ec o m m en ded den i alo ftha t m o ti o n. J ones then enter ed a c ondit i onal gui l ty ple a which r es e r v e d h i s r i g htt o c ha l l e ng e the de ni a l o fthe mo t i on to su pp r e s s . T he di s t r i c tc o ur ts ub s e qu e nt l y i s s ue d i ts Op i ni on a nd Order denyi ng hi s m oti on t o supp re ss. The ar re st w as the cul m i nati on of a drug uniti nvest i gati o n t a r g e t i n gJ o n e s , i n wh i c h a c o n fi d e n t i a l i n f o r m an t m ade a numbe r o fc o nt r o l l ed pur ch as es o fc r ac kc o ca i ne f ro m h i m . P ri orto thatdate, the i nfo rm ant had co m ple ted co nt r o l l e d p ur c ha s e s o fc r a c kfr o m J o ne s o n thr e e o c casi ons, e ac h a t loca ti ons i n the Cityo fBel oi t. The J uly18 tr a n s ac tio n w as se t u p as a “b u y-b u st ” o p er at ion , i n whi chthe po l i ce wer e po si ti o ne d t o a r r es t J o ne s dur i ng th e dr ugs al e. The tra ns ac ti o n was t o t ak e pl ac e i n the p ar kin g lot of th e a p ar tm e n t s at19 93 C olo n y C ou rtin Bel o i t
. T ha ta ddr e s s c o r r e s po nd e d wi th o ne tha tJ ones had provi ded to the pol i ce as his r esi dence i n an ar re st w eek s e ar l i er . H e i nd i cate d at that t i m e that h e r esi ded at1 99 3 Col o ny Co ur t A p artm ent# 2, a nd the i nf o r m an t ha d a l so i nf o r m ed th e po l i ce tha t Jones s ta y ed wi tha w om an l i vi ng atthatr esi dence. Jon es arr i ved atthe parki ng l ot at the s cheduled t i m e, exi ted a Dodge Durango dri ven by h is g i rl f ri end Ethly nN o. 09

- 3537 3 Jos ep h, an d p ro c ee d ed t o w a rd th e in for m an t’s ve h icle p arked a few sp aces aw ay. A s Jones reache d th e inform ant’ s v ehi cle, t h e pol i ce pul l ed thei r und er cove r van b eh in d th at ve h icle , at w h ich tim e Jo n es fled on foot . A ll ofthe offi cer s e xcept Offi cerH al vor sen purs ued Jon es, capturi ng hi m withi n m i n u te s. H al vor sen c onfro nted J ose ph who w as sti l l parke d in the Dodge Du ra n go . W i th hi s g undr a wn a nd p o i nt e d d o wnwa r d in the r e a dy posi ti on, he o rd ered her f ro m the carand handcu ff ed her. Thr e e c hi l dr e n we r e a l s o in the Du r a ng o . T he y r em ai ned i n thei r sea ts thro ughout thi s t i m e. J o se ph was the n escorte d t o the s i de o fthe v ana nd w as pla ced i n a s eat ed posi ti on i n the van w i th her fee t o u ts id e t h e v a n . W i t h in a few m in u te s a fem ale offi cerar ri ved and sea rche d Jo seph f orwea p ons. Offi cer A rno l d then r eturned fr om the chase ofJ ones , and proce ede d t o s pea kwi thJ o se ph. At tha t ti m e, the o ffi cers i ntended to pu rs ue a sea rch ofJ ones ’ r es idence. They i ntended to see k a warra nt f orthe se ar c h if necess ar y, but fi rs t s ought to obt ai n conse nt f orthe se ar c h fro m J ose ph, w ho r esi ded atthe sam e a partm ent. I n or der t o bui l d rapport with J ose ph and o btai n her v o l u nt ar y c o n s e n t, Ar n o l d r e mo v e d h e rh a n d c u ff s . He ex pl ai ne d tha t t he p o l i ce i nt en ded to o bt ai n a war r an t to sea rch the r esi dence, thati t would t ake so m e t i m e t o do so , and that the pr oce ss w oul d be f ast eri fshe chose to c o ns en t to the s ea r ch. J o se ph a g r ee d t o c o ns en t an d s i g ne d a c o ns e nt
- to- se a r c h f o r m t ha to n i t s f a c e a pp ri se d he r o fhe r r i g htt o r efus e su chc o ns en t. The entire co n v e r s a t i o n b e t we e n Ar n o l d a n d J o s e p h l a s t ed no4 N o. 09

- 3537

m o r e th an1 0 m i nut es b y J o se ph’ s o w n acc o unt
. The po l i ce the n s ea r ch ed th e apa r tmenta nd di sc o ver ed th e dr ug s wh i c h J o ne s n o w a r g ue s s ho ul d hav e b e e n s up pr e s s e d. J ones ’ ar gum ents on a pp eall arge ly ar e at tem pts to o ve r turn th e cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o ns made bythe m agi str ate f ol l owing the e vi dentiar y hea ri ng, wh i ch we r e a do pt e d b y the di s t r i c t c o ur t, fi nd i ng tha t J o s e ph vol untari l y c onse nted to the sea rch ofthe resid ence. T ha t is an up hillbattle. W e w ill reverse a d istri ct cou rt’s fi nd i ng o fvo l untaryco nsent onl y i fi t i s cl ear l y e rr oneo us. U ni t e d S t at e s v. D i cke rs on , 975 F .2 d 1 245, 1249 (7th C ir. 1992 ). I t is n o t su ffici en t to de m ons trate th at tw o diff er ent v er si ons ofev ents w er e pr ese nted at the he ar i ng, be ca us e “ ‘ [ w]h er e th ere a r e two pe r m i ss ibl e vi ews o fthe e v i de nc e , the f a c t fi nd e r ’ s c ho i c e b e t we e n the m ca nnot be c l ear l y e rr oneo us. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cGraw , 57 1 F
. 3d 624, 62 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 09) ( quoti ng Ande rs on v. C ity of Be s s e merCi ty, N. C. , 47 0 U.S
. 56 4, 574 ( 1985 ) )
. There f or e, w e e xam in e on ly w hetherthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s a ccount of f ac ts i s pl au sibl e i n l i g hto fthe r ec o r d v i ewe d in i ts e ntir et y. M cGraw , 57 1 F
. 3d at 629. J ones argues thatthe cour t e rr ed i n concl ud i ng tha t Arno l d r emov ed J o se ph’ s ha ndcu ff s pr i o r t o the c o nse nt
. Hi s ar g um en t hi ng es o n the i nc o ns i st en cies i n the o f fi ce r s’ te sti m o ny . Acco r di ngt o J o ne s, the c o ur t f o und th at Jos ep h w as h an d c u ffed be h in d h e r ba c k, bu t A rn old tes t i fi e d tha th e r e mov e d c uff s fr o m he r h a nd s that w er e i n f ron t ofher

. J ones al so poi nts o ut thatno offi cer m emor ia l i ze d the r emov alo fhe r ha ndcu ff s i n the pol i ce r epor ts.N o. 09

- 3537 5 N o ne o ftho se a l l eg ed incon si st en ci es woul d c au se us to concl ud e that the dist ri ct cour t’ s fi nd i ng of fac ts was no t pl au sibl e i n l i g htof the re co r d a s a whol e. I nc o nsisten cies i n w itness testim on y s u c h as th ose are w ei ghed by a court i n ass ess i ng cr edibi l i ty, but they d o not ren d er t he cred ibi li ty d eterm ination clearly erro n eo u s. N um er ous o ffi cer s t est i fi ed that they obser ved A rno l d rem ove the hand cuffs and/o r obs er ved h im sp ea kin g w ith Jos ep h an d n o t e d t h at sh e w as n ot in ha nd c uf f s at tha tt i me. T he r e i s s uffi c i e ntb a s i s t o s up po r t th e fi ndi ngtha t J o se ph was no t in h an d cuf f s atthe t i me t ha tc o ns e ntt o s e a r c h wa s s o ughto r g r a nt e d. I n additi on, J ones ar gues that J ose ph w as coe rce d i nto conse n ti ng ba sed o n A rno l d’s “em pty threa t” that a se ar c h w ar ra n t w ou ld ev e n t u ally be ob ta in ed . Jon es is co r r ec t i n assertingtha t ba se l es s th r ea ts t o o bt ai n a sea rch w ar ra nt m ay i nd eed r ender a co nsent to sea rch in vo lu n ta ry . U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 53 9 F
. 3d 566, 57 1 ( 7th C ir. 20 08 ); U nite d State s v. White, 9 7 9 F
. 2 d 5 3 9 , 542 ( 7th Cir
. 19 92)
. The appropr i ate f ocus, then, i s o n w hether th e po li ce h a d a g e n u ine inten tion to seek su ch a w arra nt, and m or e s peci fi cal l y, w h et h er theyhad a r easonab l e f actual ba sis to bel i eve theyhad prob abl e ca use to ob ta in a w ar ra n t. H i cks , 53 9 F
. 3d at 572. T h e o ffice rs in t h is c as e h ad a re as on ab le fa c tu al b as is to bel i ev e that there was suffi ci ent pr obab l e ca use t o ob ta in a w ar ra n t. W e h av e re c og n ize d t h a t a c ou rt, i n deter m i ni ng wh ether to i ssue a s ear ch w ar ra nt, m ay dr aw r ea so nabl e i nfer en ce s, b as ed o n the na tu r e o fthe evi dence and off ense, abo u t w h er e e vi dence i s l i kel y t o6 N o. 09

- 3537 b e k ep t. U ni t e d S t at e s v. La m on , 93 0 F
. 2d 1183 , 1188 ( 7th Cir
. 19 91)
. Fur ther m or e, we have r epeate dly f oun d that “part i ci pati on in d rug tr affi cki ng ac ti vi ti es can cr eat e probabl e ca use t o sea rch a par ticip an t’ s r esi dence, ev en w ith ou t d ir e c t e vid en c e t h at d ru g-r ela te d ac tiv ity is occur ri ng there , bec ause ‘ [ i ] n the case o fdrug deal er s, ev id en c e is likely to b e fo u n d w h er e t h e d ea ler s liv e.’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Hof

f m an , 519 F. 3d 672, 67 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( quoti ng Lamon , 930 F.2d at 118 8). J ones had enga ged i n thr ee p rior cr ack deal s with the info rm ant, and ther ef or e was engag ed i n drug deal i ng. H e had i denti fi ed the Co lon y C ourtapar tm ent a s hi s r esi d en c e to pol i ce j ust weeks ear l i erwh en he w as ar re ste d on a n u n re l ate d m att er . The i nfo rm ant had al so i de nt i fi e d the a pa r t men ta s the p l a c e wh e r e J ones st ay ed. The fi na l t r an sa ct i o n was t o o cc ur i n the pa r k i ng l o t o ftha t r es i den ce . Be ca us e a he ats o ur ce i s ne ce ssary to coo k c oca i ne and f or m cr ack coca i ne, there i s further r ea so n to su spe cta c o nne ct i o n b etwee n t r an sa ct i o ns i nv o l vi ngc r ac kc o ca i ne a nd the de al er ’ s r es i den ce . The offi cer s t est i fi ed that they had i n f act o b tai ned sear ch w ar ra nts b ase d on such a f actualpre dica te. A s a wh ol e, thos e f acts were suf fi ci ent f orthe offi cer s t o posse ss a reason able factu al basis to believe that th e r e w a s suffi ci ent pr obab l e ca use t o obt ai n a warr ant. The re m ai nd ero fthe att ack s on vo l untari ness cente r o n the c o ur t’ s cr edibi li tyde te r m i na ti o n whi chf o und the po l i ce mor e cr edibl e th anJ o se ph. I n r ev i ewi ngthe d en ial of a m ot ion to su p p re ss , ho w ev er , w e re vie w all factu al dete rm inat io ns f or clear err or, w ith sp ecial defer-N o. 09

- 3537 7

ence to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s cr edib il i ty deter m i nati ons. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l al pand o , 588 F.3d 112 4, 1127 ( 7th Cir. 20 09 )
. J o ne s argu es tha t th e co ur t er r ed i n fi ndi ngthe po l i ce mor e cr edibl e, b utpr es ents no th i ngmor e th anthe as se r ti o ns made byJ o se ph a s to the e ve nt s o f th e day, a nd occa si onaldi f f er ences i n the tes ti m ony by the o ffi cer s. J o ne s ha s pr o v i de d no b a s i s f o r thi s c o ur t t o concl ude th att h e c r e d ib i l i t y d e t e r mi n a t i o n wa s c l e a r e r r o r . T he deci si on o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .

7- 30- 10