## 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

- 3385 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. L ARRY D. B I LL I AN, 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 N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on.

No . 1:08- CR-31

—Wi ll iam C. L ee , Ju dge
.
A RG UE D M AR CH 3, 2010

— D ECI DE D A PRI L 5, 2010

Befo re E A S T E RB R OO K, Chi e f Judg e, a nd M A NI ON a nd E VANS, C ircu it Judges . E A S T ER BR OOK, Chi e

f Judg e . Lar ryBi l l i an pl eaded gui l ty to tw o m arij ua na offen ses a n d t o pos sessin g a firearm i n c o nn e c t i o n wi t h t ho s e c r i mes . Hi s c o nd i t i o na lpl ea reserved th e r ig ht to app eal from the d istri ct cou rt’s or de r d enyi ng hi s m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence se i zed fr o m hi s ho m e. The s ei zu r e was a utho r i ze d b y a warr ant i ss ue d b y a s ta te j udg e. Bi l l i anc o nt en ded th atthe a f fi davi t D e t e c t i v e T e r e s a S mi t h ha d t e nd e r e d i n s up -2 N o. 09

- 3385 port of the appli cati on f ai l ed to est abl i sh probabl e ca use an d c o n t a i n e d ma t e r i a l f a l s e h o o d s a n d o mi s s i o n s . The dist ri ct c ourthel d a hear i ng under Fra nk s v. D ela w a re, 438 U
. S. 154 (1978), an d f ou nd that, alth o u g h Sm ith’s affi davi t w as i naccurat e i n som e re spects , Bil l i an “f ai l ed to dem onst ra te by a pre pond er ance o fthe evi dence that the a f fi davit contai ned deliber ate l i es ora re ckl ess di sr eg ar d f or th e tr uth. ” The j udg e co nc l ude d tha t th e affi davi t e stabl i shed prob abl e ca use

— an d th at, ev en ifit did not, suppres sio n i s i napp ro pri ate bec ause Sm i th obt ai ned a warr ant i n go od fa ith. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 468 U

. S. 897 (1984). “[ A ] fter
- the- f act scr uti ny by co urts of the suf fi ci ency ofan affi davi t shoul d not t ake the f or m o fdeno vo r e v i e w. A m ag ist ra te ’s d et er m in at ion of p ro b ab le c au se sh ou ld b e p a i d g r e a tde f e r e nc e b y r e v i e wi ngc o ur t s”. Illi noi s v. G a tes , 46 2 U.S

. 213, 236 (19 83) (ci tat i on and inte rnalquotati on m ar ks om i tte d). S ee al so U nited Sta tes v. M cIn tire, 51 6 F
. 3d 57 6 ( 7th C ir. 2 00 8)

. Bi l l i anwant s us t o de ci de th e probabl e- cause q uesti on without r ega rd to the f act that both a s tat e j u d ge and a federa l di str i ct j ud ge have fou n d p ro b ab le c au se . A p p ella te rev iew , ho w e v e r , i s defer en ti al

. A fte r a fede r aldi st r i ctj udg e ho l ds ane vi den

tiary hear i ng and fi nd s probabl e cause f or the sea rch, it w ou ld be al m o s t inc on c eiv ab le for a c ou rtof ap p ea ls to fi nd pr o babl e ca us e so o bv i o us l y lac k i ngtha t th e evi de nc e mus t b e s up pr e s s e d. Ho w c o ul d o ne s a y , as Leon r equi re s f orsuppress i on, thatany re aso nabl e pol i ce offi cerm ust hav e know n that th e se arch w ar ra nt was d efi ci ent, wh en afteran e vi denti ar y hea ri ng and am p le t i me f o r r e fl e c t i o n a f e de r a l j ud g e f o un d the wa r r a ntv a l i d?N o. 09

- 3385 3 Bi l l i an ’ s a ns wer to thi s que st i o n i s tha t S m i thpul l ed th e w oo l o ve r the s tat e j ud ge’ s e yes . A warra nt thatr est s o n p erj ury, or fal s e a ssertions m ad e w ith reckless d isregard o fthe t r uth, i s no t co ve r ed by the Le on princ ip le . 4 68 U

. S. at 923. One p robl em f orthi s l i ne o far gum ent i s that th e federa l j ud ge con clu d ed that the affi d avit i s su ffi c i e nte v e n wi t h s o me s t a t e m ents r e mov e d; Franks perm i ts such a re const ructi on. 43 8 U
. S. at17 1–72

. A nother probl em i s that the di str i ct j ud ge f ound th at Sm i th w as n eit h er d ec eit fu l n or re c kle ss ; er ro rs in h er a ffid av it w er e neg l i gent, but negligence does not j usti fy use o f the excl usi onar y r ule

. S ee Herring v. U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S. Ct. 69 5 ( 2009 )

. Th e d i str i ct j ud ge’ s fi nd i ngs a re not cl ear l y e rr oneo us. Sm i th tol d the sta te j ud ge that she had r ecei ved a tip th atBi l l i anwas s el l i ngmar ij ua na fr om hi s ho m e an d that he own ed one bl ack Cad i l l ac a nd o ne wh i te Cad i l l ac. Sm i th and other offi cers c h ecked thi s byve ri fyi ng tha t B illian live d in th e n eig hb or h oo d w h er e t h e t ip st er sa id he di d. S mi t h dr o v e p a s tthe h o us e r epe a t e dl y a nd , though s he di d not s ee sign s ofdrug sal es, she did se e a bl ack Cad i l l ac Escal ade park ed in t he dri veway fre quentl y a nd once sa w a w hi te Cad i l l ac. Pol i ce t w i ce s e a r c h e d B i l l i a n ’ s t r a s h ; e a c h t i me th e y f o u n d s o me m ar ij u an a a n d packa ging par aphern alia (su c h as th e p las tic bags used f or d istr ibuti on)

. S m i th’ s a f fi davi t r el ate d th at n i ne m onths ear l i erpol i ce had s topped Octavi an Re y no l ds f o r dr ug o f f e ns e s whi l e he wa s dr i v i ng a w hite C ad il lac re g is t ered to Bill ian; in tha t car, officers f o und a s c a l e a nd “ pa pe r wo r ki n t he n a mes o fR e y no l ds an d Bi l l i an . ” The a f fi dav i t adde d tha t du rin ga s ta k eo ut4 N o. 09

- 3385 p o l i c e h a d s e e n B i l l i a n l e a v e “ th e r e s i d e n c e o fa k n o wn hi gh- vol um e narco ti cs tr affi cker

. ” I t al so obs er ved that B illian h ad “a p rior ar re st for c oc ain e po ss es sio n an d

. . . a
‘ h a n d g u n ’ a l e r t
. ” F i n a l l y , th e a f fi d a v i ti n c l u d e d s o me i nfo rm ati on f avo rabl e to Bil l i an: pol i ce too k tw o d rugdet ect i o n do g s t o a s t o r a g e l o c k e r tha tBi l l i a n ha d r e nt e d, and nei therdog gave an “ al er t” to ind i cate thati t had sm el l ed unla w ful drugs. A c c or d in g t o B illian , th e s ea rc h w ar ra n t re st s e n tir ely on an un corroborat ed tip. “E nt irel y” bec au se, in B il li an ’s vi ew , so m eth in g is w ro ng with each a spect ofthe w ay pol i ce s et about checki ng the ti pster ’ s r epor t. Bi l l i an com p lai ns that Sm ith viol ated de p artm en tal proce d ure by ta kin g fi ve m onths afterr ecei vi ng the ti p to w ri te an in tr a-o ffice m em o m em or ializ in g t h e re p or t (s h e t es tifi ed th at th i s no r m al l y i s do ne wi th i n a wee k, b uttha t sh e l eft the i nfo rm ati on o n a s tick y no te unti l o therev ents re m i nd ed her o fthe need to f ol l ow up ) , and then mi s l e d the s t a t e j ud g e b y da t i ngthe t i p t o the i nt ra - of f i ce m em o ra therthan the ti p’s actualrecei pt. B i l l i an o bser ves that S m ith s aw a w hi te Cad i l l ac i n Bil l i an’ s dri veway onl y once and di d no t w ri te dow n i ts lice n se pl ate num ber, so sh e co ul d no t l ea r n who o wned i t. S he often saw a black Ca d il lac, o w ne d by E rin Bill ian, L arry Bil l i an’ s wife. Larr y c onte nd s that thi s m eans that som ethi ng m ust be fi shy about any r epor ts concer ni ng a w hi te Cad i l lac. H e thi nks that S m i th withhel d thre e pi ec es o fi nf o r m at i on from the s ta te j udg e: tha t sh e di d no t k no w w ho o wned the w hi te Ca di l l ac s ee n i n the dri veway, thatshe did notse e a ny su sp icious act i vi ty when dr i vi ngpa sthi s h o m e, a nd tha t th e ti pst ermen-N o. 09

- 3385 5 ti oned co cai ne as wella s m ar ij uana, wh i l e the tr ash sea rche s turned up onl y m ar ij uana. Fi nal l y, Bi l l i an subm i ts that th e re sul ts ofthe tr ash s ear ches shoul d be ignored , first becau se th e am ou nt s of m arij ua n a w ere sm all en ou gh t o re p re se n t p er so n al u se r at h er th an d ist ribut i o n, a nd s ec o nd b ec au se ( ac cordingt o Bi l l i an ) the tr as h c an s wer e ne xtt o hi s g ar ag e, r athe r than atthe curb f o r picku p , whenthe po l i ce s ea r ch ed th em, a nd thi s i nvasi on o fthe hom e’ s cur ti l age was unreas onabl e. The dis tr i ct j ud ge thought thi s t o be s o m uch quibbl i ng. The f ourth am endm ent doe s no t re q uir e pol i ce t o f ol l ow t h eir nor m al r eco rd- kee ping proce du re s ( orf or that m att erany sta te sta tute, se e Virgin ia v. M o o re, 55 3 U. S

. 1 64 ( 20 08 ) ) ; i t do es no t m at te r who o wned the w hi te Cad i l l ac s een i n the dri veway, wh i ch m ay orm ay no t ha ve b ee n the one R eyn o l ds was dr i vi ng( th e m at er i alf ac t was that Re y no l ds was t r an spo r tingdr ug parapher nal i a pl us papers l i nki ng hi m to Bi l l i an) ; that B i l l i a n th r e w a wa y s ma l l qu a n t i t i e s o fma r ij u a n a s h o ws that he had m ar ij uana i n the house, n ot that the di scard ed p erson al- us e am ou nt s w ere all the mar ij ua na he pos s e s s e d. Othe r t i db i t s , s uc h a s Bi l l i a n’ s dr ug - r e l a ted a r r e s t, h a d n o tb e e n qu e s t i o ne d. Bil l i an’ s on l y s ubstanti al o bj ecti on, as the dist ri ct j ud ge sa w t h i n g s , wa s t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t o f fi c e r s v i o l a te d t he f o urth a men dme ntwh e n s e a r c hi ngh i s t r a s h. I fthe y di d, th enthe c o nt ents of the tr as h c an s co ul d no t co unt to war d pr o babl e ca us e. Er i n Bi l l i ant es ti fi ed wi th o ut contr a di c t i o n t ha tthe t r a s h c a ns we r e n e xtt o the g a ra ge at 7 AM o n Feb ruar y 6, 20 08, and ther ef or e co uld not6 N o. 09

- 3385 have been at the c urb a t 3 AM th at d ay w h en t h e affid av it say s they were se ar ched the s eco nd ti m e. ( “Cou ld not ” be ca us e, Er i n testi fi ed, the r e i s no t en o ug h r o o m i n the dri veway to ge t the cans ar ound h er car, so theycan be m o ve d o nl y whenhe r c ari s o uto fthe dr i ve way . ) The dist ri ct j ud ge accepte d thi s t est i m ony but concl ud ed th atthe fi r stt r as h s ea r cha dequa te l y c o r r o bo r at ed th e ti p. Bi l l i an co ntends on a pp ealtha t th e fi rs t s ear ch w as defe c tive f orthe sam e r eas on a s the se cond, but on that su bj ec t th e tes ti m o ny was c o nfl i ct i ng . Al th o ug h the di st r i ctj udg e di d no t m ak e a di r ec t fi nd i ngtha t th e tr as hca n s w er e a t t h e c u rb w h en se ar c h ed , he ev id en tly bel i eve d S m i th ra ther than Eri n Bil l i an about thei r loc ati o n. Gi ve n the o th ers uppo rt fo r the war r an t, a nd the rul e o fLe on , ther e would be l i ttl e poi nt i n a r em and fo r expli ci t fi nd i ngs t o that eff ect. On t o se nt en ci ng . Bi l l i anr ec ei ve d 7 0 m o nths ’ i m pr i so nm ent f orthe drug o f f enses , to be f ol l ow ed b y 60 m onths’ im p risonm en t for th e fire a r m s offen se, 18 U

. S. C

. §924(c). H e co nt es ts the 7 0- m o nth t er m b ec au se , he c o nt en ds, the dist ric t j ud ge shoul d have hel d him acc ountabl e f or onl y the 13 ki l ogr am s o fm arij u an a fo und athi s ho m e. The j ud g e c a l c ul a t e d B i l l i a n’ s r e l e v a ntc o nd uc ta t4 90 k i l o g r ams o fmar ij uana afte r c o nv er tingt o a mar ij ua na eq uivalen t the $40,000 in cash seized i n th e h o u s e (a st ep th atBi l l i anno l o nge r c o nt es ts ) a nd e st i m at i ng the e xtent o fBi l l i an’ s drug- dist ributi on busi ness . Bi l l i an con ten d s th at th e record d oes not sh ow , by a p r e p o nd era nc e o fthe e v i de nc e , tha th e h a d a nys uc h b us i ness. Butthe j udg e’ s fi ndi ngwas b as ed o n Smi th ’ s te st i m o ny at an ev i denti ar y hea ri ng tha t Bi l l i an had confessed toN o. 09

- 3385 7 conducti ng a substa nti al m arij uana- dist ributi on o perat i o n . B illian te st ified atth e h ea rin g t h at h e n ev er sa id an y s uc h t hi ngt o S mi t h. T he j ud g e b e l i e v e d S mi th ra therthan Bil l i an. A chal l enge to the r eso l uti on o fsuch a sw ea rin g con te st h as n o p ro sp ec t of su c c es s o n ap p ea l. Se e And erson v. Bess em erCity, 470 U
. S. 564, 573– 75 (1985). N o mo re n ee d b e sa i d abo utthe s en te nc i nga r g um en t that Bil l i an’ s co unsel m ade, b u t a few words ar e i n or der a b o uta p o t e nt i a l a r g ume nttha tc o un s el o v e r l o o k e d. W he n c o nv er tingthe c as h t o a dr uge qui va l en t, the p resen ten ce r ep ort treated 1 pou nd as 2. 2 kil ogram s. T ha t’s back w ar d: 1 k i l ogr am i s 2
. 2 pounds. Thi s e rr or, wh i ch no o ne not iced, i ncre ase d Bil l i an’ s r el evantco nd uct f ro m 37 0 k i l o g r a ms o fma r ij ua na t o 4 9 0 , a nd h i s o f f e nse l e v e l fr o m 2 3 t o 2 5
. T he p r e s e nt e nc e r e po r tcal c ul a t e d a Gu i del i nes r an ge o f70 to 87m onths; the cor re ct r ange w as 57 to 71 m onths. I fthe dist ri ct c ourttho ught that Bi l l i ande se r ve d a s en te nc e to wa rd th e bo tt o m o fthe r a n g e , th e n th i s e r r o r ma y h a v e a d d e d a y e a r t o h i s i mpr i so nm en t. Butb ecaus e 70 months i s wi th i n the cor re ct r ange

— orthe j ud ge m ay have sel ecte d the 70

- m onth t er m i nd ependent ofthe Gu i del i nes

— it m ay be that the c om pu tat i on would notaff ect the s entence
. One i m port ant e l em ent of pla i n-e rr orr evi ew i s whether the m i sta ke had a subst anti al and prej ud i ci al eff ect. S ee Un i t e d S t a t e s v . O l ano , 5 0 7 U .S. 72 5, 73 4– 35 (19 93 ). I t is h ar d to kn ow w h et h er th is m ist ak e w as p rej u d icia l, b ec au se it affe c ts (or m igh t a ffec t) a d isc r e t i o n ar y d ec is i o n b y th e d i s t r i c tj u d g e . I n o t h e r s e n t e n c i n gc a s e s we have concl ud ed that the bestway to fi nd o ut i s a l i m i ted8 N o. 09

- 3385

r emand, whi chpe r m i ts the d is tr i ctj udg e to t el l us w hetherd isc ov er y o fthe er ro r w oul d have l ed to a l ower s entence
. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 52 0 F
. 3d 746 ( 7th C ir. 2008); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Pal adi no , 40 1 F .3d 47 1, 48 1–85 (7t h C ir. 2 00 5). T h at is t h e b es t w ay t o p ro c ee d h er e a s w ell. T he j ud gm en t of con viction is affirm ed

. W e orde r a l i m i ted r emand unde r the Tayl or–Pala di no pro cedure so th at th e d ist ric t jud ge ca n te ll us w h et h e r t h e e rro r in conve rt i ng pounds t o ki l ogr am s a f f ecte d the e xerci se of di s c r e t i o n i n s e n t e n c i n g . I fth e j u d g e a n s we r s y e s , we w il l rem an d for a ful l resen ten cing; i f th e j ud ge an sw ers no, we w i l l affi rm Bi l l i an’ s s entence
.

4- 5- 10