H onor abl e Loui s H . Pol l ak, Seni orJ udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfor * the East ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on. NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

____________ N o. 09- 2864

____________ UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ee,

v. SH A H K W O N D A V I S, A ppel l ant

____________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D i s t r i ctC our tN o. 06- cr - 00020- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le T h o m a s I. V a n a sk ie

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

A pr i l 16, 2010 B e f o re : S L O V IT E R a n d H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudges a n d P O L L A K , D is tr i ct Judge . * ( Fi l ed: J une 7, 2010 )

____________1 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

____________ P O L L A K , D is tr i ct

Judge . Shahkw on D avi s has been c onvi ct ed of, and s ent ence d for : ( 1) s i x count s of di s tr i but i on of and pos s es s i on w i t h i nt entt o di s t r i but e, var i ous quant i t i es of coc ai ne, cr ack c ocai ne, and mar i j uana i n vi ol at i on of 21 U . S. C . § 41( a) ( 1) ; and ( 2) one countof p o s s e s s io n o f

a f ir e a rm a n d a m m u n itio n b ya c o n v ic te d f e lo n in v io la tio n o f

1 8 U .S .C . § 9 2 2 (g )(1 ). D a v is c laim s o n a p p e a l, as h e d id in th e D istric t C o u rt, th a t th e se a rc h o f h is hom e vi ol at ed the Four t h A m endment . W e w i l l aff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s j udgm entand s ent ence . I. B ec au se w e w ri te prim aril yfo r th e p arti es, w e re co u n t on lythe e ssen ti al fa cts. In A pr i l 2005, det ect i ves w i t h t he Lackaw anna Count yD i s t r i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce r ece i ved in f o rm a tio n f

ro m a k n o w n c o n f

id e n tial in f

o rm a n t ab o u t d ru g tra f

f ick in g o c c u rrin g in Scr ant on, Penns y l vani a. T he i nform antal l eged the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) he coul d obt ai n coca i ne f ro m a m a n n a m e d “ S h a w n ” o r “ S e a n ;” ( 2 ) S e a n re sid e s a t 8 1 4 E a st L o c u st S tre e t in Scr ant on; ( 3) Sean dr i ves a gol d C adi l l ac ora gol d and t an K aw as aki m ot or cy cl e; ( 4) S e a n o w n s a h a n d g u n , sh o u ld e r h o lste r, an d b u lletp ro o f v e st; a n d (6 ) S e a n is a b lac k m a le w ith s h o rt h a irin h is la te tw e n tie s , a p p ro x im a te ly 6 f e e t in h e ig h t a n d w e ig h in g 1 8 0 lb s . T he det ect i ves arr anged f ort he i nform antt o cal l D avi s , us i ng a t el ephone number pr ovi ded byt he i nform ant , and t o s etup a meet i ng t o buycoca i ne. T he fi r s tcontr ol l ed2

pur chas e t ook pl ace on O ct ober18, 2005 i n t he parki ng l otof “Conveni entM art ” l ocat ed at th e 1 8 0 0 b lock o f P ittst o n A v en u e in S cra n ton , the p re-d eterm ined loca ti o n w h ere Da v i s a s k e d t o me e t . Two a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l l e d p u r c h a s e s t o o k p l a c e a tth a ts a me lo c a tio n , o n N o v e m b e r 1 5 , an d D e c e m b e r 2 1 . P rio r to , d u rin g , an d im m e d iate ly fol l ow i ng al l t hr ee of

t he contr ol l ed pur chas es , l aw enfor cementoffi cer s s etup s ur vei l l ance of 814 EastL ocus tSt r eetand the C onveni entM art . T hi s s ur vei l l ance y i el ded the fol l ow i ng i nform at i on: ( 1) i m m edi at el ypr i ort o al l thr ee pur chas es D avi s w as se e n lea v in g 8 1 4 E a st L o c u st S tre e t an d a rriv in g a t th e C o n v e n ien t M a rt; an d (2 ) p rio r to the pur chas e on N ovember15, an uni dent i fi ed bl ack mal e ac compani ed D avi s as he exi t ed the bui l di ng. I m m edi at el yfol l ow i ng eac h pur chas e the i nform antm etw i t h t he det ect i ves t o des cr i be the tr ans act i on and s urr enderthe coc ai ne. O n D ece m ber21, 2005, the l andl or d at814 E as tL ocus tSt r eetconfi r m ed thatan i ndi vi dual named “Shahkw on D av is” reside d o n the s ec o n d flo o r. Fol l ow i ng t he D ece m ber21 contr ol l ed pur chas e, D et ect i ve Thom as D avi s ( no r el at i on t o defe ndant ) s oughtand obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antfor814 E as tL ocus tSt r eet fr om a magi s t r at e j udge. B eca us e def endantD avi s w as outof t ow n, thats ear ch w arr ant w a s u lti m a telyn o t ex e c u ted . In ste a d , the d e tec tiv e a n d th e in f o rm a n t p lan n e d a f

o u rth contr ol l ed pur chas e. O n D ece m ber29, 2005, i n acc or dance w i t h t he arr angement , l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers ob served defe nd ant and an otherblack m al e exit81 4 E astL ocu st St r eetand arr i ve att he C onveni entM art . T he def endantand the i nform antexcha ngedT he off i cer s cl ai m ed thatt heyw er e conc erned thatanotherper s on r emai ned at 1 D a v is’s a p a rtm e n t an d m ig h t d e stro ya n yre m a in in g e v id e n c e . T h e ya lleg e d th a t th e lig h ts h a d re m a in e d o n in D a v is’s a p a rtm e n t af ter h e lef t it , alth o u g h th e ya d m itt e d th a t th e yd id n o t o b s e rv e a n ym o v e m e n t in s id e th e a p a rt m e n t. 3 m o n eyfo r co ca ine, an d d ef en d an t w as a rrested an d sea rch ed . T h e se arc h o f d ef en d an t’ s p e rs o n y ie ld e d $ 7 0 0 , o f w h ic h $ 3 0 0 w a s p re -m a rk e d c u rr e n c y . L aw enfo rcem ent offi cers t hen proceed ed to defen dan t ’s ho m e at81 4 E astL ocu st St r eet , l ocat ed appr oxi m at el yone mi l e fr om the C onveni entM art . T heyr ece i ved author i zat i on fr om t he di s t r i ctat t or ney ’ s offi ce t o conducta pr ot ect i ve s w eep of the apart m ent . A ft ercompl et i ng t he s ear ch, w hi ch l as t ed one t o t w o m i nut es , s ever al

1 o f f ic e rs re m a in e d a t th e a p a rt m e n t w h ile D e te c tiv e D a v is s o u g h t a n e w s e a rc h w a rr a n t. T h e s e c o n d s e a rc h w a rr a n t a f f id a v it w a s p re s e n te d to a d if f e re n t m a g is tr a te ju d g e . W hi l e i tcont ai ned the s ame i nform at i on as the fi r s taff i davi t , i tal s o i ncl uded i nform at i on ab o u t th e f

o u rth co n tr o ll ed p u rch ase an d d ef en d an t’ s su b seq u en t arrest . H o w ev er, D et ect i ve D avi s di d notnot i fyt he magi s t r at e j udge thatl aw enfor cementoffi cer s had conduct ed a pr ot ect i ve s w eep of defe ndant ’ s apart m ent . T he s ear ch w arr ant , s i gned by the m ag istrate jud g e o n D ec em b er 2 9 , 2 0 0 5 at 9:0 5 p . m , au tho ri ze d the s ea rch an d seizu re of drugs , r ecor ds , r el evantpar aphernal i a, and “f i r earm s oramm uni t i on. ” O nce the w arr anti s s ued, t he l aw enfor cementoffi cer s conduct ed anothers ear ch of the apa r t m ent dur i ng w hi ch theys ei zed $14, 480, m ar i j uana, cr ack c ocai ne, coca i ne, a l oaded ha nd gun, a n d a b u lle tp ro o f

v e s t.4

O n J ul y14, 2006, D avi s m oved t o s uppr es s the evi dence and a s uppr es s i on hear i ng w a s h e ld o n M a y3 , 2 0 0 7 . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied D a v is’s m o tio n to su p p re ss o n Ju ly 16, 2007 on t he gr ounds t hatt he i ndepende nts our ce doc t r i ne appl i ed. A j uryfound D avi s gui l t yon al l count s , and he w as s ent ence d t o a t erm of i ncar cer at i on of 120 m ont hs f o llo w e d b ya f

iv e -y e a r te rm o f

su p e rv ise d re lea se , p a ym e n t o f $ 7 0 0 sp e c ial a ss e ss m e n t, a n d f o rf e itu re o f $ 1 4 ,8 4 0 . II. O n a p p e a l, D a v is c laim s th a t th e tw o se a rc h e s o f h is h o m e v io late d th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n tb e c a u s e : ( 1 ) h i s h o m e w a s i l l e g a l l y s u b j e c tt o a w a r r a n t l e s s s e a r c h

– n a m e l y, the p rot ect i ve sw eep; ( 2) the search w arr ant obt ai ned aft er the w arr antl ess s earch w as so t ai nt ed byt he pr ece di ng i l l egal i t yas nott o be s uffi ci ent l yi ndepende nt ; and ( 3) ther e w as insu ff ici en t pro b ab le ca u se c o n n ec ti n g h is r esid en ce w ith n arc o ti cs traf fick ing to su p p o rt th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t. T he Four t h A m endmentpr ot ect s i ndi vi dual s fr om “unr eas onabl e s ear ches and se izu re s” a n d re q u ire s a ll w a rra n ts to iss u e o n lyu p o n “ p ro b a b le c a u se .” E v id e n c e th a t is s e iz e d in v io la tio n o f

th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t m u s t b e e x c lu d e d . See, e. g. , Segur a v. U ni t ed Stat es , 468 U . S. 796, 804 ( 1984) ( “Evi dence obt ai ned as a di r ectr es ul tof an u n c o n stitu tio n a l se a rc h o r se izu re is p lain lysu b jec t to e x c lu sio n .”). E v id e n c e th a t is “t ai nt ed” byan i l l egal s ear ch orcons i der ed “f rui tof the poi s onous tr ee” m ayal s o be e x c lu d e d . W

ong Sun v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 371 U . S. 471, 488 ( 1963) . I n t hos e ca s es , the5

ques t i on forus i s w hether“the conne ct i on betw een the i l l egal pol i ce c onductand the di s coveryand s ei zur e of the evi dence i s ‘ s o att enuat ed as t o di s s i pat e the t ai nt . ’ ” Seg ura , 468 U . S. at805 ( ci t i ng N ar done v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 308 U . S. 338, 341 ( 1939) ) . I f the e v id e n c e is s u f

f ic ie n tly re m o v e d f

ro m th e ille g a lity, th e n it is n o t e x c lu d e d . Seg ura , 468 U . S. at805. H ow ever , w hen ther e i s an “i ndepende nts our ce” forthe w arr ant , “[w ] hether the i ni t i al entr yw as i l l egal ornoti s i r r el evantt o t he admi s s i bi l i t yof the cha l l enged evi dence ” and e xcl us i on i s “notw arr ant ed. ” I d. a t 8 1 3 -1 4 . T w o ques t i ons gui de ouri nqui r yi nt o t he appl i cat i on of the i ndepende nts our ce doctr i ne. Fi r s t , w e mustdet erm i ne w hether“the age nt s ’ deci s i on t o s eek the w arr antw as pr om pt ed byw hatt heyhad s een dur i ng the [w arr ant l es s ] entr y ” and w hetherthe

“ in f o rm a tio n o b tain e d d u rin g th a t en tryw a s p re se n ted to th e M a g istra te a n d a f f e c ted h is deci s i on t o i s s ue the w arr ant . ” Mur r ay v. U ni t ed Stat es , 4 8 7 U .S . 5 3 3 , 5 4 2 (1 9 8 8 ). Second, “w e must. . . det erm i ne i f ther e w as pr obabl e ca us e forthe w arr antt o be i s s ued. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P r i ce , 558 F. 3d 270, 281 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( ci t at i ons and quot at i ons om i t t ed) . I f “[ n] one of the i nform at i on on w hi ch the w arr antw as s ecur ed w as der i ved fr om orr el at ed i n anyw ayt o t he i ni t i al entr yi nt o pet i t i oner s ’ apart m ent , ” then the w a rr a n t is n o t ta in te d b ya n yp re c e d in g ille g a lity. Seg ura , 4 6 8 U .S . a t 8 1 4 . T hus , t he fi r s ti s s ue i s w hetherthe det ect i ves ’ deci s i on t o s eek t o obt ai n t he s econd s ear ch w arr antw as m ot i vat ed byanyi nform at i on theyhad uncove r ed dur i ng the pr ot ect i ve s w eep of

t he apa r t m ent . W e conc l ude thati tw as not . U nl es s ther e i s cl ear6

e rro r, w e “ o rd in a rilyd e f e r to th e trial p re sid e r’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s b a se d o n c re d ib ili ty ju d g m e n ts a b o u t th e w itn e s s e s p re s e n te d a t th e tr ia l o r h e a ri n g .” C ar l is l e Area Sc h. v. Sc o t tP. By a n d

Th r o u g h Be s s P. , 6 2 F .3 d 5 2 0 , 5 2 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). In th is c a se , as in P r i ce , “it se e m s im p o ss ib le th a t th e p o lice w o u ld n o t h a v e a p p lied f o r a w a rra n t to sea rch ” D av is’ s reside n ce g iven the D istri ct C o u rt ’s find ing that law en fo rce m en t of fice rs i n thi s cas e had, ( 1) pr evi ous l yobt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antforhi s hom e, and ( 2) s ubs equent t o s eeki ng t hats ear ch w arr anthad obt ai ned addi t i onal evi dence thatdefe ndantw as engage d i n drug t r aff

i cki ng. 558 F. 3d at282. M or eover , the dec i s i on t o appl yforthe s econd s ear ch w arr antw as m ade before the pr ot ect i ve s w eep–the D i s t r i ctC our tfound cr edi bl e D et ect i ve D avi s ’ s t es t i m onythathe cons ul t ed w i t h t he di s t r i ctat t orney ’ s offi ce f irst, an d th a t itw a s d e c id e d th a t a s e a rc h w a rra n t w o u ld b e so u g h t after t he pr ot ect i ve s w e e p w a s c o n d u c te d . T he cor ol l aryques t i on i s w hetherthe magi s t r at e j udge’ s deci s i on t o i s s ue the w arr antw as i nfl uence d byt he w arr ant l es s entr y . W e fi nd thati tw as not . T he s econd w arr antcont ai ned the s ame i nform at i on as the fi r s tw arr ant , w i t h t w o change s : ( 1) the s econd s ear ch w arr antadded that“fi r earm s and amm uni t i on” s houl d be s oughtand ( 2) the af fi davi tdes cr i bed the D ece m ber29 contr ol l ed pur chas e. T hus , l i ke Seg ura ,: N one of the i nform at i on on w hi ch the w arr antw as s ecur ed w as der i ved fr om or re la te d in a n yw a yto th e in itia l e n tr yin to p e titio n e rs ’ a p a rt m e n t; th e in f o rm a tio n . .

. w as know n t o t he age nt s w el l befor e the i ni t i al entr y . N o i nform at i on obt ai ned dur i ng t he i ni t i al entr yoroccupa t i on of the apa r t m entw as neede d orus ed byt he a g e n ts to s e c u re th e w a rr a n t.7

46 8 U . S . at81 4. T o the ext ent that defend ant s ug gest s that l aw enfo rcem ent offi cers m ust have obs erved a w eapon i n hi s hom e dur i ng the pr ot ect i ve s ear ch and onl yforthatr eas on r eques t ed thatt he s econd s ear ch w arr antperm i t“fi r earm s and amm uni t i on” t o be s ei zed, w e rej ectthat ar gu m ent. T he d et ect i ves kn ew atthe o uts et–an d st at ed in the fir st a f f id a v it– th a t “ S e a n ” w a s k n o w n to c a rr ya h a n d g u n , a h o ls te r, a n d a b u lle tp ro o f v e s t. W hi l e D et ect i ve D avi s fai l ed t o i ncl ude “f i r earm s and amm uni t i on” i n t he w arr antas an item to b e so u g h t, th e D istric t C o u rt c re d ited th e d e tec tiv e ’s te stim o n yth a t h e m ista k e n ly n e g le c te d to in c lu d e th a t in f o rm a tio n . T he i ndepende nts our ce doc t r i ne nextr equi r es us t o det erm i ne w hetherther e w as p ro b a b le c a u se f

o r th e w a rra n t to iss u e . T h e f irst ste p o f

th is e v a lu a tio n re q u ire s u s to “pur ge” the s econd w arr antaff i davi tof any“t ai nt ed fa ct s and conc l us i ons . ” U ni t ed Stat es v. P er ez , 280 F. 3d 318, 340 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . H ow ever , as w e have al r eadynot ed, none of the i nform at i on i n t he s econd w arr antaff i davi ts t emm ed fr om the s ear ch of the apart m ent ; t hus no “pur gi ng” of the af fi davi ti s r equi r ed. T hus , w e mustdet erm i ne w hether , undert he “t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s ” t es ts etfor t h i n I l l i nois v. G at es , 462 U .S . 2 1 3 , 2 3 8 (1 9 8 3 ), “th e m a g istra te h a d a su b sta n tial b a sis f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a b le caus e exi s t ed. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. Jones , 994 F. 2d 1051, 1055 ( 3d C i r . 1993) . T he m a g is tr a te ju d g e ’s d e te rm in a tio n o f p ro b a b le c a u s e is s u b

je c t to s ig n if

ic a n t d e f e re n c e . G at es , 462 U . S. at236. “[T] he t as k of the i s s ui ng m agi s t r at e i s s i m pl yt o m ake a pr act i cal , comm on- s ens e dec i s i on w hether , gi ven al l the ci r cumst ance s s etfor t h i n t he8

aff i davi tbefor e hi m , i ncl udi ng t he ‘ ver aci t y ’ and ‘ bas i s of know l edge’ of per s ons s uppl y i ng hear s ayi nform at i on, t her e i s a fa i rpr obabi l i t ythatcontr aband orevi dence of a cr i m e w i l l be found i n a part i cul arpl ace . ” I d. a t 2 3 8 . I n defe ndantD avi s ’ vi ew , t he s econd a ffi davi tl acke d pr obabl e ca us e bec aus e: ( 1) the p oli ce did no tob serve an ynarcot i cs transact i on s actuall yoccu rr i ng atD avis ’ r es i dence ; ( 2) t her e w er e no obs ervat i ons orphot ogr aphs of D avi s carr y i ng anyt hi ng fr om hi s r es i dence ; ( 3) t he i nform anthad neve rbeen a tD avi s ’ r es i dence ; ( 4) ther e w as no inf o rm ati o n ind icati n g that D av is st o red firearm s at h is r esid en ce ; and (5) inf o rm an t’ s s ta te m e n t th a t D a v is w a s k n o w n to c a rr ya g u n w a s h e a rs a y . W e d is a g re e . W h en see k ing a se arc h w arran t fo r th e p rem ises o f a su sp ec ted d rug tr af fick er, “dir ectevidence li nk i ng t he resi den ce t o cri m i nal act i vityi s not r equ i red t o est abli sh p ro b a b le c a u s e .” U

ni t ed Stat es v. B ur t on , 2 8 8 F . 3 d 9 1 , 1 0 3 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) . I n s t e a d , we r equi r e evi dence t hat“( 1) . . . [the] per s on s us pect ed of drug deal i ng i s actual l ya drug d ea ler; (2) . . . [th e] p lace to b e se arc h ed is po sses sed b y , o r th e d o m ici le of , the d ea ler; and ( 3) . . . [the] hom e cont ai ns contr aband l i nki ng i tt o t he dea l er ’ s drug act i vi t i es . ” I d. at104. T hos e fa ct s w er e s uffi ci ent l yes t abl i s hed i n t he af fi davi ts uppor t i ng the s econd s ear ch w arr ant , w hi ch al l eged the fol l ow i ng: ( 1) the i nform antand D avi s pl anned t o, and a c tu a llye x c h a n g e d , m a rk e d c u rre n c yf o r c o c a in e ; (2 ) D a v is w a s s e e n a rriv in g a t h is reside n ce p ri o r t o tw o o f th e a rran g ed p u rch ase s sh o rt lyaf ter rece iving the in fo rm an t’ s pl anned phone cal l ; ( 3) D avi s w as obs erved l eavi ng hi s hom e at814 E as tL ocus tSt r eet9

aft err ece i vi ng t he i nform ant ’ s phone ca l l s and pr i ort o conduct i ng al l fourof the contr ol l ed buy s ; ( 4) D avi s w as obs erved arr i vi ng atthe C onveni entM art , the s i t e of the a rra n g e d p u rc h a se , o n a ll fo u r o c c a sio n s; (5 ) th e in f o rm a n t sta ted th a t D a v is s o ld h im drugs du ri ng al l fou r purchases; (6) the landl ord con fi rm ed thatD avis l i ved at81 4 E ast L ocus tSt r eet ; and ( 7) aft erhi s arr es tD avi s w as found i n pos s es s i on of $300 of mar ked curr ency . T hus , t her e w as a s ubs t ant i al bas i s forthe magi s t r at e j udge t o concl ude that there w as a “fai r pr ob abil i t y ” t hat evi den ce of drug tr afficki ng w ou l d b e fou nd at81 4 E ast L o c u s t S tr e e t. Fi nal l y , beca us e w e agr ee w i t h t he D i s t r i ctC our tthatthe s econd s ear ch of the apart m entw as j us t i fi ed byt he i ndepende nts ear ch doctr i ne, w e nee d notdeci de w hether the w arr ant l es s pr ot ect i ve s w eep of t he apa r t m entw as unl aw ful orw hetherthe c ir c u m s ta n c e s u n d e rl y in g th e f ir s t s e a rc h w a rr a n t w e re s u s p e c t.

III . F o r t h e f o re g o in g re a s o n s , w e w ill a f f ir m th e ju d g m e n t o f

th e D is tr ic t C o u rt .