## 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

- 1175 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. D AVI D A. E LST, D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the E astern Di stricto f Wisc onsin
. No . 1:08- cr-00117-WC G- 1

—WilliamC. G riesbach, Judge .
A RG UE D J UNE 5, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 25, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, R OV NER, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T IND ER, C ircu it Judge. On J anuary16 , 20 08, S tev en Scul l y, an invest i gat orwith the Ci ty ofGree n Bay P olic e D e p ar tm en t in W isc on sin , obt ain ed an an tic ipator y s ear ch w ar ran t fo r the ho m e o fDavi d A
. El st. T he w arran t w as ex ecu ted on Jan u a ry 18, 2008 , after a co nfi den ti ali nf orm ant pur ch as ed co ca i ne ( unde r c o nt r o lle d cond iti ons ) at th e E lst resi d en ce. Th e officers executi ng the warran t f ound cash, i ncl ud i ng pre re cor ded curr ency used i n th e c on tr ol l ed buy, and 700 gr am s o f2 N o. 09

- 1175

coca i ne. A n i nd i ctm ent was r etur ned i n the dist ri ct cour t char gi ng El st w i th co nspir acy to dist ribute coca i ne and posse ssi on o f co cai ne with the intent to dist ribute i t. El stmove d t o s up p ress th e fr ui ts o fthe s ea r ch
. The ma g i s t r a t e j ud g e h e l d a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n ga n d r e c o mm en ded th atthe mot i o n b e den i ed. El sto bj ec te d, a nd th e di st r i ctc o ur t ado pte d the recom m en dat i o n. The cour t co ncl ud ed that the warr ant f ai l ed to est abl i sh pro babl e ca us e th at a trigg er i nge ve nt

— th e del i ve r y o fa c o ntr ol l ed substa n ce a t the El st re si dence

— w oul d occur or w hen i t would o ccur, but nonethel ess d eterm i ned that the o ffi cer s r el i ed i n go od f ai th o n the w ar ra nt. I t there

f o r e det er m i ne d tha t th e g o o d f ai th ex cept i o n t o the ex cl us i o na r y r ul e set for thi n U ni t e d S t at e s v. Le on , 46 8 U. S
. 8 9 7( 1 9 8 4 ) , a pp l i e d. Fol l ow i ng the deni alo fhi s s up press i on m oti on, El st ple d gui l ty to the c onspi ra cy coun t and w as sente nced to 92 m onths’ im pri sonm ent. The o therco unt w as dism i ss ed o n th e g o ve r nm en t’ s m o ti o n. Hav i ngr es er ve d the ri ght t o do so , El st appeal s t h e d en i alo fhi s m oti on t o supp re ss.
I . The Sear ch O n Jan u ar y 1 6, 20 08 , In ve st iga to r St ev en Sc u lly, a m em ber of the Brown County, W i sco nsi n drug tas k for ce, o b t ain ed (from a W isc on sin st at e c ou rtj u d ge ) an an tic ipator y s ear ch w arrantf orthe prem i ses o ccupie d or own ed by Davi d A
. E l st at 1566 N or th R oad in the Vi l l ageN o. 09

- 1175 3 ofA shw au b en on in B ro w n C ou n ty, W i sco nsin. Investi gat or S c ul l y p r o v i de d a n a ffi da v i ti n s up po r to fthe warra nt, i nd i c a t i ngtha ta c o nfi de nt i a li nfo r man t( CI ) h a d ma de th re e c on tr olle d bu ys u n d er th e s u p er vi sio n of Sc u lly and o ther m em ber s ofthe Brown County Drug Task For ce. I n the fi r st, on Dec embe r 3 , 2 00 7, the CIpur ch as ed o ne o u n c e of coca ine from Gre gory M ad sen at M ad sen ’s re si dence at an apart m ent com ple x on Ri verBend Terr ace i n the Vil l age o fBel l evue, W i sco nsi n. On Decem ber18 , i n the seco nd buy, the CI pu rchas ed a hal fo unce of coca i ne fro m M adsen, ag ai n at M adsen’ s a partm ent. The thi rd co n tr olle d buy, o n J anuary10 , 20 08, o ccurr ed at E lst ’s re sid en c e a t 1 56 6 N o r th R oa d . Scu lly’s affid av it sta ted thatthe CI ar ra nged w i th M adsen to purchase tw o oun ces of cocaine from M ad sen and his sup p li er. M adsen had to l d the CIthattheywould be going to th e N o r thRo ad addr es s to c o m pl et e th e tr an sa ct i o n. I nv es ti g at o r S cul l y a nd o th ert as kf o r ce mem be r s co nd u c te d su rv eilla n c e a s t h e C I pic ke d u p M ad se n ath is re sid ence and drove to Elst ’ s r esi dence. There theyo bserved M ad sen ente r the resid en ce an d return to the C I ’s v e hi c l e . S ho r t l y the r e a ft e r, a no the rv e hi c l e a r r i v ed, a nd a m ale and fem al e e xi ted i t a nd ente re d Elst ’ s a partm ent. Appro xi m at ely te n m i nut es l at er, M ads en ex i te d the r e s i de nc e a nd r e t urne d t o the C I ’ s v e hi c l e . T he CI re po rt ed to S cul l y l ate r that he ga ve M adsen $1 , 600 f or th e co ca i ne a s the y pul l ed i nt o the dr i ve way o fthe Elst re si dence, and that after the tw o i nd i vi du als had m etwi thM ads en in the r es i den ce , M ads ene xi te d the re si dence and prov i ded the CI w i th wh at w as l ate r4 N o. 09

- 1175 f ound to b e 5 5. 2 g ra m s o f c oc ain e, and $49
. The CIr em ai ned und ersur vei l l ance at al lti m es. P ar ag raph7 of Scu lly’s Jan u ar y 1 6, 20 08 affid av it

— w hi ch w as titled “A ffid a vit i n Su p p ort [of ] A nt ici p atory Se ar ch W ar ra nt”

— s t a t e d: Your a ffi ant a nti ci p at es t hat CIwil lgo to 16 67 R iverb e[ n] d Te r r ac e an d pi ckup Gr eg o ry M ad sen a nd tr avelto 15 66 N or th Rd. to purchase coca ine. I f M ad sen or an oth er p erson de li vers a co ntro l l ed substa nce o r a s ubstance r epres en ted to b e a co nt roll ed su bs ta nc e to the CI, a nd the d eliv ery o ccurs at15 66 N or th Rd. o r the per son m aking the del i ver y c om es fro m o r re turns to 15 66 N or th R d ., th en you r a ffian t re q u es ts th is w ar ra nt be act i ve f ora sea rch ofthe prem i ses . The sta te j ud ge i ssued the w ar ra nt o n the sa m e day as Scul l y’ s a ffi davi t. The w ar ra nt w as executed on J anuary18 , 20 08. That day th e CI, a tS c ul l y ’ s di r e c t i o n, a r r a ng e d t o p ur c hase c oc ain e fro m M ad se n . M ad s e n t o ld th e C I to m ee t h im at the N or th Road add re ss. Befo re the contr ol l ed buy, th e CIa nd hi s vehicl e wer e se ar ch ed f o r c ur r en cya nd c on tr ab an d an d th e C I w as p ro vid ed w ith $1 ,58 0 in pr er ec o r ded “b uy mone y . ” The CI the n pl ac ed a pho ne cal lto M adsen wh o tol d the CItha t h e w as al re ady at th e N o r thRo ad ad d re ss . W he n the CIpul l ed up t o the E l s tr e s i d e n c e , Ma d s e n w a s w a i t i n go u t s i d e f o r h i m. M ad se n en te re d th e C I’s v eh icle an d h a n d ed th e C I a bagg i e a pp ar entl y con ta ini ng co cai ne, and the CI gaveN o. 09

- 1175 5

The poi ntabo utwhenM ads enwas obs er ved e nt er i ng the 1 re s i denc e i s the on l y t ri al c our tfind i ng thatEl s tdi s put es . The m agis tr ate j u d g e’ s report and rec om m endation ( lat er adopted by the di s t ri c tj udge) i ndi c at es tha t M adse n br i efl y e nt er ed the CI’ s ve hi c l e and the n e nt er ed the r es i denc e befor e re t ur ni ng a s ho r tt i m e l a t e r wi th the c oc a i ne . Th e t r a ns c r i pto fthe s up p ression hea ring d iscloses tha t this find ing is erro ne ou s. Investi g a to r Sc ull y tes ti fie d that the CI t old him thatM adsen w as wai t i ngo ut s i de whe n the CI a r r i ve d a tthe El s tr e s i de nc e. Scull y d id not t es ti fy that the CI said anything abou t M adsen g oin g i n t o the re sid en ce b efore g iv ing the C I the co cain e. Th is error, how ever, i s not cons equ en ti al to the good f aith determ i nat i on. M adsen the buy m oneypro vi ded byS cul l y. M adsen the n e nt e r e d the r e s i de nc e a t1 5 6 6 No r th Ro a d. 1 A fterthe c on tr oll ed buy, the CI l eft the r esi dence to m ee t wi thInv es ti g at o r S cul l y i n a ne arbypa r k i ngl o t. The CIr el at ed whatha d o cc ur r ed an d t urn ed o ve r the coca i ne j ust purchas ed. Invest i gat orS cul l y a nd o ther tas k fo rce m em ber s pro ceeded to the Elstr esi dence. There , the o thero ffi cer s e xecuted the w ar ra nt a nd se ar ched th e r es i den ce . The y f o und mor e th an$ 4, 50 0 i n c as h, i ncl ud i ng pre re cor ded curr ency used i n the tr ansa c tion th at ev en in g, an d 70 0 g ra m s o f co c ain e.
I I . Does t he G ood Fai t h Excepti on A pp l y? T he only i ss u e on ap p eal i s w he th er the d istri ct cou rt er r ed i n r ely i ngo n the g o o d f ai the xc ept i o n t o the e x c l u s i o n a r y r u l e t o d e n y th e mo t i o n t o s u p p r e s s . We re view the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ngs o ff act f orcl earer ro r6 N o. 09

- 1175

an d its leg al con c lu sio n s d e n o v o . U ni t e d S t at e s v. M i l l b r ook, 553 F.3d 105 7, 1061 ( 7th Cir. 2009). Bu t a s we consi der whether the g ood fa i th exce pti on appli es to thi s s ear ch, we m ust k eep i n m i nd how an anti ci pator y warr ant di ffer s fro m o therse ar c h warra nts.
“ An a nt i c i pa t o r y wa r r a nt i s ‘ a wa r r a nt b a s e d up on a n affi d avit show ing p r o b a ble cau se th at at som e futu re ti m e (but notpre sentl y) c er tain evi dence ofcr i m e wil lbe l oca ted ata speci fi ed p lace. ’ ” U nite d State s v. G rubb s , 54 7 U .S. 9 0, 94 (2 00 6) (q u ot in g 2 W . L aF av e, Sea rch an d S eiz ure § 3 .7(c ), at 3 98 (4t h e d
. 20 04 )). Su c h w ar ra n ts ge n er ally “s ubj ec t th ei r e xe cut i o n t o s o m e co ndi ti o n preceden t o th e r th a n th e me r e p a s s a g e o ft i me

— a so - ca l l ed ‘ tr i ggerin g c on d itio n .’ ” Id. A n anti ci pat or y warr ant r equi re s the i s s uingj ud g e t o de t e r mi ne “ ( 1 ) tha ti ti s n o w probabl e th at (2) c on tr ab an d [ o r ] e v i d e n c e o f a c rim e . . . w il l b e on the described prem i ses ( 3) w hen the w ar ra nt is executed. ” Id. a t 96 ( emphas i s i n o r i g i na l )
. Thu s, s ucha w ar ra n t m u st sa tis fy t w o re q u ire m en ts : t h e re is a fa ir p ro b ab ility th at co n tr ab an d or ev id en c e o f a c rim e w ill be f o und in the pl ac e to b e s ear ch ed i fthe t r i g g er i ng c on d i ti on o ccurs and ther e i s probabl e ca use t o bel i eve th at th e t rig ge rin g c on d itio n w ill occ u r. Id. at96

- 97. W e a re notas ked t o deci de w hetherthe sea rch w ar ra n t i s s u ed in t h is c as e w as su p p or te d by p ro b ab le cause

— th e di st r i ctc o urtc o nc l ude d tha t i t was n’ t, a nd th e g overn m en t d oesn ’t disp ut e tha t on ap p eal. H ow ever, as ou r d isc u ss ion m ay su gg es t, a fa ir ar gu m en t c ou ld have been m ade thatthe w ar ra nt h er e w as not defe cti ve at al l
. A fteral l, the affi davi t su p p or ti ng the i ssuance of the warr ant was narro w l y c ondit i oned on the o ccurr enceN o. 09

- 1175 7 of a future eve nt, a drug del i ver y at the E lst resi dence, w h ich d i d s u b se q u en tly oc c u r. N on et h ele ss , w e w ill accept the gov er nm ent’s concessi on

— our f ocus w i l lbe on wh etherthe offi cer s a cted in go od fai th r el i ance o n the pr esum pti vel y defecti ve w ar ra nt. U nd er U ni t ed State s v. Le on , 468 U .S. 89 7 (1 98 4), it is i napp ro pri ate to suppress ev i d ence obt ai ned pu rs uant to a later-dec lared inva lid w arran t ifthe ex ecu ting officers re as on ab ly re lied on th e w ar ra n t. Id. at92 2- 23 ; s e e also M i l l b r ook, 55 3 F
. 3d at 1061

- 62. That the o ffi cer s ob tained a war r a n ti s p r i ma f a c i e e v i d e n c e o fg o o d f a i th
. M i l l b r ook, 553 F.3d a t 1 0 6 2 . A d efe n d an t m ay reb u t t h is byp r e s e n t i n ge v i d e n c e t o e s t ab l i s h th a t : ( 1 ) th e i s su i ng j ud ge “ ‘ w hol l y abandoned his j ud i ci alr ol e’ and fa iled to

‘ per f o r m hi s neut r ala nd de ta ch ed func ti o n, ’ s er ving
‘ m er el y a s a rubber s tam p f orthe pol i ce, ’ ” U nited Sta tes v. O l s on , 40 8 F
. 3d 366, 37 2 ( 7th C i r. 20 05) ( quoti ng Le on , 46 8 U. S
. a t 91 4) ; ( 2) the a ffi dav it s uppo r tingthe w ar ra nt “wa s ‘so lac ki ng i n i nd i ci a o fpro babl e ca use a s to re nd ero ffici albel i efi n i ts exi ste nce e nti re l y unre asonab l e, ’ ” i d. (q uoti ng Le on , 46 8 U.S
. at92 3) ; o r ( 3) the i ssui ng j ud ge “w as m i sl ed by i nfo rm at ion in an affid av i t t h at th e a ffian t k n ew w as fals e o r w ou ld ha ve kn ow n w as false excep t for h is rec kless disregard of the t ruth, ” Le on , 46 8 U.S
. at92 3. El st att em pts to re but the pre sum pti on o fgo od f ai th but f ai l s. E lstfirs t co n te n d s t h at th e g oo d fait h ex c ep tio n is i napp l i cabl e be cause I nvest i gat orS cul l y di d not a l l ege an y f ac ts to es tabl i sh pr o babl e ca us e th at cont r ab an d was o n a “su re c o ur se ” to the El str es i den ce . Al o ng thos e l i nes, El st ar gues that Scul l y’s affi davi t co ntai ned8 N o. 09

- 1175

Elsts ugg es ts thatthe s tat e c ourt j ud ge abd ic ated his j ud ic ial 2 ro l e b y f ai l i ng t o de t er m i ne whenan d i fthe t ri gge ri ng e ven t would o c c ur . How eve r, El s tr ea l l y is n’ tc l ai m i ng thatthe j udge “whol l y a bandon ed h i s j udi c i al r ol e” i n i s s ui ng the warr ant and m er el y a ct ed a s a ru bber s t am p f or pol i c e. He offer s no evidence t o es tabli sh that the j ud ge f ail ed to c o nsi der w hether Scull y’ s affidavit e st ablis hed p robab le caus e to i ssue a warra nt
. Nor doe s El s tpr es en ta ny i nfor m at i on t o s ugge s tthatthe j ud ge f ail ed to acta s a n eutral and d etac hed judici al of fic er. A t b o t t o m , E lst’ s sug g estion tha t the ju d g e ab an d on ed his j udi c i al r ol e i s s i m pl y a var i at i on on hi s c ontenti on thatthe affidavit was ent ir el y lac king in i nd ic ia ofprob able c ause. n o fa c ts to d em on st ra te th at a tr igg er in g c on d itio n w ou ld oc c u r, a n d co n se q u en tly , th e e x ec u tin g off ice rs ’ be lief in the e xi ste nce o fpro babl e cause w as enti re l y unre aso nabl e. 2 R e g a r d i n gth e “ s u r e c o u r s e ” r e q u i r e me n t, s o me ci rcui ts

— even ours

— ha ve r equi r ed a sh o wi ngtha t th e contr aband w as on a “s ure cour se” to the p lace to be sea rche d to supp or t a fi nd i ng o fpro bable cause f oran an tic ip a to ry w ar ra n t. SeeU nite d State s v. D ennis , 11 5 F.3d 524 , 530 (7th C ir. 1997) (col le c t in g cases ). Th e pu rpose ofthe “sur e co urse ” r equi re m en t is to pre vent l aw en f o r ce m en t au th o r i ti es o r thi r d p ar ti es fr o m de l i ve r i ng orcausing to be del i ver ed contr aband to a re si dence to “c r eate p robab le cause to search the p rem ises w he re i t o ther w i se w oul d not e xi st. ” U nite d State s v. B rack, 18 8 F.3 d 748, 75 7 ( 7th Ci r. 19 99) ( quoti ng D ennis , 11 5 F
. 3d at 52 9)
. “ The r equi r em en t en su r es tha t a su ffi ci en t ne xus b et w ee n th e p ar c el a n d th e p l a c e t o b e s ea rc h ed ex ist s.” Id. Thus, we h ave i m pli ed that the “ sure co urse ” r equi re -N o. 09

- 1175 9

m en t is j us t one w ay of satisfy in g the req uirem en t of a suffi ci ent nexus between the contr aband and th e p l ace to be s ear ched
. Seei d. ( statin g tha t even i f th e “su re co ur se ” r equi r ement appl i ed wher e th e defen dan t hi m se l f d e l i v e r e d th e d r u g s t o h i s h o t e l r o o m, t he war r an t affi dav i t cl ea r l y sh o wed a ne xus be tween the d rugs and the h otel room ); s eeals o D en nis , 11 5 F
. 3d at 53 0 ( i ndi ca tingtha t pr o o ftha t “the c o nt r ab and w as o n a ‘su re co urse ’ to the desti nati on t o be s ear ched w ould demons tr at e a su ffi ci en t ne xus ” be twe enthe c o nt r ab an d and the pla ce to be sea rche d). Other courts h ave ex p licit ly sa id so . Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v . P e nn ey, N o. 05

- 6821 , 20 09 W L 2408721, at* 12 ( 6th Ci r. A u g. 7, 20 09) (i nd icating th at th e “ su r e an d i rreversible course ” stan d ard w as adopted to go ver n typi calanti ci patory s ear ch w ar ra nts

— thos e s ought to conduct se ar ches tr i gge re d by a p oli ce-c o nt roll ed de li very); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rowlan d, 14 5 F
. 3d 11 94, 1 20 3 n. 3 ( 10 thCi r . 1 99 8) ( r ec o g ni zing th atthe “ ‘s ur e co ur se ’ ” st an dar d i s o ne wayo fs at i sfy i ng th e trad iti ona l ne xu s requ irem en t of p robab le cause ”). W he r e th e g o ve r nm en t i s no t i nv o l ve d i n de l i ve r i ng or causi ng to be del i ver ed the contr aband, we doubt that th e “ su re co u rs e” req u ire m en t a p p lies
. SeeBrack, 18 8 F.3 d at75 7; see also P enn ey, 20 09 W L 240 8721 , at* 12 ( dec l i nin g t o a p p ly th e “su re and i rreversible course ” stan d ard to a s ear ch w ar ra n t su pp or ted byev i dence ofpri or illici t drug acti vi ty i n additi on t o the dr ug dealar ra nged by the CIthatco nnected the re si dence to be sea rche d w ith crim inal activity) ; Rowlan d, 145 F.3d at12 03 n .3 (“It is unc lear how , or w he th er, the h eighten ed ‘sure cour se’ r equi re m ent a pp l i es . . . o utsi de the control l ed10 N o. 09

- 1175 d eliv er y c on te x t.” ). Re ga rd les s, Sc u lly’s affid av it c lea rly c o n d iti ons the sea rch on th e futu re occu rrenc e of a dr ugde l i ve r y t o t he CIa t th e El str es i den ce , a nd the se ar chdi d no t take pl ac e unt i ll aw e nf o r ce m en t con fi rm ed th ats ucha de aldi d i n f ac t ta k e pl ac e. And th e ch o i ce o fth at l o ca ti o n was made byM ads en, no t th e CI orl aw enf or cem ent. S o re l i ance o n the w ar ra nt i s no t derai l ed by “sur e co urse ” co ncer ns. That br i ngs us t o Elst ’ s s eco nd co ntenti on: The go od f ai th exce pti on d oes notapplybec ause Scul l y c re ate d the c i rcum st an ces needed to est abl i sh pro babl e ca use to beli eve th at con traba nd w as on a “su re cou rse” to E lst’s re sid en c e. W hi l e the CIco ntacte d M adsen o n J anuary18 atSc ul l y ’ s di r ec ti o n, ne i th erS cul l y no r a no th erl aw e nf or cem ent o ffi c er c aused the del i ver y o fthe coca i ne to Elst’s re si dence. N ei therS cul l y no r anothe r offi cerhad contr olo verthe coca i ne thatthe CI pu rchas ed fro m M adsen thatev eni ng. A nd , as st ate d, nei therS cul l y, anothe r offi cer, nort h e CIdeter m i ned the l oca ti on o f ei thero fthe drug tr ansact ion s at El st’ s r esi dence. M ad se n d id . Scu lly d i d n otcr ea te th e t rig ge rin g c on d it i o n ; n o r d i d h e c r e a t e p r o b ab l e c a u s e t o s e a r c h
. We h av e n o re as on to b elie ve th er e w as an ab u se of th e a n tic ip at or y w ar ra n t in th is c as e. See D ennis , 11 5 F
. 3d at 529- 30 (discu ssing th e greater p ot e n t ia l for abu se of anticipat ory war r an ts tha n o th erwar ran ts b ec au se “ th e g o ve r nm en t o r a thi r d pa r ty, a ct i nge i ther int en ti o na l l y o r a cc i den

tal l y, coul d m ai l a contr ol l ed substa nce to a resi dence to create p robab le cause to se a r ch the p rem ises w he re it ot h er w ise w ou ld n otex ist ”); U n i t e d S ta tes v. Leidn er, 99 F. 3d 1423 , 14 31 ( 7th Ci r. 19 96) ( W oo d, J
. , co ncurr i ng)N o. 09

- 1175 11 ( disc ussi ng pro bl em o f g ove rnm ent m ani pu l ati on un iqu e to anticip atory w arran ts). Th erefore, this effort by Elstto r eb ut the presum pti on that the o ffi cer s a cted i n go od f ai th ge ts hi m nowh er e. B ut w e are stil l left w ith E lst’s assert ion tha t Scu ll y’s affi d avit con tained no facts to d em ons trate th at a t r ig g eri ng co nd i ti on would o ccur. ( Elstdoes notdi spute that th e affi dav i t i den ti fi ed a tr i g g er i nge ve nt
. ) Howev er, he h as n otsh ow n th at th e a ffid av it w as so lac kin g in i nd i ci a o fpro babl e ca use a s t o m ake enti re l y unre as o nab l e a b e l i e ftha tp r o b ab l e c a us e e xi s t e d. S c ul l y ’ s a ffi da v i t do e s c o nt a i n s o me i nd i c a t i o n of ille g a l d ru g a c tiv ity atE lst ’s re sid en c e. H is a ffid av it re veal s that S cul l y h ad b een c onducti ng an i nvest i gat i on f o r o ve r o ne month us i ngthe CIwhi chi nc l ude d c o ntr ol l ed buys on three se parat e oc c asio ns fro m M adsen d uri ng the i nvest i gat i on. The co ntro l l ed buys in Decem ber20 07 too k pl ace at M ad se n’s r esi dence, ea ch in vo lvin g les s t h an on e o u n c e o f co c ain e. T h e a ffid av it sta ted thatthe CI had rel at ed to S cul l y that M adsen typi cal l y had an ounce o r l ess athi s r esi de n c e. T he m ost rec ent c ontr ol l ed buy, o n J anuary10 , 20 08, however, to ok pla ce at 1566 N or th Road. This deal w as f or tw o ou n c es o fc o ca i ne

— a g r ea te r qua nt i tytha n tha t i nv o l ve d i n the ear l i erbuys and m or e than the am ount that the CIhad sa i d M ads en ty pi ca l l y ha d at hi s apa r tment. The affi davi t furtherst ate d that the CIdro ve M adsen to 15 66 N or th Road wh er e the CIpull ed i nto the dri veway, M a ds en ente r e d the r e s i de nc e , a nd h e r e t urne d a sh or t tim e late r to te ll th e C I to m ov e h i s ve h icle12 N o. 09

- 1175 b ec au se “ t h e y w ou ld be co m in g h om e s h or tly .” A ccor ding to the a ffi davi t, as M adsen pre dict ed, a b rie f ti m e pas se d a nd the n an oth er v eh i cl e pul l ed i nt o the dr i ve way a nd a mal e an d femal e ex i te d and ent er ed th e El st r es i den ce . A s ho r t ti m e afte r th at, M ads en l eft the re sid en c e a n d r et u rn ed to th e C I’s v eh icle , ha n d in g h im a ba g g i e co nt aini ng5 5. 2 g r ams o fc o ca i ne a nd $ 49 o fthe $ 1 , 6 0 0 th e C Ih a d p r e v i o u s l y g i v e n h i m. T h es e fa c ts su gg es t t h at alt h ou gh M ad se nty p ica lly ha d an ou nc e of coca ine at hom e , h e h a d to go el sew he re to obt ai n gr eat erquanti ti es, and the Elstr esi dence at 1566 N or th Road was one pl ace w here he ha d done so very re centl y. Invest i gat orS cul l y’ s a nti ci pati on that M adsen would ag ai n del i verco cai ne to the CI at 1566 N or th Road does not am ount to probabl e cause. N on eth el es s, hi s ant i ci pat i o n i s ba se d o n the o ng o i ngdr ug i nvest i gat i on a nd the CI’ s co nti nuing re l ati onshi p w ith M adsen wh i ch ar e s ugges tiv e offuture tr ansact i ons. Sc u lly’s an tic ip at ion is also b as ed on h is tra in in g , e x p er ien c e, and parti ci pati on in other narco ti cs invest i gat i ons. E x p er ien c ed law en for c em en t o ffic e r s (as w ell as ex p er ien c ed m ag ist ra te s) a re p er m itt e d to d ra w rea so n ab le i nfer en ce s fr o m the f ac ts b as ed o n the i r t r aini ng a nd ex p er ien c e. Se e, e . g. , U nited Sta tes v . C urry, 53 8 F
. 3d 718, 729 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( sta ti ng tha t in i ssui ng a sea rch w ar ra nt a m agi str ate j ud ge i s e nti tl ed t o draw r easonab l e infe re nces about w here the evi dence i s l i kel y t o be foun d ); U nited Sta tes v. R eed, 44 3 F
. 3d 60 0, 60 3 ( 7th Cir
. 20 06) ( i nd i cating tha t in deter m i ni ng wh ether probabl e ca use e xi sts o ffi cer s a re enti tl ed to draw rea

son able inference s base d on th eir training an d exp erience ). A l lo fthes e consi derat i ons supp or t the co ncl usi on thatN o. 09

- 1175 13 Scul l y’ s a ffi davi t was not so l acking i n i nd i ci a o f probabl e c au se as to re nd ero ffi ci albel i efi n i ts exi ste nce e nti re l y unre aso nabl e. F ur the r mor e , o nc e the “ t r i g g e ri ngc o nd i t i o n” o c c ur r e d, the o ffi cer s co uld have r eas onabl y r el ied i n go od f ai th o n the warr an t. The occ urr ence ofthe tr i gge ring co nd i ti on c an es ta b lish p ro b ab l e c au se for th e s ea rc h
. SeeGrubbs , 547 U
. S. at 97. The “t ri gge ring co nd i ti on” occur re d bef or e the offi cer s executed the w ar ra nt: M adsen del i ver ed c oc ain e t o th e C I o u t s id e 1 56 6 N or th R oa d an d im m ed iate l y there aftere n tered the re si dence ther e. The f act tha tMad s e n wa s al re ady wa i t i ngo ut s i de wh e n the CI ar ri ved and then i m m edi ate l y e nter ed the re sid en ce, a p p a r e n t l y wi th th e $ 1 , 5 0 0 th e C I h a d g i v e n h i m, su g g es ts th at M ads eno bt aine d the c o ca i ne i ns i de th e E lstres id en c e ( a n d ret u rn ed w ith th e m on ey to p ay h is sour ce, p er h aps)
. Other w i se, ther e was no re aso n f or M adsen to m eetthe CI at 15 66 N or th Road

— he j ust a s eas i l y c oul d have had the CI m eet hi m at hi s a partm ent o r som e o therl oca ti on. Once the tr i gge ring co n d itio n occurr ed, the offi cer s had probabl e ca use t o sea rch the El st r e s i d e n c e f o r c o c a i n e , U
. S
. cu r r e n c y, a n d o th e r i t e ms used i n connect i on with drug t ra nsacti ons. I t s houl d be n ot ed that i fS cul l y, i nstea d ofr el yi ng o n the previ ously obt ai ned anti ci pator y warr ant, had re turned t o (o r eve n tel ephoned) the j ud ge w h o h ad i ssued the w ar ra nt ( or h ad co n ta c te d an ot h er j u d g e , for th at m at te r), h e c ou ld ha ve pr es en te d pl en tyo fpr o babl e ca us e to o bt ain a “r egul ar ” s ear ch w ar ra nt f orth e E l st re si dence bas ed on j ust the ev ents that h ad taken pl ace ther e that eve ni ng, to sa y no thi ng o fthe pri ortr ansact i ons.14 N o. 09

- 1175 Fi nal l y, El st m ake s a co n c l usor y, undevel oped, o nepar ag r apha r g um en t th atS cul lykne w the r e was no tr i g g er i ngc o ndi ti o n whi chhe coul d a l l eg e an d thus Scul l y was r eckl ess and dis honestin r epres enti ng tha t ther e was pro babl e ca use t o bel i eve co ntraband w as on a “s ur e co ur se ” to El st ’ s r es i den ce . Pe r functory a nd un de v e l o pe d a r g ume nt s a s w e l la s a r g ume nt s u ns up p or te d by p er tin en t a u th or ity are w aiv ed
. Se e U nited St at e s v. Hook, 47 1 F .3d 76 6, 775 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06)
. El st m ake s thi s a rgum ent o nl y in hi s s um m ar y o farg um ents se ct i o n; he do es no t dev el o p i t i n h i s ar gu m en t se ct i o n, nordoes he c i te any per tinent l ega lautho ri ty. There f or e, he has w ai ved the ar gum ent that S cul l y was r eckl ess a nd di s ho ne s ti n po r t r a y i ngtha tp r o b ab l e c a us e e xi s t e d. E lst has n ot rebu tted the p resu m p tion th at th e officers acte d i n obj ecti ve go od f ai th r el i ance o n the w ar ra nt. Ex c l u s i o n o f e v i d e n c e i s a n “ e x t r e me s a n c t i o n ” a nd “ap p li es only w he re it ‘results in ap p reciab le de terre nce. ’ ” H e r r i n g v . U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S
. Ct. 69 5, 70 0 ( 2009 ) ( ci tat i ons om i tte d). I t would nother e. A t wors t, Invest i gatorS cul l y neg l i gently f ai l ed to i ncl ud e o ne o bvi ous f act inh is ot h er w ise co m p let e a ffid a v it

— th at th e C I w ou ld m ak e yet anothe r eff or t t o pu rchas e drugs fro m M adsen as he had i n the past. ( Perhaps t h at f act coul d have b e e n i n fe r r e d fr o m th e “ I f Ma d s e n . . . d e l i v er s a co ntr ol l ed subst an c e . . . at15 66 N or th Rd. ” l anguage fro m th e affi dav i t. ) Bute ve n wi thout tha t al l eg at i o n in the affid avi t, the offi cer s s houl d not be depri ved ofgo od fai th rel iance on t h e w arran t. H en ce, as the d istri ct cou rt p ro p e r l y fou n d , su p p re ss ion w ou ld be ina p p ro p ria te in thi s ca se.N o. 09

- 1175 15 I I I . Concl usio n W e uphol d the denial of El st’ s m oti on t o supp re ss a nd A FFIRM the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent.

8- 25- 09