## 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. 07
- 3504 D AVI D C. B R OCK, P et it ioner-App el lant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the S outhernDi stricto f Indian a, Indian apolisDiv isi on. No . 07 C632

—L arry J . M cKinn ey, Judge . A RGUED J AN UA RY 16, 2009

— D ECI DE D J UL Y 22, 2009

Befo re B AUER, F L A U M an d W OO D , C ircu it Judges . B AUER, Cir cu i tJudg e . A fte r p olic e s ea rc h ed tw o ofh is re si dences, Dav id C. Brockwas convi cted o fposs ess i ng, wi ththe i nt en t to di st ribut e, meth amphet ami ne a nd c o c a i ne , a n d o fb e i n ga fe l o n i n p o s s e s s i o n o fa fi r e a r m. Se ver alyear s l ate r, Bro ck bro ught a m oti on under 28 U .S.C . § 22 55 , claim in g t o h av e l o c a t ed a p re vio u sly unavai l able w i tness , Regi nal d G odsey , wh o w as prepar ed to te sti fy that the o ffi cer s co er ced hi m i nto2 N o. 07
- 3504
c o ns e nt i ngt o a s e a r c h o fthe h o us e h e a nd Br o c ks ha r e d. Theref or e, Bro ck cl ai m s, the sea rch w as non- consensual a n d v i o l a t e d h i s F o u r th Ame n d me n tr i g h t s , a n d the ev id en c e fo u n d in t h at h ou se m u st be su p p re ss ed , w ith h is sen ten ce vac ated or red uc ed a ccord ingly. Th e d istri ct cou rt denie d Brock’ s m oti on

— a d e c i s i o n w e a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND On Apr i l 9 , 2 00 2, fede r ala nd s ta te l aw e nf o r ce m en t o ffi c e r s e x e c u t e d a f e de r a l s e a r c h w a r r a n tf o r fi r e a r ms atBr o ck ’ s r es i den ce , l o ca te d a t 33 75 N. Pa y to n Ave nue i n I nd i anapol i s. The se ar ch r eve al ed approxi m ately thre e pounds of m etham phetam i ne, two pound s o f coca i ne, o ne- quarte r pound o fm ar ij uana, four tee n guns, am m unit i on, and $35 , 000 i n cash. Th e offi cer s a l so f ound util i ty bi l l s ind i cat ing that Bro ck pai d fo r at l eas t som e o fthe uti l i ti es at 3381 N
. P ay to n A venue, the house i m m edi ate l y nextdoor, s i nce F ebr uary20 01. Offi cer M i l l er, o ne of the offi cer s e xecuti ng the warra nt, had tr ai nin g a nd e xpe r i en ce e no ug h t o kno w tha t dr ug d ea ler s c o m m on ly m ain ta in st as h h ou se s t o a vo id st o r i nga l l o fthe i r i nv en to r y i n o ne l o ca ti o n. Br o c k wa s no t ho me a t 3 3 7 5 N. Pa y t o n whe n the se ar ch w as conduc te d . The o ffi cer s f ound G odseyi nstea d. A cco r di ngt o the o ffi ce r s, Go dse y i nform ed the m tha t he a n d B r o c ke a c h r e n t e d a r o o m ne xtd o o r a t3 3 8 1 N. Payto n. Godsey sta ted that Brock used 3381 N . Payto n as a st as h h ou se for d ru gs an d th at B ro c k k ep t a sa fe in hi s b ed ro om thatcurr entl y c ontained seve ra l pound s o f metha mphe t a mi ne . Go ds e y wa t c he d b o th ho us e s f orN o. 07
- 3504 3 Brock
. Godsey conse nted to a sea rch ofhi s be droo m i n 3 38 1 N. P a y t o n a n d g a v e th e o ffi c e r s a k e y t o t he ho us e. The o ff icers f o und a s ho tgun in pl ain v i ew in a c om m on are a o f t h e h o u se an d so m e d ru gs in Godsey’ s be droo m as wellas pap er s linki ng Bro ck to 3381 N
. Payt on. A l so f ro m a co m m on a re a, a pol i ce nar cot
i cs dogal er ted to the southwest s ecti on o fthe house. Bas ed o n a l l thi s i nf orm at i o n, a s ta te s ea r chwar r an t w as obt ai ned and executed for 33 81 N
. Payt on, st i l l o n A pri l 2, 20 02. A se ar ch ofBro ck’ s be d ro om uncove re d tw elv e pounds ofm etham phetam i ne, ei ght o unces o f coca i ne, se ven guns, and am m unit i on. Bro ck w as i nd i cted and c onvi cted o n si x counts: thr ee f orthe m etham phetam i ne, co cai ne, and fi re ar m s f ound a t 3375 N
. Payt on an d thr ee f o r the meth amphet am ine, c o ca i ne , a nd fi r ea r m s f o un d a t 3 38 1 N
. Pa y to n. W e affi r m ed th e co nvic tio n s. U nite d State s v. B rock, 417 F.3d 692 ( 7th Cir. 20 05 ); U nite d State s v. B rock, 433 F.3d 931 ( 7th Cir. 2006). I n N ove m ber20 06, m or e than thr ee yea rs afterBro ck w as convi cted, Bro ck’ s f am i l y located Godsey, wh ose l oca tio n w as previ ousl y unknown to the g ove rnm ent o r B ro c k. G od se y s ign ed a d ec lar at ion th at h e o n ly co n s e n t e d t o th e s e a r c h o f 3 3 8 1 N. P a y t o n b e c a u s e t he o f f i c e r s h eld a gu n to h is h ea d an d th re at en ed h im w i th s ix ty year s in pri son. Bro ck then br ought thi s § 22 55 mot i o n, wh i c h the di s t r i c tc o ur tde ni e d.

I I . DI S C US S I ON B r o c k ’ s fu n d a me n t a l a r g u me n t o n a p p e a l i s th att he new l y di sco vered and previ ously unava i l abl e e vi dence4 N o. 07
- 3504 requ ires, at a m inim um , an evid en tia r y hearing to det ermi ne whe the r Go ds e y ’ s c o ns e nt wa s c o e r c e d. I fi t was, Brockcl ai m s, the sea rch of3 38 1 N
. Payt on vi ol ate d Broc k ’ s F o ur th Am e nd men tr i g ht s a nd the e v i de nce f ound the rei n m ust be suppress ed. Bro ck conte nd s that th e Su p re m e C o u rt ’s lim ita tio n on th e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le i n c o l l at er ala tt ac k s, de scribe d i n Stone v. Po w el l , 42 8 U. S
. 4 65 ( 19 76 ) , doe s n o t appl y . The g o ve r nm en t re sponds that Brock ’ s cl ai m i s ba rr ed by St one, was procedural l y d efaul ted, and i s i rr el evantbec ause the s ear ch o f3 38 1 N
. Pa y to n was prop er underthe i nde pen den t sour ce doct rine.

“ W e r e v i e w the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c o ncl us i o ns o fl a w de nov o and it s de nial ofa m otion for an eviden tiary hear i ng f orabuse o fdi scr eti on. ” A lm o na cid v. U nited Sta tes , 476 F.3d 518, 520-21 (7th Cir. 2000).
A . Lim it s to t h e Exc lus iona ry R u le Brockcl ai m s that St onedo es no t appl y t o § 22 55 mot i o ns because St oneaddress ed col l ate ra l peti ti ons by sta te pri son er s u n d er28 U
. S. C. § 2 254 w hi l e § 22 55 i s f or f eder a l p r i s o ne r s . He a l s o a r g ue s tha th e h a s b e e n de ni ed “an o pp or tuni ty f orfulland f ai r l i ti gat i on o f[ hi s] Fo urth A m endm ent c l ai m , ” the pre re quis ite to the St onebar. St one, 42 8 U.S
. at49 4. The go ver nm ent a rg ues that St onei s e quall y a pp l i cabl e t o federa l and sta te pri sone rs , an d tha t Br o ckr ec ei ve d an o ppo r tu ni tyf o r ful l a nd f ai r l i ti gat i on o fhi s cl ai m so that St oneappli es. The e xc l us i o na r y ru le is no t r equi r ed bythe Co ns ti tu
ti on; it i s “a j udi ci al l y c r ea te d m ea ns o fe ffec tu at i ngtheN o. 07
- 3504 5 ri ghts secur ed by the Fo urth A m endm ent. ” St one, 42 8 U
. S. at48 2
. The r ul e i s des i g ned to d eter vi o l at i o ns o fthe Four th A m endm ent “ by re m oving the incenti ve to disre gar d i t. ” Id
. at48 4 ( quoti ng Elki ns v. U ni t e d S t a tes , 364 U. S
. 2 0 6 , 2 1 7( 1 9 6 0 ) )
. I t“ i s n o ta p e r s o na l c o ns t i t ut i onal r i g ht ” an d “ i s no t ca l cul at ed to r edr es s th e i nj ur y t o the pr i va cyo fthe v i ct i m o fthe s ea r cho r se i zu r e, f o r a ny ‘[r]e p ar at ion co m es to o lat e.’ ” St one, 42 8 U.S
. at48 6 ( q u ot ing Lin k letter v. Wa lk er, 381 U
. S. 618, 637 (1965 ))
. I nstea d, “[ a] pers on w hose r i ghts have been vi ol ate d by a sea rch can b e re m i tte d to a s uitag ainst the pol i ce for com m i tting a const i tuti onalto rt . ” Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S i ms , 55 3 F.3 d 58 0, 58 3-8 4 (7 th C ir. 2 00 9). Insu m , “[t]h e ru le is cal cul ate d to preve nt, notto r epai r. ” St one, 428 U
. S. at 484 ( quoti ng Elki ns , 364 U
. S. at 217). Bec au se the e xc l us i o na r y rul e “de fl ec ts the t r uthfi ndi ng proce ss and often fre es the guil ty, ” St one, 428 U
. S. at 49 0, i t “ has be en r est ri cted t o th os e a re as w here i ts re m edi al obj ecti ves ar e thought m ost effi caci ousl y s erved. ” Id
. at 486- 87 ( quoti ng U nited Sta tes v. C a la nd ra , 414 U .S. 3 38, 34 8 (1 97 4)); see Herringv. U nited Sta tes , 12 9 S
. Ct. 69 5, 70 0 (2009) (“bene fi ts of d eterren ce m us t outw eigh th e costs” ). For exa m p le, the ru le d o es not ap p ly d uring grand j ury pr o ce eding s, o r when evi den ce i s us ed to i m pea cha defe nd ant’ s testi m ony, o r w hen offi cer s a cted i n go od fai t h relia n c e o n a fau lty w ar ra n t. St one, 42 8 U.S
. at48 7- 88 (cit at ion s o m itt ed ); U ni t e d S ta tes v. Le on , 46 8 U.S
. 89 7, 92 2 (1 98 4). D et er m in in g w h et h er t h e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le m ayb e i nv o k ed i n thi s si tu at i o n requ ir es “ wei g hi ngthe ut i l i tyo fthe e xc l us i o na r y r ul e ag ains t the co st s o fe x-6 N o. 07
- 3504 te ndi ngi t to c o l l at er alrev i ew o fF o ur thAm en dm en t c laim s.” St one, 42 8 U.S
. at48 9. T h e Su p re m e C ou rtco n d u c te d th is w eig h i n g a n aly sis i n St oneand concl ud ed that “w here the St ate has provi ded an opportunity f or full and f ai r l i ti gat i on of a Fou rth A men dme ntc l a i m, a s t a t e p r i s o ne r ma y n o tb e gr anted federa l habea s co rpus relie f on the g ro und thatev i dence obt ai ned i n an unconst i tutional se ar ch orse i zure was i ntro du ced at hi s t ri al
. ” Id
. a t 49 4. Thi s i s because the add ed deter re nt effect f ro m l aw enf or cem ent a uthor i ti es “ fe a r [ i n g ] th a tfe d e r a l h a b e a s r e v i e w m i g h tr e v e a l fl a ws i n a s e a r c h o r s e i z u r e th a twe n tu n d e t e c t e d a tt r i a l a nd o n a ppea l ” i s m i ni m ala nd “ woul d b e ou tw ei g he d b y the ackno w l edged cos ts to othe r valu es v i talto a ra ti onal syste m o fcr i m i nal j usti ce. ” Id
. at49 3- 94. Thi s Courthas d eterm ined tha t the princ iples of Sto ne apply equal l y t o § 2 2 5 5 m ot ion s. O w ens v. U nited Sta tes , 38 7 F
. 3d 607, 60 9 (7th C ir. 2004). Brockar gues th at he was notpro vi ded an o pp or tuni ty for fu ll an d fair liti g a t ion be c au se G od se y’s ke y t es tim on y w as n ota v a ilab le u n til re c en tly
. St onedi d not expla i n w hat a n opportunity forfulla nd f ai r l i ti gati o n r equi r es a nd the t er m ha s “c au se d c o ns i der ab l e co nste rnat i on. ” C a brera v . H insley, 32 4 F
. 3d 527, 53 0- 31 ( 7th C ir. 20 03 )
. “ The o nl y he l p i n Sto ne i s a f oo tnot e to a p rior ca se : ‘C f. Tow nse nd v. Sain , 37 2 U.S
. 29 3 .
. . . ’ A nd o f c ou rs e t h e v alu e, ge n er ally , of ‘ C f.’ cita tio n s is oft en on ly re vea led i n the eye o fthe behol der. ” C a brera , 32 4 F
. 3d at 53 1; see Turen tine v . M iller, 80 F.3 d 2 2 2 , 224 n.1 (7th C ir. 1996 ) ( noting that “[ a] t l eas t o ne co urt . . . has sta ted thatN o. 07
- 3504 7 St oned id n otn ec es sa rily in te n d to inc or p or at e t h e fu ll ex te nt o f th e To wnse nd Cou r t’ s defi ni ti o n o f full and f ai r hear i ng” ( ci ti ng P alm igiano v. H oule , 6 18 F. 2d 877, 88 1 (1s t C ir.), cert. denied , 449 U
. S. 901 (1980)))
. The pos sibl y r el ev an t l an g ua g e i n Tow ns e ndst ate s: “Wher e ne wl y di sc o ve r ed evi d en ce i s al l eg ed i n a h ab ea s a p p lica tio n, evid en c e w h ich co u ld n otrea so n ab ly have been prese nted t o th e s tat e t ri ero ff acts , the federa l cour t m ust g ra nt an evi denti ar y hea ring. Of cour se, such ev i den ce m us t be ar upo n th e co ns ti tu ti o na l i tyof the appl i ca nt ’ s det en ti o n . . . . ” 372 U
. S
. a t 31 7. I t i s que st i o nabl e as to w hetherBro ck coul d have l oca ted Godsey pr i o r t o the s uppr es si o n hea r i ngo r a t so m e po i nt du rin g the tr i alo r dir ect appeal had he e xert ed gr eat er eff or t. Bu t eve n i f Godsey’ s tes ti m ony could not re as on ab ly h av e b ee n p re se n te d ea rlier , so th at it w ou ld tr ulyb e new l y di sco ver ed evi dence, the evi dence, to be r e levan t un d er Tow ns e nd, mu s tr e l a t e t o th e c o n s t i tu
tio n alit y of B ro c k’s d et en tio n . Id. Brock ’ s a rgum ent that hi s F ourth A m endm ent r i ghts w er e v i ol ated is a const i tuti onalcl ai m , but does not be arupo n the c o ns ti tu ti o na l i tyo fBr o ck ’ s det en ti o n. [A ] p er so n im p ris on ed follow in g a tria l th at relie s, in pa r t, o n un l a wful l y s e i z e d e v i de nc e i s no t “ i n c us t o dy i n vi ol ati on o fthe Consti tuti on o r l aw s o r tr ea tie s o f the Uni t e d S t a t e s . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 2 5 4 ( a )
. T he s e iz ure mayh a v e v i o l a t e d the Co ns t i t ut i o n, b utthe cu s t ody does not, bec ause the e xcl usi onar y r ule i s a so ci al device f ordeter ring o ffi ci alwrongdoi ng, nota perso nal r i ght o fdefendants.8 N o. 07
- 3504 Ham pt on v . W

yant, 296 F.3d 56 0, 56 2-6 3 (7 th C ir. 20 02 ); see Le on , 4 68 U. S
. a t 90 6 ( “u se o ffr ui ts o fa pa stunl awful se ar ch o r se i zu r e ‘ wor k [ s] no ne w F o ur thA m endm en t w ro ng. ’ ” ( quoti ng C a la nd ra , 414 U .S. at 3 5 4)). Sim p ly p u t, Brock ’ s detenti on i s no l ess const i tuti onal eve n i f it tu rn s o u t t h a t t h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t w as vio lat ed in effectuat i ng i t. Brock ’ s s eco nd ar gum ent i s th at this Courthas sum m arized th e op p ortu nity for fulland f air li tigation of a Four th A m endm ent c l aim b y sta ti ng tha t i t “ guar antee s the r i gh t to pre sent one’ s ca se, but i t doe s no t guarant ee a co rr ect re sul t. ” C a brera , 3 2 4 F
. 3 d a t5 3 2
. B r o c kc l a i ms that he was denied t h e ri ght t o prese nt hi s ca se because he has not b ee n abl e t o i ntro du ce thi s new evi dence. But, r e ad in c on te x t, C abre ra’s “ r i g htt o p r e s e nto ne ’ s c ase ” si m plyr efer s t o the r i ght t o have a j ud ge list en to and consi der the ev i dence a partyactual l y p re se n ts at tr i al
. I t i s the r igh t to have a j ud ge w ho has notcl ose d hi s m i nd t o the i ss ue s, i s no t br ibe d o r s l ee pwal k i ng, a nd is not “in som e othe r obvio u s w ay su bve rt[i ng ] th e hea ri ng. ” Id. at53 1
. C a brera di d not co nsi der whether an o ppo r tu ni tyf o r ful l a nd f ai r l i ti g at i o n requi r es tha t th e evi dence nec es sar y t o m ake the party ’ s be st cl ai m be av aila b le b y t h e t im e o f tria l. M ost im p ortan tly, neith er of th ese ar g u m en ts bears upo n the c en tr ali ss ue i n St onea nd the one wh i c h we m ust ul ti m ate l y deci de: wh ether t h e deter re nt be nefi t o f applying the excl usi onar y r ule i n a par ti cul arsi tuati on o ut wei g hs the s o ci alc o st s o fl et tingthe gui l tyg o fr ee , e xpend i ng l i m i ted j ud i ci alr eso urces , and dis turbing fi nal i ty in cr im in al t ria ls. St one, 42 8 U
. S. at 489- 90, 49 1 n. 31 ( ci tat i onN o. 07
- 3504 9
o m i tt ed)
. The de te r r en t ca l cul us a r ti cu l at ed i n St oneis not dep endent on w hen evi dence sur f aces , as l ong as the t ri alwas ad m i ni ste re d i n a j ust m anner. Pol i ce m i sconduc t wil l notbe m ate ri al l y c hecke d by fearthat Four th A m endm ent v i ol ati ons that go und i sco ver ed du ring tr i al, ap peal, and the thre e- yea r ti m e per i od to fi le a m otion for a new hea r ing, Fed
. R. Crim
. P. 33(b), w i l l be disc ove re d and used in a § 22 55 m oti on , at l eas t w hen ther e i s no allegati on that the o ffi cer s pre vente d th e d efe n d an t fro m find in g t h e e vid en c e . Se eSt one, 42 8 U
. S. at 493. A ny “ad d iti o n a l increm en tal det errent effec t” thi s m i g htha ve “ woul d b e o ut we i g he d b y the ackno w l edged c os ts to othe r val ues v i talto a ra ti onal sys tem o fcr i m i nal j usti ce. ” St one, 4 2 8 U .S . at 4 93 -94 ; see id
. a t 49 0 ( “[ T] he phy si ca l e vi den ce so ug htt o b e ex cl ud ed i s typi cal l y re l i abl e and o ften the m ostpro bati ve i nf o r m at i o n b ea r i ngo n the g ui l t o r i nno ce nc e o fthe d efend an t.”)
. Brockm ake s no cl ai m thathi s t ri alo r appea ls w er e no t f ai rl y a dm i ni ste re d orthatthe gov er nm ent pr eve nted hi m fro m l oca ti ng G od sey . H i s unf or tunate ci rcum sta nce i s that, f orwh ate verr eas on, he di d n ot lo cate Godsey u n til it w as to o lat e. St onepr ev en ts Br o ckfr o m b r i ng i ng thi s § 22 55 m oti on s ol el y o n the gr ound that newlydi scove red eviden ce w ou ld h ave triggered the ex clusi o n ary rule ifpres en ted earli er.
B . I nde pe nde ntSo ur c e Do c t r i ne E ve n if Brock ’ s cl ai m was not bar re d by St onea nd an ev i den ti ar y he ar i ngr ev ea l ed th at Gods ey ’ s co ns en t10 N o. 07
- 3504
w as coe rce d so that the ini ti alse ar ch of33 81 N
. Payt on w as conducted i n vi ol ati on o fthe Four th A m endm ent, thi s would notau to m ati cal l y pr ecl ud e intro du cti on o f th e ev i den ce di sc o ve r ed at3 381 N
. Pay to n. I n de sc r ibi ng th e pu rp ose of the ex clusion ary rule, th e Sup rem e C ou rt has s tat ed that the inter esto f s oc ietyi n deter ring unl aw ful pol i ce conduct and the publ i c i nter esti n havi ng j uri es re c eiv e a ll p ro b at ive ev id en c e o fa c r i m e a re p ro p er ly bal anced by pu tting the pol i ce in the sam e, n ot a wor se , po si ti o n tha t th eywoul d ha ve bee n i n i fno po l i ce e r r o r o r mis co nduc t ha d o cc ur r ed. W he n the chal l enged evi dence has an i nd ependen t sourc e, ex c lu sio n of su c h ev id en c e w o u ld p u t t h e p olic e in a w or se p os itio n th an th ey w ou ld h a v e b ee n in ab se nta ny e r r o r o r v i o l at i o n. Nix v . Wi l l i a ms , 467 U
. S. 431, 443 ( 1984 ) (citations om itted ). Ty pi ca l l y the se s o - ca l l ed i nde pen dent s o ur ce do ct r i ne case s inv olv e a n i l l ega l se ar ch and dis cove ryo fev i dence f o l l o wed b y a s ec o nd s ea r chcond uc ted afte r a war r an t is ob ta in ed
. See M urra y v . U nited Sta tes , 48 7 U.S
. 53 3, 53 5- 36 (19 88 ); s e eal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. M a rkl i ng, 7 F. 3d 1309 , 1311- 12 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 3)
. I n M ur r ay, the S upr eme Co urt hel d thatev i dence or i gi nal l y di sco ver ed orse i zed il l ega l l y c an be l ega l l y r edi sco ver ed orr ese i zed and used ag ain stth e d efe n d an t a t t r i a l
. 48 7 U .S. at 5 41 -42 . In th is case , the cri ti calev i dence i n Godsey’ s be droo m was i ni ti al l y di sco ver ed and sei zed acc or ding t o a warra nt, m akingthe f acts m or e s i m i l arto Segura v. U ni t e d S t a tes ,N o. 07
- 3504 11

I ti s no tc l ea r whethe r Broc k was c har ged w i th pos s es s i ng 1 t h e s h o t g u n f o u n d i n p l a i n v i e w du r i n g th e fi r s t s e a r c h o f 3 3 8 1 N. P a y t o n . B r o c k d o e s n o tme n t i o n th e s h o t g u n on app eal and it se em s ir rel evant w hether Brock was ch a rg ed with pos s es s i ng e i ghtve rs us s eve n gun s r ec ove re d f ro m 338 1 N
. Payton. Also, the s hotgun w as li kely re disc overed duri ng the sec ond s ea rc h o f33 81 N. Pa yt on ac c or di ng t o the in d ep en d en t so u rc e r u le (see b el o w ). 46 8 U .S. 79 6 (1 98 4). H o w ev er , th e e x c lu sio n ar y ru le 1 w ou ld st i l l a p p l y if th e w ar ra n t w as ta in te d by th e p re vio us l y di s c o v er ed e v i de nc e tha twa s i l l e g a l l y o b t a i ne d. M ur r ay, 4 87U. S
. a t 53 6- 37
. To be a dm i ss ibl e, the e v i d e n c e d i sc o ve r e d fr o m th e s e c o n d s e a r c h o f3 3 8 1 N. Payto n m ust hav e be en di sco ver ed i nd ependentl y o f Gods ey ’ s su ppo se dl y c o er ce d s ta te m en ts a nd c o ns en t and the e vi dence ob tai ned fr om the fi rs t s ear ch of 33 81 N. Pa y to n. Deci ding w hetherev i dence w as obt ai n ed fro m an in d ep en d en t s ou rc e i n v o lve s a tw o-p ar t t es t. M arkl i ng, 7 F. 3d at1 31 5. “ The fi r stque st i o n i s whethe r the il legall y obtaine d eviden ce affected the m agistrate’s deci si on t o i ssue the s ear ch w ar ra nt. ” Id. ( citin g M ur r ay, 48 7 U. S
. a t 54 2)
. The he ar t o fthi s que st i o n i s w he th er, ta k i nga way a ny i l l eg al l y obta i ne d i nf o r m at i o n, the affid av it s till d em on st ra te d p ro b ab le c au se . M arkl i ng, 7 F
. 3d at 1317
. “[ D]et er m i ni ng w hetherpro babl e ca use e xi sts i nvol ves ‘a p ra c tic al, co m m on -se n se d ec isio n w h et h er , give n all the c i rcum sta nces setf or th .
. . there is a f ai r probabi l i ty12 N o. 07
- 3504 th at co n tr ab an d or ev id en c e o fa cr im e w ill be fo u n d in a parti cul ar p lac e.’ ” Id
. ( quoti ng Illin o is v. G a tes , 462 U
. S. 213, 23 8 ( 1983 ) )
. I n thi s ca se, the affi davi t e xplai ned th atBr o ckha d b ee n pr ev i o us l y c o nv i ct ed f o r de al i ng coca i ne. A s u b st anti alam ount o fdrugs, se ver alguns, and a l ar ge am ount o fcas h h ad j ust be en r eco ver ed f ro m o ne o fBro ck’s r es i dences. U ti l i ty bi l l s were disc over e d i n 3 3 7 5 N. P a y t o n l i n k i n gB r o c kt o 3 3 8 1 N. P a y t o n, th e h ou se im m ed iat ely n ex t d oo r. A n d th e a ffid av it note d Offi cerM i l l er ’ s experi enti alkno w l edge that s tas h houses ar e co m m on i n the narco ti cs ind u st ry . Fi nal l y, “a m agi str ate i s enti tl ed to draw re aso nable infe re nces ab o utwhere e vi den ce i s l i k ely t o b e k ept[ an d] i n the case of d rug d e alers eviden ce is l ikel y to be foun d w he re the deal er s l i ve. ” U nite d State s v. R eddri ck, 9 0 F. 3d 1276 , 1281 ( 7th Cir. 1 9 9 6 ) (qu otations and citations om itted ). T h e r e w a s m or e t h an su fficie n t e vid en c e t o c re at e “ a fa ir probabi l i ty” thatthe sea rch w oul d be pro du cti ve. G a tes , 46 2 U.S
. at23 8. The sec on d p ar t o fthi s t estas ks w hetherthe “deci si on to see k the warra nt was prom pted by” i n for m ati on ga in ed from th e in itia l ill eg al a c ti v i t y . M arkl i ng, 7 F. 3d at 1315 -16 (quoti ng M ur r ay, 4 8 7U. S
. a t5 4 2 )
. He r e we do not have, norwould w e e xpect, a n y test i m ony f ro m th e o f f i c e r s o r a fi n d i n gb y th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tth a tthe offi cer s would have so ught the w ar ra n t r ega rdl ess o f the pr esum pti vel y i l l ega l act i vi ty bec au se the a l l ega ti on ofco er ci on ca m e s eve ra l ye ar s a fterthe tr i al
. Based o n the e v i de nc e i n thi s c a s e , i two ul d b e e a s y t o c o nc l ud e that the o ffi cer s would have s ou ght the warra nt ev en wi th o u ts p e a k i n gt o G o d s e y o r i n i t i a l l y s e a r ch i ngN o. 07
- 3504 13 33 81 N. Pa y to n. Nev er th el es s, thi s i s a dec i si o n f o r the d ist ric t c ou rt . M ur r ay, 487U .S . a t 5 42 -44 ; M arkl i ng, 7 F. 3d at 1317
. W e d o not n e e d to rem an d this case, how ever, because i t i s a l re ady bar re d by St one .

I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r th e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d ab o v e , we A FFIRM the de ni al o fS to ne ’ s § 22 55 mot i o n.

7- 22- 09