## 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. 08

- 2295 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. E R I C J A CK S ON, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t for the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 3:07- cr-50043- 1

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judge

.
A RG UE D M AY 11, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 6, 2009

Befo re C UDAH Y, P OSNER, a nd K ANN E , C ircu it Judges. C UDAH Y, C ircu it Judge. Eri c J acks on was sentenced to a 96 m ont h term of im p ris o n m e nt f or poss ession of a fi re ar m bya previ ousl y- convi cte d fel on. The gun that w as the b asi s o fthe posse ss ion c harg e was f ound on J ackson’ s per son w hen the pol i ce e xecuted an a rr est war ran t f o r J ac k so n in a n a cqua i nt an ce ’ s apa r tment w here J acks on had bee n sta yi ng. O n a p peal, J acks on ch al l en g es the de ni alo fhi s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e g un2 N o. 08

- 2295 and the i m posi ti on o fan a bove

- Gu i del i nes s entence
. We a ffi r m.

I . B AC KGR OUND Eri c J acks on wa s ar re ste d by the W i nnebago County S he r i ff’ s Depa r tmentb as ed o n a n o ut sta ndi ngwar r an t f o r a g g r av at ed ba tt ery . Af te r uns ucc es sful l y a tt empti ng to locate J acks on a t the r esi dences o fm ult i ple r el ati ves, the pol i ce r ecei ved an a nonym ous t i p th at J acks on had been sta yi ng athi s f ather ’ s g i rl fri end’s apar tm ent o n 1107Elm S tr eet and that he would be at that add re ss the ne xt day

—J une 1, 20 07

— i n the ear l y m or ni ng. T h e p o l i c e a rriv ed atth e a p ar tm en t a t a p p ro x im at ely 8:3 0 in t h e m or n in g, an d w er e in vit ed int o th e v es tib u le byLa nDo nnaJ o se ph, the pr i m ar y t en an t. W he n the offi cer s s how ed J acks on’ s pi cture to J ose ph, she pr ofess ed not to re cogni ze hi m but the o ffi cer s j ud ged fro m he r bod y l an gu age th at sh e w as lyi ng . Sti llw ithou t ent erin g t he ap artm en t, th e officers nex t show ed J acks on’s p i c t u r e t o T y n e e s h a B a rb a r y, w h o w a s s i t t i n gn e a rb y . ( As i t happ ens, Barbar y w as J acks on’ s gi rl fri end an d was p regn an t w ith his ch il d

. ) W he n th e officers a sked Ba rbary i fJ ac k so n was i n the a par tment, s he s ta r ted to c r y a nd no dded he r he ad. The o ffi ce r s su bs eque nt l y e nt er ed th e apart m ent a nd f ol l owed Barbaryto a backbedr oo m w he re Jackson w as sleep ing w ith B a rbary’s d au gh ter. Aft erha ndcu ffi ngJ ac k so n, the o ffi ce r s searche d the i m m edi ate ar ea and fo und a pis tolwit h in gr abbi ng di stance und erthe bl anketo n w hi ch he had be en sl eepi ng.N o. 08

- 2295 3

Beca us e a s us pe c th a s n o r e a s on a bl e e x pe c t a t i ono fpr ivacy 1 once an a rr es t w arranti s is sued, i t i s at l eas t ar guab le that J ackson wo uld not have st and ing t o chal len g e a n i ll egal e ntry in to Jo se p h ’s ho m e. S ee, e.g ., U ni t ed Sta t es v. K ayl or, 877 F. 2d 658, 6 6 3 n .4 (8 th C ir . 19 8 9 ); U n i te d S tat es v. B u ckn er, 717 F. 2d 297, 299- 30 0 (6th C ir. 19 83 ). H ow ev er, a lead ing treatise o b ser v es tha t if (co n tin u ed ...) A l though he w as i ni ti al l y a rr est ed forag gr avat ed ba tt ery, J ac k so n was ul ti m at ely c ha r g ed i n fede r alcou rt w i th poss ess ion o fa fi re ar m bya previ ousl y- convi cted fel on in violati on of 18 U

. S. C . § 9 2 2
. Th e d istri ct cou rt denie d Ja ckso n’s m ot ion to suppress the gun thatwas sei zed duri ng the ar re st, fi nd i n g that the s ear ch w as l aw ful because the pol i ce re aso nabl y bel i eve d that J acks on wa s wi th i n J o s e p h ’ s a p a r t me n twh e n th e y e n t e r e d

. F o l l o wi ng the co urt’ s deni alo fhi s s up press i on m oti on, J acks on ple aded g u i l ty. The co urt cal cul ate d his se ntenci ng r ange as 37 to 46 m onths, but sente nced hi m to 96 m on ths’ i m pri sonm ent, m or e th an twice the top o fhi s Guidel i nes ra nge. The co urt f ound that thi s sentence was neces sar y “ to sto p you b ef or e y ou k ill s om ebo dy orbefor e y ou g et kille d .”

I I . DI S C US S I ON A . J ackson’s A r r est As a thr es ho l d m at te r, we r ej ec t J ac k so n’ s ar g um en t that the pol i ce ne eded a se ar ch w ar ra nt as wellas an ar re st w ar ra n t in ord er to en te r Jos ep h ’s a p ar tm en t in or der t o ar re st hi m . “[ F] or Four th A m endm ent purpos es, 14 N o. 08

- 2295

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 1 the ar re s t ee hi m s el fl ac ks s t andi ng t o c hal l en ge ani l l eg al s ea rc h, th en thi s w ould “rend er the S te ag a ld rule a virtual null ity .” 6 W a y n e R . L a F a v e, S ea rc h an d S eizu re: A Trea tise on th e F o u rth A me ndme nt § 11. 3 ( 4th ed. 2008)
. N ot surpri si ngly, th eref ore, the p rev ailing v iew ap p ear s to b e tha t a susp ect re t ain s a suffic ie nt e xpect ati on of privacy to c hall en g e a searc h w here the po l i c e l a c k a r e a s on a bl e be l i e ftha tthe pe r s ont o be a rr es te d m a y b e fo u n d in th e p la ce t o b e se a rc h ed

. S ee, e.g ., U ni t ed Sta tes v . Boyd 18 0 F .3d 96 7, 97 7 -7 8 (8t h C ir . 19 9 9 ); V al dez v. M cP heters, 17 2 F .3d 1 2 2 0 , 1 2 2 5 -2 6 (10 th C ir . 19 9 9 ); U ni t ed Sta t es v. Edm onds , 52 F .3d 12 3 6 , 12 4 7 -4 8 (3d C ir . 19 9 5 ). an arr es t w ar ra n t fo u n d ed o n p ro b ab le c au se im p licit ly carri es wi thi t th e l i m i te d a utho r i tyt o e nt era dwel l i ng i n w hi ch the suspect l i ves w hen ther e is r eas on t o bel i eve the suspect i s withi n. ” P a yto n v . New Yo rk, 44 5 U
. S. 57 3, 60 2 ( 1980 )
. Of cour se, the w ar ra nt appli cati on pr o ce ss doe s no t pr o te ctthe F o ur thAm en dm en t inte r e sts of third p arties. Th us , i f officers ente r a th i r d pa r ty ’ s r es i den ce i n o r dert o effec t ana r r es t, the th ird p ar ty hers el fm ay have a F ourth A m endm ent c laim a gainst the offi cers. Th is i s the hold ing of U nited Sta tes v. S te a g a ld, 4 51 U. S
. 2 04 ( 19 81 )
. Howev er, i n Ste aga ld, the co ur t was qui te e xpl i ci t th at“ th e na r r o w i ss ue b efo r e [ th e Cou r t was ] whether an a r r es t war r an t

— as opposed to a se ar chwar r an t

— i s a de qu a t e t o p r o t e c tthe F o ur th Am e nd

m ent inter est s of

pe rs ons no tna m e d i n thewar r ant
. ” Id

. at 21 2 ( emphas i s adde d)

. Be ca us e it addr es se s o nl y the Fo u rth A m endm ent r i ghts ofper sons not nam ed i n an ar re st w ar ra n t, Ste aga ldd i d not ho l d that the subj ect ofanN o. 08

- 2295 5

I n Uni t e d S t a t e s v . We e ms , 3 22 F .3d 18 , 23 ( 1s tCi r. 20 03 ) , the 2 F i r s tC i r c u i ts u g g e s t e d th a tab s e n tc o n s e n t or e x i g e n tc i r c u mst ances , polic e do requir e a s earc h w arrantas w el l as an arres t war ra nt t o arre sta s uspect in a thi rd p arty’ s hom e. H oweve r, the pan eli n We e ms al so broadens the ex igen t c ir

c um s t anc es e xce pt i on t o the warr antr equi re m en t, s ugge s t i ng tha ta n offi c e r’ s re a s on a bl e be l i e ftha ta n a r r e s t e e i s i ns i de ano the r’ s ho m e c an c ons t i t u te exi ge ntc i rc um s t anc es an d thus j u s t ify a w a rr a n tle ss e n tr y . Id
. T h u s , i t a p p e a r s th a t th e r e i s no pr a c t i c a l d i ffe r e n c e b e t we e n th e F i r s tC i r c u i t ’ s u n de r s t a n di ng o f S te ag a ld

— according t o w hich reas onab le b el ie fthat a s uspect i s w i th i n a th i r d p a r t y ’ s h o me c a n c o n s t i t u t e e x i g e n tc i r c u mst ances

— an d th a t o f the oth er circu its

— according t o w hich a s e pa r a t e s e a r c h war r a nti s n otr e q ui r e d. ar re st w ar ra n t h as a h i gh er ex p ec ta tio n of p riv ac y in an o t h e r p er so n ’s re sid en c e t h an h e d oe s in h is ow n . E .g., Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Un d e rwo od, 717 F.2d 482 , 483-84 (9th C ir. 1983 ) ( en banc)

. Fur ther, near l y e ver y c ourto fappeal s t o co ns i derthe i ss ue ha s he l d tha t l aw e nf o r ce m en t offi cer s do not ne ed a s ear ch w ar ra nt i n additi on t o an ar re st w ar ra nt to en te r a thi rd party’ s r esi dence i n or der to e ffec t an arr es t. See U nited Sta tes v. A gn ew , 40 7 F
. 3d 193, 19 7 (3 d C ir. 20 05 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Kayl or, 87 7 F
. 2d 658, 66 3 (8t h C ir. 19 89 ); U nde rwood, 71 7 F .2d at 483-84 (9th C ir. 19 83 ); U ni t e d S ta tes v. B uc k ner, 71 7 F
. 2d 297, 29 9- 300 ( 6th C ir. 1983). 2 J acks on ar gues that ther e i s no differ en c e b etween se ar ch i nga pe r so n’ s ho m e f o r e vi den ce a nd s earc hi ng for a p erson . Th is a r g u m en t con fl ates th e residen t’s Fo u rt hA m en d m en t in te re st w ith th at of th e a rre st ee . I f offi cer s unl aw fully entera perso n’s hom e, then that6 N o. 08

- 2295

The D. C. Ci rc ui tha s putthe c ountats i x, i nc l udi ng the Fi fth, 3 E igh th a nd E lev en th C ircu its am on g the co u rts of ap p eals to hold that “reas onab le b el ie f ” requi res l es s than probab le caus e. Thom as , 17 2 F .3d at 28 6. H ow ev er, the relev an t cases from these 

### (continued...) per so n may ha ve a c i vi l claim f o r da m ag es a g ains t th e o f f i c er s. If th e o ffice rs u n c ov er ev id en c e t h at th e re side ntc o mm i t t e d a cr i me, the n the e v i de nc e ma y b e s up press ed. But aga i n, i t would be ano m al ous i fthe subj ect of an ar re st w ar ra nt had a gr eat er expectat i on o f p riv acy i n a no th erpe r so n’ s ho m e th anhe ha d i n h i s o wn. A l though o ffi cer s do not n ee d a sear ch w ar ra nt to e xe c ut e a n a r r e s t wa r r a nt i n a thi r d pa r t y ’ s ho m e, they do n e e d som e b a s i s f or be liev in g t h at th e s u sp ec t is actual l y p resent i n the hom e. Thi s co urt has no t ad d re ss ed w h at d eg re e o f su sp icio n offic e r s n e ed in o r de r t o e nt e r a thi r d pa r ty ’ s ho me t o e xe c ut e a n ar re st war r an t. In Payto n , the Suprem e Cour t hel d that an ar re st w arran t “ carries w ith it th e li m ited au th ority to en ter a dwe l l i ngwh e n the r e i s reaso n to believe th e s u sp ec t is w ithin.” 445 U

. S. at 602 (em p ha sis add ed ). O u r sis te r c irc u its d isa gr ee ab ou t w h at “re as on ab le belief” actu all y ent ail s and w he th er it s m ean ing is d if

f er en tfr o m pr o b ab l e c a us e . Byo urc o un t, thr e e c i r c ui ts have expli ci tl y c oncl ud ed that re aso n ab l e be l i efr equi re s a le ss er d eg re e o f kn ow led ge th an p ro b ab le c au se . See U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thom as , 429 F.3d 282 , 286 (D.C
. Cir. 2005); V a ldez v. M cP heters , 172 F.3d 1220 , 1 227 n.5 (10t h C ir. 1999); U nited Sta tes v. La uter, 5 7 F
. 3d 21 2, 2 15 ( 2d Ci r . 19 95 )
. The 3N o. 08

- 2295 7



### (...continued) other ci rcui ts s im ply app ly the “re asonable beli ef” s tan d a rd w ith o u t deci ding the degree ofs uspici on that the st and ard req u ires. A lth o u g h th e a b o v e-c ite d c a se s sta te th a t “ re a so n a b le b el ie f” 4 i s s at i s fi ed by s om ethi ng s hor tofpr obabl e c aus e, i n a l l buton e ofthe s e c as es , the c our t s f ound thatthe offi c ers’ deg re e of su sp ic io n sa tis fie d th e h ig h er , p ro b a b le ca u se sta n d a rd

. S ee, e. g., Lau te r, 57 F.3d at 21 5. Th e D .C. Circu it’ s Thom as d ecisi on was the o nl y cas e th a twe h a ve f ou nd whe r e a c ou r tup he l d a searc h o f a t h i rd p arty ’ s resid en ce b ased on som eth ing less thanpr obable cause . Thus , i ti s atl ea s tar guabl e thatthe disc uss ion of“reas onab le beli ef” i n the other cas es w as dicta. cou rts in thes e cases c o n clud e tha t the Sup rem e C ou rt “u se d a p h ra se oth er th an ‘p ro b ab le c au se ’ be c a u se it m eant som ethi ng o th erthan ‘ probabl e ca use. ’ ” Thom as , 429 F. 3d at 286. 4 F o uro th erc i r cui ts ha ve di sa g r ee d, ho l di ngtha t “r ea so nab le b elie f” am ou n ts to th e s am e t h in g a s “ p ro b ab le c au se .” SeeU nite d State s v. Hardin , 539 F.3d 404 , 416 n.6 (6th C ir. 20 08 ); U nited Sta t e s v . B a rrera , 464 F.3d 496 , 501 (5th C ir. 20 06 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Gor m an , 314 F.3d 1105 , 1 111 (9th Cir. 20 02 ); U nit ed S tate s v. M agluta , 44 F. 3d 1530 , 15 35 ( 11th Ci r . 1 99 5)
. As J udg e Cl ay ex p l aine d i n a c o nc ur r i ngo pi ni on, the Suprem e Cour t t ends to use phrases l ike “r eason able g roun d s for belief” as “gram m atical analogu e[s]” for p ro b ab le c au se . U nite d State s v. P rui tt, 458 F
. 3d 477, 49 0 ( 6th C i r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( Cl a y, J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ) ( c i t i ngc a s e s )
. T o wit, i n M aryland v. P ri ngle, 54 0 U
. S. 366 (2003), th e C ou rt appears to use “r eas onabl e bel i ef” to de f i nep ro b ab le8 N o. 08

- 2295

c au se . Id. at37 1 ( “[ T]he substa nce o fal lthe defini ti ons of p robab le cause i s a reason able grou nd f or beli ef ofguilt. ”). W er e we to r each the i ssue, w e m ight be incl i ned to adopt t h e v i ew o fthe narr ow m aj or i ty ofo ur s i ste r ci rcui ts that “r eason abl e be l i ef” i s s ynonym ous with probabl e cause. H owever, we need not deci de w hether “r ea so nabl e be l i ef” requ ir es pr o babl e ca us e o r s o m ethi ng l es s th anpr o babl e ca us e be ca us e i n the pr es en t ca se the p olic e h ad en ou gh ev id en c e t o e as ily sa tis fy a p ro b ab le cau s e s t a nd a r d. T he p o l i c e r e c e i v e d a t i p tha tJ a ckso n w as sta yi ng atJ os ep h ’s apartm ent a nd thathe woul d be ther e the f ol l ow in g m or ni ng. W hen the pol i ce a rr i ved at the a partm ent, theyas ked J acks on’ s g i rl fri end if J acks on w as ins id e a n d sh e n od d ed y e s a n d st ar te d cr yin g. T h is w as m or e than enough to l ead a p ru dent pers on t o bel i eve that J acks on w as i nsi de the apart m ent when he or sh e e n te re d

. See Jones v. Webb , 45 F. 3d 178, 181 (7th Cir. 19 95 ) ( defi ni ngpr o babl e ca us e as ex i st i ngwhenthe fac t s a n d circ u m st an c es w ith ina p olic e o ffice r’s kn ow ledge ar e s uffi ci ent t o w ar ra nt a prudent perso n i n such a b elie f). Th u s, w e n ee d n o t d ec id e w h et h er “re as on ab le be l i ef” ca n c o ns ti tu te l es s than pr o babl e ca us e; the pol i ce c l ear l y had probabl e ca use in thi s ca se.

B. J ackson’s Sen t ence J acks on a l so ar gues that hi s sentence was unreas onabl e. The dis tr i ct c ourti m posed a 96 m on th se ntence, wh i ch w as m or e than twice the hi gh end ofJ acks on’ s Guideline s ra n g e . W e review the reaso na blene ss of J acks on’s se n te n c e f o r ab u se of d isc re tio n . G a ll v. U nited Sta tes , 12 8N o. 08

- 2295 9

J ackson m akes a great deal of the f act that B a rb a ry te st ifie d 5 thats he s aw J ac ks on with t wo differ en tguns , butthatthe di s t ri c tc our tappa re nt l y m i s under s t ood h ert es t i m ony and a s s u me d s h e wa s r e fe r r i n g th r o u g h o u tt o th e s a me g u n . We agr ee with the gove rn m en tthat the di s t ri c tc our t ’ s c onfus i on w as harm le ss err or. S
. C t . 586 , 591 (20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Jac ks on , 5 4 7F. 3d 78 6, 7 92 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. No pr es um pti o n o funr easo nab len es s a tt ac h e s t o a se n te n c e s im p ly b ec au se it falls ou ts id e t h e G u id elin es ran ge . G all , 12 8 S
. Ct. at59 5. The pri nci pal basis for the enhanced se ntence w as th e co ur t’ s co nc l us i o n tha t J ac k son w as da ng er o us a nd i ncor ri gibl e, expla i ni ng that a hi gher than G u i del i nes sente nce was needed “to stop yo u [ J acks on] befor e y ou ki l lso m ebo dy orbefor e y ou g et ki l l ed. ” This c onc lus i o n, i n turn, was base d pri m ar i l y o n the cour t’ s fi nd i ng tha t Jackson ha d us ed th e g un h e was c o nv i ct ed o fpo ss es sing to sh oo t som eone . Recal lthatal though J acks on was ult i m ate l y c harg ed w i th poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m bya convi cted fel on, he was ar re ste d pu rs uant to an a rr est war r an t f o r ag g r av at ed ba tt ery . Ro ug hl y tw o m o nths bef or e hi s a rr est, J acks on was al l ege d to have shota m an w ho h ad appa r en tly made r o m an ti c o ve r tu r es t o ward hi s g irl fri end, Tynees ha Barba ry . A n offi cerwitnes sed J ackson fl ee the s cene w i th hi s hand i n hi s wai stba nd as ifhe w ere con cealing a gu n. Ba rbary later gave a sw orn st at em en t t h at Jac ks on w a s t h e s h oo te r. A n d th e v ict im 5 him self iden tified Jackson as the sh ooter. I n a d d i t i o n t o th e e v i d e n c e th a tJ a c k s o n h a d u s e d the gu n h e w as c h ar ge d w ith p os se ss in g to sh oo t his rom an tic10 N o. 08

- 2295 ri val, the dist ri ct c ourtal so note d that J acks on had bee n convi cted o fweapons posse ssi on o n m ult i ple o c c as ions, that he had actual l y s hot peopl e o n at l eas t tw o othe r occa si ons and that he had not adj u st ed w ellto paro l e. Fu rthe r, w h ile J acks on argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt i m perm i ssibl y focuse d on char ges t h at w er e dro pp ed or dism i sse d, thi s i s a n ove rs tat em ent: J acks on has bee n co nvi ct e d ofm ult i ple vi ol ent c ri m es. I n s ho r t, i t was no t unr ea so nabl e f o r the c o ur t to c o ncl ud e that J acks on is a m enace, and ther ef or e that a n abov e- Gu i del i nes s entence was needed to d eter further cr i m i na la ct i vi ty
. The j udg m en t o fc o nv i ct i o n a nd s en ten ce are A FFI RMED .

8- 6- 09