2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
3-3-2009 

# U SA v . P rice
P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4503

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du
. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . P ric e " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1633. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1633P 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. 06- 4503

_____________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J O H N J O S E P H P R IC E , J R ., A p p e llan t.

O n A p p e a l fro m th e U n ited S tate d D istric t C o u rt fo r th e W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D. C. Cr i m. No. 0 4

- c v - 0 0 5 0 E) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n . S e a n J. M c L a u g h lin

A r gued J anuary 31, 2008 B ef or e: R E N D E L L and C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udges , and

PO L L A K , D i s tr i ctJ udge. *
Fi l ed: M ar ch 3, 2009

_____________________________

* T he 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 tr i ctC our tf orthe East ern D i s tr i ctof P e n n s y lv a n ia , s ittin g b y d e s ig n a tio n .2 C andac e C ai n ( A r gued) L i s a B
. Fr eel and 1450 L i berty C ent er 1001 L i berty A venue Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15222 C ouns el f

orA ppel l ant R ebec ca R. H ayw ood ( A r gued) M ary B eth B uchana n U ni t ed St at es A t t orney’ s O f f i ce f orthe W e ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia 700 G r antSt r eet , Sui t e 4000 Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15219 C ouns el f

orA ppel l ee

_____________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

_____________ C H A G A R E S, C i r cui tJ udge. Jo h n Jo se p h P ric e , Jr. e n ter e d a c o n d iti o n a l p lea o f g u ilty to m e th a m p h e tam in e m a n u fa c tu rin g a n d p o ss e ss io n a n d n o w a p p e a ls tw o as pect s of

hi s pr ocee di ngs . Fi r s t , he argues thatthe D i s tr i ct C our terr ed i n r ef

us i ng t o s uppr es s evi dence beca us e the G o v ern m en t violated h is Fo u rth A m en d m en t ri g h ts. In p arti cu lar, P ri ce co n tend s tha t a co n sen t t o se arc h h is ho u se w as n o t vo lun tary a n d th a t evid en ce seize d from h is ba sem en t pu rsua n t t o a laterobt ai ned w arr ants houl d be s uppr es s ed. Second, Pr i ce a r gues that n o tw ith sta n d in g h is w a iv e r o f a p p e a l, th e G o v e rn m e n t ab u se d its di scr et i on by r ef

us i ng t o r eques tan addi t i onal of f ens e l evel reduct i on of one p ointforaccep t ance o f r espon si bil i ty u nd er § 3E 1. 1( b) of the Sent enci ng G ui del i nes . B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the D istric t C o u rt’s d e c isio n s re g a rd in g the m o tio n to s u p p re ss a n d its s e n te n c e , w e w ill a ff

ir m . I
.3 A
. O n A pr i l 5, 2002, Pr i ce s ol d appr ox i m at el y 1/ 4 gr am of m ethamphet ami ne t o Rand a l l Sc hi rr a , a n under coveragentw i th the P enn s yl vani a A t t orney G ener al ’ s of f i ce. A s a r es ul tof

thi s s al e, the C om m onw eal th i s s ued a w arr antf orPr i ce’ s arr es t , buthe el uded captur e f

orm or e than t w o year s . O n O ct ober5, 2004, Pr i ce’ s l uck r an out , foron t hatdat e, l aw enf or cementof

f i cer s f r om b o th th e A tto rn e y G e n e ra l’s o ffic e a n d th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate P o lice w e n t to P ric e ’s p lac e o f w o rk –a g a ra g e o ff o f R o u te 9 7 in E r i e, PA
. Schi r r a had s our ce i nf or m at i on t hatP r i ce w oul d be t her e. T he age nt s f

ound Pr i ce i n a s m al l of

f i ce ne art he back of

the gar age. T hey handcuf

f ed hi m and r emoved hi m f r om the bui l di ng. A s e a r c h o f

P r i c e c o n d u c t e d i n c i d e n tt o th e a rr e s tr e v e a l e d “ i t e ms in d ica tiv e o f m e th a m p h e tam in e tra ffic k in g , inc lu d in g p las tic b a g g ies w ith m e th a m p h e tam in e re sid u e a n d p H p a p e rs u se d to g a u g e th e a c id ity o f t h e m e th a m p h e ta m in e p ro d u c tio n p ro c e s s .” A p p e n d ix (A p p .) 6 1
. B
. O ut s i de the gar age, Pr i ce t ol d Schi rr a thathe w as s uppos ed t o pi ck up hi s ki ds , and s i nce hi s w i f e w as w or ki ng, the chi l dr en w oul d be home al one. Pr i ce l i ved w i th hi s comm on- l aw w i f e, D ebbi e Fi s cher , an d tw o chi l dr en ( a gi r l , age 14, the daught erof Pr i ce, and a boy, a ge 9, the s on of Pr i ce and Fi s cher ) at8350 Page R oad i n W att s bur g, P enn s yl vani a. Schi rr a t es t i f i ed atthe s uppr es s i on he ar i ng thathe t ol d Pr i ce thatof f i cer s w oul d “che ck on the c h il d ren s[’ ] safe ty [an d ] c o n tact h is w if e.” A p p . 1 3 2
. S ch irra al s o t es t i f

i ed, how ever , thathe w ant ed t o getcons entt o s ear ch the Page R oad r es i dence t o s ee i f Pr i ce ope r at ed a methamphe t am i ne l ab ther e. The of

f i cer s had “qui t e a bi tof

i nf or m at i on gl eane d f

r om so u rce s, u n iden ti fi ed info rm an ts an d co n ce rne d cit izen s ab o u t M r. Pr i ce’ s i nvol vementi n m ethamphet ami ne” a tthe Page Road r es i dence

. A pp. 152. L eavi ng Pr i ce i n t he cus t ody of a s t at e t r ooper , S chi rr a and tw o o th e r sta te o ffic e rs, T ro o p e r R o n W ilso n an d A g e n t T im A l beck, dr ove t o Pr i ce’ s Page Road r es i dence

. T he tw o ch i l dre n a n sw e re d S c h irra ’s k n o c k o n th e d o o r a n d c o n firm e d th a t n o a d u lt w as hom e. T hey gave the of f i cer s Fi s cher ’ s num beratw or k.Schi r r a di d not have a cons entf or m w i th hi m beca us e he 1 w or ks under cover– as does A gentW i l s on – and s o i ti s c r i t i cal not t o h ave an y p oli ce-r el at ed p aperw ork i n thei r r espect i ve cars. 4 W i l s on cal l ed Fi s cher , and s he dr ove hom e f r om w or k t o the hous e. O n herw ay home, Fi s cherra n outof ga s , s o A l beck pi cked he rup a n d b ro u g h t h e r t o th e h o u s e . C
. M or e of f i cer s arr i ved on the s cene , butSchi rr a and W i l s on had thos e of

f i cer s s t ay dow n the r oad, aw ay f rom the Page R oad r e s i de nc e , s o tha to nl y thr e e o rf ou ro f f i c e r s wer e p r e s e ntw hen Schi r r a, W i l s on, and F i s cherfi r s tconver s ed i n the dr i vew ay/ f r ont yar d ar ea of

the hom e. W i l s on t es t i f i ed thatthey mi ni m i ze the num berof off

i cer s on the s cene “s o that

. . . the peopl e ar e not overw hel m ed w i th l aw enf or cement’ s pres ence w hen ever they give ordo notgi ve cons ent
. So i t ’ s not– s o thatthe y’ r e more r el axed a n d th e y d o n ’t fe e l c o e rc e d a t a ll.” A p p . 1 7 4
. Schi r r a and W i l s on e xpl ai ned t o Fi s cherthatPr i ce ha d been arrested , an d that the a u tho rit ies “ h ad p ri o r i n form ati o n that M r. Pr i ce w as i nvol ved i n m anufa ctur i ng m ethamphet ami ne atthe re sid e n c e . A n d th a t w e w o u ld lik e to h a v e c o n se n t to se a rc h to m a k e s u re it w a s a s a fe e n v ir o n m e n t f o r h e r a n d h e r c h ild re n .” A pp. 113. W i l s on a l s o ment i oned thatthe agent s ha d i nf or m at i on that there w as a st olen A l l T err ai n V ehicl e (A T V ) on t he p rem i ses. T hes e w er e the onl y r eas ons the of f i cer s gave Fi sche rf

or w hy they w ant ed t o s ear ch the hous e and pr operty – t o pr ot ectthe s af ety of herand herchi l dr en f r om any m ethamphet ami ne p ro d u c tio n , an d to lo o k fo r th e A T V . T h e o ffic e rs d id n o t tell Fi s cherthats he had the r i ghtt o no tcons ent , di d nott el l herthat anythi ng f

ound c oul d i ncr i m i nat e herorPr i ce, and di d notpr es ent herw i th a w r i t t en cons entf or m ( w hi ch i ncl uded al l of that i nf ormat i on )

. Sc hi r r a di d n otpr e s e ntFi s c he rw i th a w r i t t en c o n s e n t fo rm b e c a u se , in h is w o rd s, “ I d id n ’t h a v e o n e o n m e .” 1 A p p . 1 2 2
. W i thouthes i t at i on, Fi s cherverbal l y c on s e nt e d t o h a vi ng the agent s l ook a r ound the hous e and the pr operty. Fi s cherdi d n ot ap p ea r t o be un d er th e influen ce of dru g s or alco h o l, see m e d to under s t and w hatthe of

f i cer s w er e t el l i ng her , and di d notappea rSodi um hypophosphi t e i s a sa l tof hypophos phor ous aci d. 2 It s l egit i m at e uses i nclude el ect rol ess nickel pl at i ng , fi re r et ar dat i on, and the ca t al ys i s of pol ym er s . B utm any m etham ph et am i ne p rod u ce rs al so use ph osph orus chem i cal s – m ost comm onl y r ed phos pho r ous , butal s o w hi t e phos phor ous or h y p o p h o sp h o ro u s a c id s lik e so d iu m h y p o p h o sp h ite – a s c a taly sts in th e c o n v e rsio n o f e p h e d rin e o r p s e u d o e p h e d rin e to m ethamphet ami ne pr ecur s or , w hi ch i s one st ep i n the pr oces s of m et ham ph et am i ne p roducti on . A s com pared t o red ph osph orous, “ w h ite p h o sp h o ru s a n d h y p o p h o sp h o ro u s a c id m e th o d s o f illi c it m e th a m p h e ta m in e p ro d u c tio n a re s ig n if ic a n tly m o re h a z a rd o u s . .

. . T he hypophos phor ous aci d m ethod i s . . . e xtr emel y haza r dous s i nce i tpr oduces phos phi ne gas . I f notc onf i ned w i thi n the r eac t i on ves s el , i nges t i on of

thi s poi s onous gas can r es ul ti n death. ” C ontr ol o f R e d P h o sp h o ru s, W h it e P h o sp h o rus a n d H y p o p h o sp h o ro u s A c id ( and It s Sal t s ) as L i s tI C hemi cal s , 65 Fed. R eg. 57577, 57578 (pro p o sed S ep t. 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 ) (t o b e c o d if ied a t 21 C
. F
. R
. p t. 1 3 1 0 ). 5 e sp e c ially a g itate d o r a fra id . S c h irra o b se rv e d th a t “ sh e w a s a little nervous , ” but“r el at i vel y nor m al

. ” A pp. 161. Schi r r a f ol l ow ed Fi s cheri nt o the hous e. W i l s on r emai ned out s i de, and began w al ki ng ar ound the curt i l age, l ooki ng f orthe A T V
. H e eve ntual l y f

ound the s t ol en f

our - w heel ed vehi cl e under a p ile o f c a r s e a ts a n d c o v e rs n e a r a n o u tb u ild in g . D
. Justoff of the l i ving r oo m , as on e ent ered the ho use, w as a r oom w i th a padl ock on the door

. Fi s cherexplai ned thats he and Pr i ce s l epti n thi s r oom . Sch i rr a asked Fi s cheri f s he had a key. She ans w er ed af

f i r m at i vel y, pr oduced akey, and un l ocked the door

. A s s he di d s o, Fi s chert ol d Schi rr a thats he and Pr i ce us ed m etha m p h e tam ine (bu t did n o t m an u fac ture it ), an d that there “m igh t b e s o m e p ipes ” in th e b ed roo m . A p p . 1 1 5
. S ch irra se arc h ed the ro o m an d fou n d tw o g lass p ipes an d a b ag g ie cont ai ni ng s odi um hypophosphi t e i n the dr aw er s of a ni ght s t and n e a r th e b e d

. “ A t th a t p o in t,” S c h irra tes tified , “s h e a sk e d m e to

2 s t op s ear chi ng the hous e part
. B eca us e w e f ound thats tuf

f and s heF i s c h e r ’ s e x a c two r d s a tth i s p o i n ta r e th e s u b j e c to f s o me 3 di s put e. A l t hough S chi rr a tw i ce s ai d thats he as ked hi m t o s t op s e a r c hi ng “ the ho us e pa r t , ” he a mend e d tha tl a t e r , s a yi ng tha t Fi s cheras ked hi m t o s t op sear chi ng onl y the dr aw er s of the n ig h ts ta n d . A p p . 1 4 1 -4 2
. 6 th o u g h t s h e w a s g o in g to g e t in tr o u b le .” A p p . 1 1 7
. 3 Schi r r a obl i ged, and l ef tthe hous e. H i s “pr i ori nf or m at i on ab o u t M r. P ri ce ’s m an u fac turing m etha m p h etam ine,” h o w ev er, “al w ays s ai d [ Pr i ce] w as cooki ng i n the gar age, i n the bas ement ar ea of the home. ” A pp. 1 24
. T her ef or e, as he w as l eavi ng the h o u se , h e a sk e d F isc h e r h o w o n e c o u ld g e t to th e b a se m e n t. Fi s cherr epl i ed thatther e w as no acc es s t o the bas ementf r om w ith in th e h o u s e a n d th e n “ a s k e d [S c h ir ra ] to fo llo w h e r o u ts id e .” A pp. 126. A s the tw o w al ked ar ound the s i de of the hous e, they r econne ct ed w i th W i l s on. E
. S c h irra a sk e d if F isc h e r w o u ld g iv e th e a g e n ts c o n se n t to s ear ch the bas ement
. W i thoutr es pondi ng verbal l y, Fi s cher “di r ect ed [ the of

f i cer s ] dow n t o t he si de of the hous e w her e you get i nt o the bas ement
. . . and s he s ai d thats he di dn’ thave the key f or it , that o n ly M r. P ri ce h ad the k ey for it

. ” A p p . 1 1 7 -18
. S ch irra agai n aske d i f

the age nt s “coul d [ ] have pe r m i s s i on t o s ear ch the bas ement
. She s ai d i f

you coul d geti n, you coul d s ear ch i t , buts he had no key t o geti n. ” A pp. 126. Fi s cheradded thats he di d not w a ntthe m t o “ do a ny d a mage t o the d oo r s . ” A pp . 1 18
. W i l s on tes tified th a t F isc h e r d id n o t h e sita te to o ffe r c o n se n t fo r h im to pi ck the l ock bec aus e “I w ou l dn’thave gone i n i f s he had” hes i t at ed. A pp. 161. A l t ho ugh s he di d nothave a key, Fi s cheri ndi cat ed t o the a g e n ts th a t sh e u se d th e b a se m e n t to d o lau n d ry , an d th a t th e fa m ily s t or ed var i ous i t ems, s uch as C hr i s t m as decor at i ons , i n the bas ement
. A pp. 146. Schi rr a di d nota s k Fi s cherhow s he ac ces s ed the bas ementi f

s he di d notow n a key. H e w as nots ur e i f s he eve r pos s es s ed a ke y and j us tdi d nothave i tt hatday, or i f she neve rhad a k e y . W i l s on then pi cked the l ock of the basem entdoorw i th a7 pocketkni f

e, ent er ed the bas ementbri efl y, and ca m e out
. W i l s on onl y w ent“a ha l f

dozen s t eps i n . . . [

j ] us tt o m ake s ur e thati tw as sec u re, th at i t w as sa fe. S o that so m eb o d y w asn ’th iding in the re w i th a gun. ” A pp. 172. Schi rr a ent er ed the bas ementa f t erW i l s on exi t ed. I m m edi at el y i ns i de, on the r i ght , l ay an op en bag c o n t a i n i n g n u me r o u s S u d a f e d b l i s t e rp a c k e t s , a s we l l a s “ s o me otherchemi cal s and i t ems thatw er e us ed i n t he m anuf actur e of m ethamphet ami ne. ” A pp. 119. Schi rr a exi t ed t he base m ent , and t old Fis cher that she and the ch i l dren ha d to l eave the ho use “bec aus e i tw as a [ ] pot ent i al ha zar d f orthe ki ds be caus e ther e w as [ s i c] chemi cal s i n ther e. ” A pp. 120. H e al s o r ecomm ended that F is c h e r a n d th e c h ild re n s e e k m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t. S c h i r r a t h e n a s k e d F i s c h e rt o s i g n a wr i t t e n c o n s e n tf o r m. S h e re fuse d

. S ch irra stated that h e a sk ed F isch e r to sign a fo rm af t ergoi ng i nt o t he bas ement“[ b] eca us e otherof f i cer s had arr i ved [w h o ] h ad w ri tt en co n sen ts on their p erso n . ” A p p . 1 2 2
. M o reo v er, t he s i gn e d f

orm w ou l d ha ve “ s a ve [ d] me t i me . . . . I t ’ s f a s t erf or m e t o r eac tt o a haza r dous ar ea w i th a cons ents ear ch than appl yi ng [ for ] an d obt ai ni ng a s ear ch w arr ant
. ” A pp. 149. I f Fi s cherhad sig n e d th e c o n se n t fo rm , S c h irra w o u ld h a v e “ fe lt co m fo rta b le s ecur i ng the r es i dence a nd tr eat i ng the haza r dous envi r onm ent im m e d iate ly , rath e r th a n h a v in g to w a it su c h a lo n g tim e to o b tain a se a rc h w a rr a n t.” A p p . 1 2 2 . B e c a u se F isc h e r d id n o t co n se n t, h o w e v e r, S c h irra p o ste d o ffic e rs o u tsid e th e h o u se a n d lef t to a p p ly fo r a s e a rc h w a rr a n t. F
. A M agi s tr at e J udge i s s ued a w arr antat2: 10 a. m . on O ct ober 6, 2004 a f

t e rr e vi e w i ng Sc hi rr a ’ s A pp l i c a t i on a nd A f f i da vi tf or Sear ch W arr ant( w arr antappl i cat i on)

. T he w arr antappl i ed t o “a one s t ory s i ngl e f

ami l y r anch s tyl e r es i dence w i th a bas ementand gar age a cce s s i bl e f

r om the out si de” at“8350 Page Road, W at t s bur g. ” A pp. 53. I t per m i t t ed a s ear ch f or “[ m ] et ham phet ami ne and a ny otheri l l egal contr ol l ed s ubs t ance , any and al l dev i ces used to st o re, m anu facture, and / or i ng est m et ham ph et am i ne o r any co ntr oll ed sub st ance” ; “[ c]hem i cal s, l abor at ory equi pm entand otherappar atus us ed i n the pr oduct i on, s t orage ortr ans port at i on of m ethamphet ami ne, l i s t ed che m i cal s and othercontr ol l ed s ubs t ance s ”; a ny doc um ent s r el at i ng t o contr ol l ed s u b s ta n c e tr a n s a c tio n s ; a n d a n y ty p e o f f ir e a rm s . A p p . 5 6
.T he D i s tri ctC our ts uppr es s ed a ba g of s odi um 4 h y p o p h o sp h ite fo u n d in P ric e ’s ja c k e t i m m e d iate ly fo llo w in g h is arrest b ec au se th ere w as “ n o ev iden ce that at th e ti m e o f M r. P ri c e ’s a rr e s t, h e w a s in im m e d ia te p r o x im ity [o f] th e ja c k e t.” A pp. 19. T hi s as pectof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s rul i ng on the m ot i on t o suppr e s s i s no tc on t e s t e d i n thi s a pp e a l

. Furthe r mor e , the s uppr es s ed evi dence w as notr ef er ence d i n the w arr antappl i cat i on.
8 G
. T he pol i ce r eturned t o the Page Road r es i dence l at erthe sa m e d a y a n d se ize d n u m e ro u s c h e m ic a ls r e late d to m ethamphet ami ne manuf actur e f r om the bas ement , i ncl udi ng 671 gr ams of s odi um hypophos phi t e. O n N ovember9, 2004, a gr and j ury i ndi ct ed Pri ce on se ven count s re l at i ng t o t he m anuf actur e and pos s es s i on of

met hamphet ami ne. O n M ay 4, 2006, af t era hea r i ng on Pr i ce’ s m ot i on t o s uppres s the f rui t s of the s ear ch, the D i s tr i ct C our tgr ant ed the mot i on i n part and deni ed i ti n part
. O n J une 16, 4 2006, Pr i ce e nt er ed a c ondi t i onal pl ea of gui l ty t o C ountO ne of

the in d ictm e n t, res e rv in g th e rig h t to a p p e a l th e d e n ied p o rtio n o f h is su p p re ss io n m o tio n to th is C o u rt. T he P res entence R epo rtcal culat ed P ri ce’s B ase O ff ense L e ve l a t28
. A f

t e ra tw o- l e ve l do w nwar d a dj us t mentf or acc ept ance of

r es ponsi bi l i ty, Pr i ce’ s T ot al O f f ens e Level w as 26. T h i s o f f e n s e l e v e l , c o mb i n e d wi th a c r i mi n a l h i s t o ry c a t e g o ry o f V, pr oduced a G ui del i nes r ange of 110- 137 m onths

. O n O ct ober10, 2006, the D i s tr i ctC our ts ent ence d Pr i ce to 115 m onths of i m pr i s onm ent
. T hi s appea l f ol l ow ed. II. T h e D is tr ic t C o u rt h a d ju ri s d ic tio n p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 32 31. B eca us e Pr i ce i s appea l i ng f r om a f i nal j udgm entof convi ct i on and f

r om the D i s tr i ctCourt ’ s s uppr es s i on de ci s i on, on w hich t her e i s nothi ng f ur thert o be done, w e have j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291. See Fl anaga n v. U ni t ed St at es , 465 U
. S. 259, 263 ( 1984) ; C at l i n v. U ni t ed St at es , 324 U
. S. 229, 233 (1 9 4 5 ).T h e “ init ial ” c o n sen t f o r p u rpo ses o f o u r discu ssion refers 5 t o Fi s cher ’ s cons entt o s ear ch the l i vi ng ar ea of the Page Road re sid e n c e – in c lu d in g th e b e d ro o m – a s o p p o se d to th e b a se m e n t. 9 Pr i ce pr es erved hi s s uppr es s i on ar gum ent , and s o w e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s f

actual d et er m i nat i ons f orcl earerr orand exerci se pl enary revi ew o v er th e ap pli cat i on of the law t o those fac ts. S ee U n it e d S tat es v . W il li am s, 4 1 7 F
. 3 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 5 ). “A fin d in g is c lea rly e rro n e o u s w h e n a lth o u g h th e re is evi dence t o s uppor ti t , the r evi ew i ng courton the ent i r e evi dence i s l ef tw i th t he def

i ni t e and f

i r m convi ct i on thata mi s t ake ha s been co m m itted.” U n it ed S tat es v . P elullo, 17 3 F
. 3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 5 (3d C ir

. 1999) ( quot i ng U ni t ed S t at es v. U ni t ed St at es G yps um C o. , 333 U
. S
. 3 6 4 , 3 9 5 (19 4 8 )). A cc o rdin g ly, “[ i] f th e d istri ct co u rt ’s a c c o u n t o f th e e v id e n c e is p lau sib le in lig h t o f th e re c o rd v iew e d in i t s e n t i r e ty , ” we wi l l n o tr e v e r s e i te v e n i f , a s th e t r i e ro f

f a c t , we w oul d have w ei ghed the evi dence di f f er ent l y. A nder s on v. C i ty of B esse m er C ity , 4 7 0 U
. S
. 5 6 4 , 5 7 3 -74 (19 8 5 ). W e r evi ew de novo the l egal que s t i on of w hether Pri ce w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l the ca l cul at i on of hi s G ui del i nes r ange. S ee U n it ed S tat es v . K h att ak , 2 7 3 F
. 3 d 5 5 7 , 5 6 0 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ). III
. Pr i ce a r gues thatthe G overnm ent ’ s act i on s i n obt ai ni ng e v id e n c e a t h is P a g e R o a d re sid e n c e v io late d h is F o u rth A m endmentr i ght s and thatthe D i s tr i ctCourts houl d have gr ant ed hi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s thate vi dence

. Fi r s t , Pr i ce c ont ends thatthe i ni t i al cons entt o s ear ch hi s hous e w as notvo l unt ary and,

5 ther ef or e, the evi dence di s cover ed i n hi s bedr oom ( tw o gl as s pi pes w i th s us pect ed m ethamphet ami ne r es i due and a baggi e cont ai ni ng s odi um hypophos phi t e) s houl d have b een s uppr es s ed. Second, P ri ce con t end s that evidence sei zed fr om the basem ent of his ho use pur s uantt o the w arr ants houl d be s uppr es s ed bec aus e the w arr ant a p p li ca ti o n d id n o t est ab li sh p rob ab le ca u se w h en the a ll eg ed ly t ai nt ed evi dence f

r om hi s bedr oom and t he pr i orw arr ant l es s s ear ch of the bas ementi s exci s ed f r om the w arr antappl i cat i on. A
. T he Four th A m endmentt o the C ons t i tut i on pr ovi des : “TheFour th A m endmentt es t s nearl y al w ays i nvol ve 6 exami nat i on of

t he t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s , becaus e the A m endment“recogni zes thatno s i ngl e s etof l egal rul es can captur e the eve rchangi ng c om pl exi ty of human l i f

e. ” G eor gi a v. R an d o lph , 5 4 7 U
. S
. 1 0 3 , 1 2 5 (20 0 6 ) (B rey er, J. , co n cu rri n g ). 10 r i ghtof the peopl e t o be sec ur e i n t hei rper s ons , houses , paper s , and ef f ect s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l notbe v io la te d , a n d n o W a rr a n ts s h a ll i s s u e , b u t u p o n p ro b a b le c a u s e . . . .” “ T h e to u c h s to n e o f t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t is re a s o n a b le n e s s .” F lo rid a v . Jim e n o , 5 0 0 U .S . 2 4 8 , 2 5 0 (1 9 9 1 ). T h e re fo re , the F o u rth A m en d m en t do es n o t pro h ibitall sea rch es – o n ly tho se th at are u n rea so n ab le. S ee Ill ino is v. R o d ri g u ez , 4 9 7 U
. S
. 1 7 7 , 1 8 3 (19 9 0 ). T he g eneral rul e i s that the w arr antl ess entry int o a p ers on ’s ho use i s unr eas onabl e pers e. See Payt on v. N ew Y or k, 445 U
. S. 573, 586 ( 1980)

. T hi s rul e, how ever , i s s ubj ectt o s ever al “j eal ous l y and car ef ul l y dra w n” exce pt i ons . J ones v. U ni t ed St at es , 357 U
. S. 493, 4 9 9 (1 9 5 8 ). “I ti s . . . w el l sett l ed t hatone of the s peci f i cal l y es t abl i s hed e x c e p ti o n s to the req u ir em en ts of b o th a w arran t and p rob ab le c a u s e is a s e a rc h th a t is c o n d u c te d p u r s u a n t to c o n s e n t.” Schneck l oth v. B us t amont e, 412 U
. S. 218, 219 ( 1973)

. T he S u p re m e C o u rt h a s “ lo n g a p p ro v e d c o n se n su a l se a rc h e s b e c a u se it i s no doubtr eas onabl e f orthe pol i ce t o conducta s ear ch once they h a v e b e e n pe r mi t t e d t o d o s o . ” J i me n o , 5 0 0 U. S. a t2 5 0

- 5 1
. To j us t i f y a s ear ch bas ed on cons ent , the G overnm ent“has the bur den o f p ro v in g th a t th e c o n se n t w a s, in fa c t, free ly a n d v o lu n tar ily g iv e n .” B u m p e r v . N o rth C a ro lin a , 3 9 1 U .S . 5 4 3 , 5 4 8 (1 9 6 8 ). T h is b u rd e n “ is n o t sa tisfie d b y sh o w in g a m e re su b m is sio n to a c laim o f l aw ful au tho ri ty.” F lori d a v . R o y er, 46 0 U
. S
. 4 9 1 , 4 9 7 (19 8 3 ). T h e re is “ n o ta lis m a n ic d e fi n itio n o f ‘ v o lu n ta ri n e s s ,’ m echan i cal l y ap pli cable t o the hostof si tuati on s w here the ques t i on has ar i s en. ” Schnec kl oth, 412 U
. S. at224. I ns t ead, w e det erm i ne t he vol unt ar i nes s of

a cons entby exami ni ng the t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s . See i d. at227. B oth “the cha r act er i s t i cs of the acc us ed and the det ai l s of the i nt err ogat i on” ar e us ef ul t o det erm i ne w het her , underal l the ci r cumst ance s , a cons entt o s ear ch w as vol unt ary, and no ca s e s houl d “turn[ ] on the pr es ence orabs ence of a s in g le c o n tr o llin g c ri te ri o n .” Id . a t 2 2 6
. 6T h e D i stri ctC ou rt ’s determ i nati on of volunt ari ness i s a 7 f i n d i n g o f f a c t
. S e e S c h n e c k l o th , 4 1 2 U. S
. a t2 2 7
. As s u c h , we rev iew for c lear erro r. P ric e d o e s n o t ar g u e th a t F isc h e r w a s w ith o u t au th o rity to 8 g iv e th e in itia l c o n s e n t. 11 Fact or s t o cons i deri ncl ude: the age , educa t i on, and in tellig e n c e o f th e su b

jec t; w h e th e r th e su b

jec t w a s a d v ise d o f h is orhercons t i tut i onal r i ght s ; t he l engt h of the enc ount er ; the r epet i t i on ord urat i on of the ques t i oni ng; and the us e of phys i cal puni s hm ent. See i d. ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. K i m , 27 F. 3d 947, 955 ( 3d C i r. 1 99 4). W e have f ur theri dent i f

i ed as r el evant“the s ett i ng i n w hi ch the cons entw as obt ai ned [ and] the part i es ’ verbal and non- verbal act i ons . ” U ni t ed St at es v. G i van, 320 F. 3d 452, 4 5 9 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he D i s tr i ctC our tf ound Fi s cher ’ s i ni t i al cons ent v o lu n tar y . T h e C o u rt n o ted tha t F isc h e r w a s a n a d u lt, a p p a re n tly

7 of aver age i nt el l i gence , w ho had pr evi ous exper i ence w i th the cr i m i nal j us t i ce sys t em. M or eover , “the atm os pher e s urr oundi ng the enc ount erw as nothos t i l e, ” s i nce the of f i cer s dr ove hert o the P a g e R o a d re sid e n c e a fte r h e r c a r ra n o u t o f g a s, th e o ff ic e rs d id n o t h a v e th e ir g u n s d ra w n w h e n th e y a sk e d fo r F isc h e r’s c o n se n t, F i s c h e rwa s n o tv e rb a l l y o rp h y s i c a l l y th r e a t e n e d , a n d o n l y two of f i cer s , S chi r r a and W i l s on, di s cus s ed Fi s cher ’ s i ni t i al cons ent w i th heri n t he dr i vew ay. P r i c e a t t a c k s th e v a l i d i ty o f th e i n i t i a l c o n s e n to n two gr ounds

. Fi r s t , he al l eges thatbe caus e Fi s cherw as noti nf or m ed 8 of herr i ghtt o r ef

us e cons ent , hercons entw as i nvol unt ary. S p ec if icall y , h e a rgu es th at i f th e o ffi ce rs h a d s h o w n F isch er a cons entf

or m and as ked hert o s i gn i t , “s he w ou l d have bee n advi s ed of

herr i ght s conce rni ng conse ntand w oul d l i kel y nothave sign ed p ri o r t o the sea rch , just a s sh e h ad refu sed to sign the fo rm w hen itw as pr es ent ed t o heraf t erthe s ear ch w as over . ” Pr i ce R e p ly B r. at 1 . S e c o n d , P ric e c o n ten d s th a t t h e o ffic e rs lie d to Fi s cherw hen they t ol d herthatthey w ant ed t o s ear ch t o pr ot ecther s af ety and thatof

herchi l dr en; r ather , the of f i cer s ’ true i nt ent i on w as t o l ook f

orevi dence of

a met hamphet ami ne l ab. T hi s al l eged dece pt i on , acco rdi ng to P ri ce, sup po rt s a f i ndi ng ofPr i ce a l s o not es thata f t erhe w as arr es t ed, the G overnm ent 9 di d notask h i m forcons entt o s ear ch hi s hom e. I ns t ead of o b tai n ing a se arc h w arran t f o r th e P ag e R o ad reside n ce , the o ffi ce rs w e n t to th e h o u se , an d w h e n F isc h e r e v e n tu a lly a rriv e d , the y to ld hert ha tPr i c e ha d b e e n a rr e s t e d a nd tha tthe y want e d h e rc on s ent t o s ear ch onl y t o make s ur e thatthe hous e w as s af e f orherand her chi l dr en. B ut , cr i t i cal l y, this i s i rr el evantt o the vol unt ar i nes s of F is c h e r’ s c o n s e n t, a n d s o w ill n o t b e c o n s id e re d

. 12 i nv olunt ari ness. 9 W e hol d thatthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s det erm i nat i on of vol unt ar i nes s w as not cl ear l y err oneous i n l i ghtof the t ot al i ty of the c ir cu m stan ce s. F ir st, S ch n ec k loth c o n tr ad icts P ri ce ’s cont ent i on thatthe l ack of a conse ntf or m , w i thoutm or e, m eans th a t F isc h e r c o n se n ted in v o lu n tar ily . T h e S c h n e c k lo th C o u rt h e ld that“[ w ] hi l e know l edge of the r i ghtt o r ef

us e cons enti s one f

act or t o be t aken i nt o acc ount , the [ G ] overnm entneed notes t abl i s h s uch k n o w le d g e a s th e s in e q u a n o n o f a n e ff e c tiv e c o n s e n t.” Schneckl oth, 412 U
. S. at227. T he C our texpl i ci t l y con si der ed – and r ej ect ed – t he pos s i bi l i ty of m andat i ng M i r anda- l i ke w arni ngs fo r a ll co n se n su a l se a rc h e s. S e e id . a t 2 3 1 (c o n c lu d in g th a t it w oul d “be thor oughl y i m pr act i cal t o i m pos e on the norm al cons ent s e a rc h th e d e ta ile d re q u ir e m e n ts o f a n e ff e c tiv e w a rn in g ” ). O u r le a d in g c a se o n th e v o lu n tar in e s s o f c o n se n t su p p o rts thi s concl us i on and pr ovi des an i ns truct i ve compar i s on f orour cas e. I n K i m , 27 F. 3d 947, a 39- year - ol d mal e w as tr avel i ng f r om L o s A n g e les to C h ica g o o n a n A m tra k tra in

. T w o D E A a g e n ts knocked on K i m ’ s s l eepercar , l ooked atK i m ’ s t i cket , and then s t a t e d th a tth e y we r e wi th th e DEA a n d th a tth e DEA h a d p r o b l e ms w ith p e o p le s m u g g lin g d ru g s o n sim ilar tra in s. W ith o u t tellin g h im thathe coul d r ef

us e, one agentaske d i f

K i m w oul d conse ntt o have hi s l uggage s ear ched, t o w hi ch K i m “r eadi l y r epl i ed ‘ Sur e’
. ” I d. at 9 5 0 . T h e a g e n ts a rre ste d K im a fte r th e y fo u n d d ru g s in h is lu g g a g e . W e hel d thatthe cons entw as vol unt ary, obs ervi ng that S c h n e c k lo th h e ld c le a rly th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t is n o t “r e q u ire d to advi s e the def

endantof hi s r i ghtt o r ef

us e cons entbef

or e el i ci t i ng hi s cons ent
. ” I d. at955. W e f ound i ti m por t antthatK i m r epl i ed t o the agent s ’ r eques t“r eadi l y” and thatK i m w as cooper at i veA s the D i s tr i c tCour tob s e r ve d, ho w e ve r , “ [ a ] l though 10 [ Fi s cher ] w as notadvi s ed of herr i ghtt o ref

use co nsent
. . . her s ub sequentr evoca t i on of cons enti ndi cat es heraw ar enes s of that ri g h t.” A p p . 5
. 13 d u rin g th e e n tire in ter a c tio n : “K im ’s d e m e a n o r w a s n o d o u b t a stro n g in d ica tio n o f v o lu n tar in e ss . . . . M o re o v e r, th e w h o le encount erw as s hor t , l as t i ng onl y s ever al m i nut es , ” and onl y one of f i cerw as vi s i bl e t o K i m . I d. “Ther e w as no r epea t ed and pr ol onged quest i on i ng . N or di d [the ag ent] ask K i m dir ect , probi ng, o r in c rim in a tin g q u e stio n s.” Id

. W e c o n c lu d e d th a t “p a rticu lar ly i n the f ace of s tr ong evi dence of vol unt ar i nes s , ” i tw as not si gn i fi cant that the agen t s di d n ot advi se K i m of hi s r i gh tt o ref use c o n s e n t. I d

. T h e in sta n t ca se is a n a lo g o u s to K im . E v e n m o re th a n in K i m , the ci r cumst ance s of the enc ount erw er e l ow - key. Fi sche r w as asked for consent as she st oo d o n h er ow n p rop erty. M ost o ff ice rs o n th e sc e n e w e re d e lib e ra tely k e p t aw a y so a s n o t to o v e rw h e lm h e r. T h e o ffic e rs w h o w e re th e re d id n o t h a v e th e ir g u n s d ra w n . N o o n e th re a ten e d , c o e rc e d , o r p ro m ise d a n y th in g to Fi s cher

. A tno poi ntw as s he arr est ed, handcuf f ed, oreven t ouched. Schi r r a and W i l s on both t es t i f i ed thatFi s chergr ant ed the i ni t i al cons entt o s ear ch t he house w i thoutany r el uct ance or hes i t at i on w hat s oever . T her e w as no pr ol onged ques t i oni ng, and the of f i cer s di d notask any i ncr i m i nat i ng quest i ons bef or e s eeki ng cons entt o s ear ch. M or eover , as the D i s tr i ctC our ts etf or th, Fi s cher ’ s age, i nt el l i gence , a nde du c a t i on w e r e a tl eas taver age, and sh e h ad p rev iou s ex p erien ce w ith th e c ri m inal justi ce sy stem
. In s um , ever y f

act or , s ave one ( thats he w as notadvi s ed of herr i ght t o r ef us e cons ent ) , fa vor s a fi ndi ng of vol unt ary cons ent
. U nder

10 th e s e c irc u m sta n c e s, F isc h e r’s c o n se n t w a s v o lu n tar y , an d th is is tru e n o tw ith stan d ing th at Fisch er w as n o t ad v ised of he r r igh t to re fu se c o n se n t. N ext , as the D i s tr i ctC our tf ound, Pr i ce’ s s ugges t i on thatthe of f i cer s ’ onl y conce r n w as t o uncovera met hamphet ami ne l ab at the Page Road r es i dence i s bel i ed by the r ecor d. N o doubt , the pol i ce c ert ai nl y w er e l ooki ng fora m ethamphet ami ne l ab. B utthe agent s – i ndi s put abl y – al s o w ant ed t o m ake s ur e thatFi s cherand th e tw o c h ild re n w e re n o t p lac e d in d a n g e r b y th e c h e m ica ls as s oci at ed w i th any s uch oper at i on. E ven af t erthe age nt s had14 compl et ed thei rw or k atthe hous e, and eve n af t erFi s cherhad r ef us ed t o si gn t he cons entform , S chi rr a “a dvi s ed herthats he had to g et he r kid s o u t, she w o u ld ha v e to l ea v e b ec au se itw as a v ery p o ten tial h a z a rd [sic ] fo r th e k id s b e c a u se the re w a s [sic ] ch e m ica ls in th e re . T h e y p o se d a n e x p lo siv e h a z a rd , p lu s th e c h e m ica ls s m el l

. ” A pp. 120. Schi rr a al s o a dvi s ed Fi s chert o s eek a m edi cal exami nat i on f

orherand f

orher chi l dr en. W e agr ee w i th the D i s tr i ctC our tthatthe age nt s had tw o m ot i ves f ors eeki ng cons ent – t o f i nd the met hamphet ami ne l ab they thoughtm i gh tbe ther e, and al s o t o s af

eguar d the w el l -bei ng of Fi s cherand herchi l dr en. T he of f i cer s ’ st at ementof

r eas ons f

ordes i r i ng the s ear ch does not al t erourconcl us i on thatFi s cher ’ s cons entw as vol unt ary underthe t otal i ty o f the cir cum st ances. A c c o rd in g ly , the D istric t C o u rt d id n o t er r in re fu sin g to s uppr es s the evi dence -- tw o gl as s pi pes w i th s us pect ed m ethamphet ami ne r es i due and a baggi e cont ai ni ng s odi um hypophos phi t e - - obt ai ned i n P r i ce’ s bedr oom f ol l ow i ng the i ni t i al c o n se n t. B
. Pr i ce al s o ar gues t hatthe evi dence obt ai ned pur s uantt o the s ear ch w arr antshoul d have been s uppr es s ed. H e cl ai m s thati f the w a rra n t ap p lica tio n is s tr ip p e d o f e v id e n c e o b tain e d in : (1 ) h is bedr oom pur s uantt o the i ni t i al cons ent( w e c on s i de r ed and r ej ect ed thi s chal l enge s upr a, s ect i on I I I ( A ) ) , a nd ( 2) the bas ementpur s uant to th e w a rra n tles s s e a rc h , th e n “ w h a t re m a in s d o e s n o t am o u n t to p ro b a b le c a u s e to s u p p o rt a s e a rc h .” P ri c e B r. a t 2 9
. T he part i es di s put e vi gor ous l y thr ee i ssues r el at ed t o the w arr ant l es s s ear ch of

the bas ement : Fi r s t , di d Fi s cherw i thdr aw the i ni t i al cons entt o s ear ch thats he had pr ovi ded t o Schi rr a and W i l s on i n the dr i vew ay, and i f s o, w hatw as the ext entof the r evoca t i on? Second, even i f F i s cherre voked hercons entt o s ear ch the hous e, and eve n i f

thatr evoca t i on appl i ed t o the b asem entas w el l , di d Fi s cherl at ercons entvol unt ar i l y t o a s ear ch of the bas ement ? T hi r d, even i f Fi s chervol unt ar i l y cons ent ed t o the bas ements ear ch, di d s he have the author i ty t o cons entt o s uch a s ear ch?15 T hes e ar e al l di f

f i cul ti s s ues , butw e nee d notr es ol ve any of them. R ather , w e hol d thatthe s ear ch w arr antapp l i cat i on cont ai ned pr obabl e ca us e f r om i ndepende nts ourc es even a f t er e xc i s i ng a l l the e vi de nc e f ou nd i n the b a s e ment
. Thus , even as s um i ng Fi s cherdi d notcons entt o the bas ements ear ch, ordi d not have a uthori ty t o cons ent , the “i ndepende nts our ce” rul e appl i es her e and vi t i at es any t ai ntf r om the i ni t i al , as s um ed i l l egal , entry. T h e in d e p e n d e n t so u rc e d o c trin e se rv e s a s a n e x c e p tio n to the exc l us i onary rul e an d per m i t s the i ntr oduct i on of “evi dence i ni t i al l y di s cover ed dur i ng, oras a cons equenc e of , an unl aw f

ul s ear ch, butl at erobt ai ned i ndepende nt l y fr om act i vi t i es unt ai nt ed by the i ni t i al i l l egal i ty. ” M urr ay v. U ni t ed St at es , 487 U
. S. 533, 5 3 7 (19 8 8 ); see U n it ed S tat es v . P ere z, 2 8 0 F
. 3 d 3 1 8 , 3 3 6 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2); U nit ed S t at es v. H err old, 96 2 F
. 2d 11 31 , 11 40 (3d C i r. 1 9 9 2 ). In M u rray , law en forc em en t ag en ts im p rop erly forc ed en try i nt o a w ar ehous e and obse r ved bur l ap- w r apped bal es , l at erf ound t o co ntai n m ari

j uan a, i n plai n view

. T he ag ents l eftthe w arehou se w i t houtdi s turbi ng the ba l e s , a nd di d n otr e e nt e run t i l the y h ad obt ai ned a s ear ch w arr antf orthe w ar ehous e. I n ap pl yi ng f orthe w a rra n t, th e ag e n ts d id n o t m e n tio n th e p rio r e n try a n d d id n o t re ly on any obs ervat i ons m ade dur i ng thatentry. A m agis tr at e i s s ued a w arr antand the age nt s then conduct ed a s econd s ear ch of the w a re h o u s e a n d s e iz e d th e b u rl a p b a le s c o n ta in in g th e m a ri ju a n a . T he C our tobs erved thatthe pr operre m edy f orpol i ce e rr or orm i s conductr el at i ng t o evi dence i s t o “put [ ] the p oli ce i n the s ame, nota w or s e, pos i t i on thatthey w oul d have been i n i f no pol i ce e r r ororm i sconducthad occ urr ed. ” 487 U
. S. at537 ( empha s i s i n o r i gi na l ) ( qu ot a t i on marks omi t t e d)

. A c c or di ng l y, “[ w ] he n the c ha l l e ng e d e vi de nc e ha s a n i nd e pe nd e nts ou r c e, excl us i on of

s uch evi dence w oul d putthe pol i ce i n a w or s e pos i t i on than they w oul d have be en i n abs entany err ororvi ol at i on. ” I d. (q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). T he doctr i ne has both “gene r al ” and “ s peci f i c” a s pect s . T he f or m er“i dent i f

i es al l evi dence acqui r ed i n a f as hi on unt ai nt ed by the i l l egal evi dence-ga ther i ng act i vi ty. T hus , w her e an unl aw f ul entr y has gi ven i nves t i gat or s know l edge of f act s x and y, butf

act z has been l earned by otherm eans , f actz ca n be sai d t o be16 admi s s i bl e beca us e der i ved f r om an ‘ i ndepende nts our ce. ’ ” I d. at 5 3 7
- 3 8
. I n o th e rwo r d s , “ th e e v i d e n c e f o u n d f o rth e f i r s tt i me dur i ng the exe cut i on of the val i d and unt ai nt ed s ear ch w arr antw as admi s s i bl e bec aus e i tw as di s cover ed pur s uantt o an ‘ i ndepende nt so u rce . ’” Id

. at 53 8
. B y co n tr ast, i n th e sp ec if ic sen se, i f “o ffi ce rs [ ] unl aw f ul l y ent eran ar ea pr ot ect ed by t he Four th A m endmentand l earn of f act s x and y butthen l at erl earn of f act s x and y i ndepende nt l y and l aw f

ul l y, [ the y] can ha ve admi t t ed i nt o evi dence thei rknow l edge c oncerni ng fa ct s x and y. ” H err ol d, 962 F. 2d at 1 1 4 0
. I n H err ol d, a conf i dent i al i nf

or m antmetw i th the def endant t o arr ange a coca i ne pur chas e. T he i nf or m antcompl et ed the tr ans act i on, and then t ol d the pol i ce of f i cers w ho had bee n s ur veyi ng the dea l thatH err ol d w as pl anni ng t o go outt o a bar l at er , thathe had be en s m oki ng cr ack and act i ng “s qui rr el y, ” and thatH err ol d had a gun. 962 F. 2d at1134. T he of f i cer s al s o knew th a t H e rro ld w a s lik e ly to tak e m o re c o c a in e to th e b a r a n d se ll i t ther e. T heref

ore, they dec i ded t o arr es tH err ol d i n hi s tr ai l er w i thouta w arr ant
. W hi l e arr es t i ng H err ol d, they s aw a l oaded w eapon a nd drug par aphernal i a and c ocai ne i n pl ai n vi ew . A f t er s e c u ri n g H e rr o ld , th e o ff ic e rs le ft to g e t a w a rr a n t. W e bega n ouranal ys i s of the appl i cabi l i ty of the i n d e p e n d e n ts o u r c e d o c tr i n e i n He rr o l d b y r e c o g n i z i n g th a t“ we m us tdet erm i ne i f

, w i thoutr egar d t o i nfor m at i on obt ai ned dur i ng the or i gi nal entr y, the pol i ce w ou l d have appl i ed f orthe s ear ch w arr antand w e mustal s o det erm i ne i f t her e w as proba bl e ca us e f or th e wa rr a n tt o b e i s s u e d

. ” I d

. Co n s i d e r i n g th e f i r s tq u e s t i o n , we re v e rse d th e D istric t C o u rt’s h o ld in g th a t i t w a s m e re ly
“ sp e c u lativ e ” w h e th e r th e p o lice w o u ld h a v e so u g h t a w a rra n t to se a rc h th e tra iler a b se n t th e o rig in a l e n tr y . Id . at 1 1 4 1 . W e h e ld t hati twas “ i nc on c e i va bl e tha tthe p ol i c e woul d ha ve l e f tt he pr emi s es w i thouts ear chi ng t he tr ai l erand w i thoutarr es t i ng H err ol d, ” bas ed upon al l thatthe of f i cer s knew even w i thoutthe in iti a l en try . Id . at 1 1 4 0 . C o n sid e rin g th e se c o n d q u e stio n , w e h e ld that“i ti s obvi ous thatthe af f i davi tf orthe w arr antcon t ai ns su ffi cien t pro b ab le ca u se a p art fr o m in fo rm ati o n the o ffi ce rs le a rn e d v ia th e o ri g in a l e n tr y .” Id . a t 1 1 4 1
. Pr i ce c ont ends thati f

, i ndeed, the pol i ce w oul d have appl i ed f ora w arr anteven w i thoutthe al l egedl y t ai nt ed ma t eri al , they17 s houl d have a ppl i ed f

ora w arr antbef

or e conduct i ng thei rs ear ch. B utthe ques t i on i s notw hatthe pol i ce s houl d have done

. I ns t ead, the i s s ue i s w hetherthe po l i ce w oul d have appl i ed f ora w arr ant w ith o u t th e m a te ri a l ta in te d b y a w a rr a n tle s s s e a rc h

. T h e a n sw e r is y e s. In d e e d , th e fa c ts o f th is c a se c lo se ly tr ack the f

act s i n H err ol d. A s i n H err ol d, i ts eems i m pos s i bl e that the pol i ce w ou l d nothave appl i ed f ora w arr antt o s ear ch the b a sem en t of th e h o u se, kn o w ing that: 1) co n fi d en ti al i n for m a n ts t ol d the pol i ce thatPr i ce w as oper at i ng a met hamphet ami ne l abor at ory i n the bas ementof the Page Road r es i dence ; 2) Pr i ce ha d s ol d Schi r r a met hamphet ami ne i n the pas t ; 3) w hen arr es t ed, Pr i ce had pH paper s a nd baggi es cont ai ni ng m ethamphet ami ne r es i due; a n d 4) P ri ce ’s be d roo m co n tai n ed glas s p ip e s w ith m ethamphet ami ne r es i due and a baggi e of s odi um hypophos phi t e. T he s econd que s t i on i s w hetherthe w arr antappl i cat i on cont ai ned pr obabl e caus e w i thoutt he i nf or m at i on gl eane d f

r om the bas ement
. T he D i s tr i ctC our tdet erm i ned thateven “ as s um i ng that the contr aband f

ound i n t he base m entar ea s houl d nothave be en i ncl uded i n the af

f i davi ti n s uppor tof

the s ear ch w arr ant , . . . the w arr antw as i ndepende ntl y s uppor t abl e by otheri nf or m at i on cont ai ned ther ei n. ” A pp. 17. “Thus, even i f al l r ef er ence s t o the contr aband f

ound i n the bas ementar ea w er e exc i s ed f r om the a ffid a v it, ” th e D istric t C o u rt h e ld th a t “th e a ffid a v it w o u ld still su p p o rt a b ro a d se a rc h o f th e p re m ise s fo r th e e v id e n c e o u tli n e d in the w arr ant
. ” A pp. 18. W e agr ee w i th the hol di ng of the D i s tr i ct C o u rt. Pr obabl e ca us e exi s t s i f , under“the t ot al i ty- of

- thec irc u m sta n c e s . . . th e iss u in g m a g istra te [m a k e s th e ] pr a c tica l, c o m m o n -se n se d e c isio n [th a t] , g iv e n a ll th e c irc u m sta n c e s s e t fo rth i n the af f i davi tbef

or e hi m . . . ther e i s a f ai rpr obabi l i ty that con tr a ba nd ore vi de nc e of a c r i me w i l l be f

ou nd i n a pa r t i c ul ar pl ace . ” I l l i noi s v. G at es , 462 U
. S. 213, 238 ( 1983)

. D i r ect e v id e n c e o f a c rim e is n o t n e c e ss a ry in a ll ca se s: “ W h ile id e a lly e v e ry a ffid a v it w o u ld c o n tain d ire c t e v id e n c e lin k in g th e p lac e to be s ear ched t o the cr i m e, i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatdi r ectevi dence i s notr equi r ed f

ort he i s s uance of a s ear ch w arr ant
. ” U ni t ed St at es v . Jo n e s, 9 9 4 F .2 d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ). R a th e r, “p ro b a b le caus e ca n be, and of

t en i s , i nf

err ed by cons i der i ng the type of cr i m e, the natur e of

the i t ems s ought , the s us pect ’ s oppor tuni ty f orT he w arr antappl i cat i on di d n ot ment i on the baggi e of 11 s o d iu m h y p o p h o s p h ite o b ta in e d in P ri c e ’s b e d ro o m . 18 conce al m entand norm al i nf er ence s aboutw her e a c r i m i nal m i ght h ide s tolen p rop erty.” Id. (qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). W ith o u t an y re fe re n c e to th e e v id e n c e o b tain e d p u rsu a n t to th e w a rra n tles s b a se m e n t se a rc h , th e w a rr a n t a p p lic a tio n w o u ld still inclu d e a t l ea st th ree k ey p iece s o f i n fo rm a tio n ab o u t Price’s act i vi t i es : 1) thatPr i ce s ol d Schi rr a 1/ 4 gr am of met hamphet ami ne on A pr i l 5, 2002; 2) thatSchi rr a arr es t ed Pr i ce on O ct ober5, 2004, and thatw hen s ear ched, Pr i ce pos s es s ed “i t ems i ndi cat i ve of m e th a m p h e tam in e tra ffic k in g , inc lu d in g p las tic b a g g ies w ith m e th a m p h e tam in e res id u e an d p H p a p e rs u se d to g a u g e th e a c id ity of the met hamphet ami ne pr oduct i on pr ocess ”; and 3) thataf t er sea rch ing P ri ce ’s be d roo m , S ch irra fo u n d tw o g lass p ipes that w ere c o n sis ten t w ith the ing e stio n o f m e th a m p h e tam in e . S e e g e n e ra lly A pp. 217 ( G overnm entnot i ng t o t he D i s tr i ctC our tthe i l l egal i ty of pos s es s i ng drug par aphernal i a i n Penns yl vani a, and r epr es ent i ng thatpos s es s i on of

gl as s pi pes al one w oul d s uppor ta s ear ch of Pr i ce’ s pr emi ses)

. T he w arr antappl i cat i on al s o expl ai ns that 11 peopl e w ho ar e i nvol ved i n m et ham phet ami ne di s tr i but i on of t en have, i n thei rh om es, drugs , l ar ge quant i t i es of m oney, and evi dence of

f i nanci al tr ans act i ons , as w el l as document at i on conce r ni ng i l l egal nar coti cs, s uch as “r eci pes ” f orm aki ng m e th a m p h e ta m in e a n d o th e r s u b s ta n c e s . B as ed on the evi dence s etf or th above, as w el l as the w arr ant appl i cat i on’ s s t at ement s r egar di ng the cha r act er i s t i cs of thos e w ho are inv o lved in m etha m p h etam ine p rod u cti o n , itis cl ea r th at th ere w as pr obabl e ca use forthe w arr antt o be i s s ued w i thoutany r ef er ence t o the evi dence found i n t he bas ementof the Page Road re sid e n c e d u rin g th e w a rra n tles s s e a rc h . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill af f i r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s r ef us al t o s uppr es s the evi dence d is c o v e re d in th e b a s e m e n t p u rs u a n t to th e s e a rc h w a rr a n t. I V. P ri c e ’s s e c o n d c laim is th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t ab u se d its dis cret i on by ref

usi ng t o reque sta t hir d-pointreduct i on of hi s base o f f e n s e l e v e l f

o ra c c e p t a n c e o f

r e s p o n s i b i l i ty p u r s u a n tt o U. S
. S
. G.19 § 3E 1. 1( b)

. W e di s agr ee be caus e Pr i ce w ai ved hi s r i ghtt o appea l th is is s u e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e re je c t P ri c e ’s c la im

. P ric e sig n e d a p lea a g re e m e n t o n J u n e 1 6 , 2 0 0 6 th a t se t fo rth the “f ul l and com pl et e agr eement ” betw een the part i es . A pp. 262. P ric e a g re e d to p lea d g u ilty to C o u n t O n e o f th e in d ictm e n t, an d to acc eptr es pons i bi l i ty f

orC ount s T w o thr ough Seven. I n Par agr aph 5, Pr i ce al s o a gr eed t o a c om pr ehens i ve w ai verof a ppeal , s ubj ect t o onl y thr ee e xcept i ons . See A pp. 263. T he thre e exc ept i ons w er e: 1) i f

the G overnm enta ppeal ed; 2) i f the s ent ence exce eded the s t atut ory l i m i t s or“unr eas on ably” e xcee ded the gui del i ne r ange; and 3) the condi t i onal appea l deal tw i th i n s ect i on I I I , s upr a, thati s “w hetherhi s m ot i on t o s uppr es s t he evi dence s ei zed f r om hi s r es i dence w as pr oper l y deni ed. ” I d. T hes e w er e the onl y thr ee exce pt i ons , and the agr eementexpl i ci t l y s t at ed that“[ t ] he f or egoi ng r es ervat i ons of the r i ghtt o appea l on the bas i s of s peci f i ed i s s ues do n ot i ncl ude the r i ghtt o r ai s e i s s ues otherthan th o s e s p e c if

ie d .” A p p . 2 6 4 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e G o v e rn m e n t, i n e x c h a n g e fo r th is g u ilty p lea , ag re e d to r ecomm end that“ the C our tr educe the of f ens e l evel by 2 l evel s f

or ac ce p tanc e o f resp o n sibil ity ” p u rsua n t t o § 3 E 1
. 1
. Id. N o w h ere w as m en ti o n ed a third-p o int r ed u cti o n p u rsua n t t o § 3 E 1 .1(b ). F in a lly , th e p lea a g re e m e n t re itera ted th a t “[t]h is le tter s e ts fo rth the f ul l and compl et e t erm s and co nd i t i ons of the agr eement betw een J O H N J O SE PH PR I C E , J R
. and the [ G overnm ent ] , and there are no other agreem ents , prom i ses, t erm s or cond i t i on s, e x p re s s o r i m p lie d .” A p p . 2 6 6
. W e h a v e h e ld th a t “[w ]aiv e rs o f a p p e a ls, if en ter e d in to know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y, ar e val i d, unl es s they w or k a m i s carr i age of

j us t i ce. ” K hatt ak, 273 F. 3d a t563. H er e, the w r i t t en w ai veri s undoubt edl y com prehensi ve as appl i ed t o a c h a llen g e b ro u g h t u n d e r § 3 E 1 .1 (b ) o f th e G u id e lin e s, b e c a u se it pr ecl ude s a ny a pp e al f

r om Pr i ce’ s “convi ct i on ors ent ence under28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 or18 U
. S
. C
. § 3742. ” A pp. 263. I ndeed, the l anguage her e tr acks cl os el y thatof the w ai verof appeal enf or ced i n U ni t ed St at es v. G w i nnett , 483 F. 3d 200, 204 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( uphol di ng w r i t t en w ai veri n pl ea a gr eementas “compr ehens i ve” w h ich sta ted th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t an d d e fe n d a n t “w a iv e c e rta in r i ght s t o f

i l e an appeal , col l at er al att ack, and w r i torm ot i on af t erW e n o te th a t th e p ro c e d u re e m p lo y e d b y th e c o u rt in th is 12 cas e i s near l y i dent i cal t o the pr ocedur e em pl oyed by the di s tr i ct co u rti n G w inn ett
. S ee 48 3 F
. 3 d at 2 0 4 (“[ T ] h e D istric t C o u rt a sk e d G w in n e tt w h e th e r s h e re a d th e p lea a g re e m e n t, dis c u ss e d it w i th heratt orney, as ked heratt orney ques t i ons aboutthe agr eement , and ca m e t o under s t and the agr eementbef or e s i gni ng it

. G w inn etta n sw ere d in the affirm ati v e to e ac h q u esti o n . . . . In addi t i on, the D i s tr i ctCourtc onf i r m ed thatG w i nnetthad s i gned the p lea a g ree m en t. ”). 20 s e n t e n c i n g , i n c l u d i n g b u tn o tl i mi t e d t o a n a p p e a l u n d e r1 8 U. S
. C. § 3 7 4 2 ”). T her ef or e, “[ w ] e n extl ook t o the col l oquy betw een the s e n te n c in g ju d g e a n d [P ri c e ] d u ri n g th e [s e n te n c in g ] h e a ri n g ,” G w inn ett , 4 8 3 F
. 3 d a t 2 0 4 , b ec au se to “d eterm in[e] w h ethe r a w ai verof

appea l i s ‘ know i ng an d vol unt ary, ’ the r ol e of the s ent enci ng j udge i s cr i t i cal , ” K hatt ak, 273 F. 3d a t563. Fi r s t , atthe s ent enci ng hear i ng, t he G overnm entpr es ent ed the t erm s of the pl ea agr eementi n ope n c our t , not i ng thatunde rthe agr eem ent Pr i ce “al s o agr ees t o w ai ve hi s r i ghtt o f i l e any appeal s s ubj ectt o the l i m i t at i ons i n t he pl ea agr eement , ” and not i ng spec i f i cal l y t hatthe “on e i s s ue ” Pr i c e w a s c a pa bl e of a pp e a l i ng w a s the s up pr e s s i on is s u e . A p p . 2 5 1 -5 2 . T h e G o v e rn m e n t a ls o s ta te d th a t “ [i]n excha nge, . . . t he [ G ] overnm entagr ees t o r ecomm end a tw o- poi nt r educt i on i n [ of

f ens e] l evel f

orhi s t i m el y acc ept ance of r es pons i bi l i ty. ” A pp. 252. Pr i ce’ s att orney then not ed that“the appea l w ai verals o al l ow s M r . Pr i ce’ s abi l i ty t o appea l i f the Go v e r n me n ta p p e a l s th e s e n t e n c e i f th e s e n t e n c e i s a tma x i mu m, and al s o al l ow s him t o appea l unr eas onabl e gui del i nes t o be d e te rm in e d b y th e C o u rt .” Id

. T he D i s tr i ctC our tas ked Pr i ce w het herhe had r ead a nd revi ew ed the agr eementand w hetherhe agr eed t o i t s t erm s and condi t i ons . Pr i ce a ns w er ed “ye s ” t o eac h ques t i on. T he C our tthen had Pr i ce s i gn the agr eementi n ope n c our t , a nd Pr i ce cert i f i ed that he under s t ood thatby vi r tue of s i gni ng the agr eement , he w as “att es t i ng by [ hi s ] s i gnatur e t hat[ he] agr eed w i th al l t he t erm s and condi t i ons . ” A pp. 254. 12 W e hol d thatthe appe l l at e w ai veri n this case w as ent er ed i nt o know i ngl y and vol unt ar i l y and t hatenf or cementof

the w ai ver21 w ill n o t res u lt in a m isc a rria g e o f ju stic e . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill enforce the w ai ver of appeal, and P ri ce can no tsucceed on his § 3 E1
. 1 ( b ) c l a i m. V
. Fort he r eas ons s etf

or th above, w e w i l l af

f i r m the D i s tr i ct C o u rt ’s s u p p re s s io n d e c is io n a n d its s e n te n c in g c a lc u la tio n .