## 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

- 3627 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. V ICTO R A. D EA N , D ef endant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, We stern Div isi on. No . 06 C R 50044-5

—Philip G. Re inha rd, Judge

.
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 10, 2008

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 17, 2008

Befo re C OFFEY, R IPPLE, a nd M A NI ON, Circ uit Ju dg es . C OFFEY, Cir cu i tJudg e . On J une 7, 20 06, Detec tiv e J aso n Cebuhar, a 12- yea r vet er an of the Rockf or d, I l l i noi s, pol i ce departm ent, r ecei ved i nfo rm ati on that Vi cto r Dean had pu rchas ed guns that s ubsequentl y pr ove d to have been sto l en duri ng a burgl ar y Offi cerCebuhar w as i nvest i gat
i n g. The detect i ve al so deter m i ned fr om the pol i ce re cor ds that Dean had thre e o utsta n d in g arr estwarra nts. Cebuhar and se ver al othe r offi cer s went l oo ki ng f orDean2 N o. 07

- 3627 at hi s r esi dence, and shor tl y a fter a rr i valathi s ho m e, Cebuhar heard a “cr ashi ng so und ” fro m the opposi te si de ofthe house and i m m edi ate l y there afterspot ted Dean hi ding i n the bushes. Dean w as ar re ste d and there

afte r a s ea r cho fDe an ’ s ho us e unc o ve r ed th e wea po ns as w el l as her oi n. Dean was charged with o ne co unt of p os se ss ion of a firea rm b y a felon

. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 922(g)( 1). A t a pre tr i alsup press i on heari ng, Cebuhar and another o ffi ce r, Br ad S ti en, t es ti fi ed th atDe anha d o r al l y c o nse nt ed to the s earch tha t unc o ve r ed th e fi r ea r m s; o n the o th erha nd De ante st i fi ed th athe ne ve r c o ns en te d. The trial cour t j ud ge f ound the te sti m ony ofthe offi cer s t o be m or e cr edibl e than Dean’s and den ied Dean’ s m oti on t o su p p ress. A fter the cou rt ag r e e d t o D ean ’s requ est for a re pla cem ent f orhi s a t t o rne y, Do na l d Sul l i van, Dean m ove d t o r e c o ns i de r the mo t i o n t o s up pr e s s b e c a us e , he c l a i med , S ul l i van’s pe r f o r m an ce ha d b ee n de fi ci en t. Af te r the dist ri ct c ourtdeni ed the m oti on to re consi der, Dean en tered a c o ndi ti o na l g ui l typl ea i n o r dertha t he might pr es er ve f o r a ppea l the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s r uli ng on th e m otion to su p p ress an d the m otion to recon side r. O n ap p ea l D ea n arg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s c re d ibili tyfi ndi ng s wer e anabus e o fdi sc retion f o r the f o l l o wi ng re aso ns: ( 1) accor ding to Dean, Cebuhar and Sti en ea ch had a m oti ve to tes ti fy fa l sel y about conse nt because they w er e e m plo yed i n the sam e pol i ce depar tm ent a nd wanted to e ns ur e th atthe c o urtwoul d upho l d the s ea r ch, ( 2) the offi cer s’ f ai l ure to obt ai n w ri tte n conse n t for the sea rch und er m i ned th eir cr edibi l i ty, ( 3) Dean was unli kel y t o ha v e c o ns e nt e d kno wi ng tha th e r o i n wo ul d b e f o un d,N o. 07

- 3627 3 and (4 ) two purport edl y u nbi ase d w i tness es supp or ted Dea n’ s co nt en ti o n tha t he di d no t br ea ka wi ndo w dur i ng the s e a r c h c o nt r a r y t o the o ffi c e r s ’ cont e nt i o n tha th e di d. D ea n als o a rg u es th at th e d ist r i c t c o u rt ’s d en ial of h is m o ti o n t o r e c o n s i d e r wa s a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t he f o l l o win gr e a s o n s : ( 1 ) A t t o r n e y S u l l i v a n ’ s p r o f o r ma wr i tte n s ub mi s s i o ns we r e c ur s o r y a nd i l l

- pr e pa r e d, (2) Sulli van f ail ed to vi gorou sly c r o ss-ex am ine C ebu ha r’s ex p lan at ion for h i s n ot se ek in g w rit te n co n se n t, (3) in ar gui ng the m oti on, f orr eas ons unexp l ai ned, S ull i van did notr eferto the offi cer s’ f ai l ure t o obt ai n w ri tte n con sen t n o r t he ir m otive to l ie, and ( 4) the d istri ct cou rt agr eed to Dean’ s r equest to re pla ce Su lli van. A fterr evi ew in g the r eco rd we disa gr ee w i th Dean’ s a rg um ents. T h e d i s t r i c tc o u r td i d n o tab u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n w h e n a ffi r mi ng i ts pri orr uling. At the s uppr es si o n h ea r i ng, Ce buh art es ti fi ed to the f ol l owing ver si on of e vents
. A fterDean had bee n appreh ended, Cebuhar and St i en walk ed suspect Dean to a squa d c ar, a nd S ti ena sk ed Dea n i fa ny o ne el se was i n the hou se. Cebuhar then t ol d D ean that he and the o ther offi cer s “ w er e her e f orthe guns, ” a nd Dean r epl i ed that th e o ff i ce r s co ul d r et r i ev e th e g uns fr o m the fr o nt cl ose t. The ke ys Cebuhar o btai ned fr om D ean di d not unlo ck the ho use, so ano theroffi cerente re d the r esi dence thro ugh the bro ken wind ow a nd r eco ver ed the w eapons. W hi l e i n custo dy, Dean co oper ate d w i th the o fficers, and C ebuhar obs er ved a sm al l l acer ati on o n o ne o f Dea n’ s l eg s. On cr o ss - ex ami na ti o n, Ceb uha r s ta te d tha t he observ ed broken gl ass ou tsid e the broken w ind ow . A ttorney S ul l i v a n a l s o a s k e d C e b uh a r wh y h e h a d n o to b-4 N o. 07

- 3627 tai ned w ri tte n conse nt to sear ch forthe guns, and Cebuhar re pli ed that Dean had tr i ed to esc ape, and he ha d provi ded sp ecifi c inform ation abou t the gun s, an d furt he rm ore he had gi ven hi s o ra l co nsent to sea rch f orthem

. Cebuhar add ed that the o ffi cer s be l i eve d that the o ra l co nsent gi ven w as suffi ci ent and S ull i van did not further pr obe Cebuhar’ s e xplanat i on f ornotge tti ng wri tte n conse nt. Pa t r o l Offi c e r S t i e n, a s i x-y ear v e t e r a n o fthe R o c k f o r d, I l l i no i s, pol i ce de par tment, t es ti fi ed to the f o l l o wi ng ver si on of eve nts. A s he approached the r esi dence, he hear d a d ist u rb an ce o n the w estsi de ofthe house that he sa i d sounded l i ke ei ther“g l ass br eak i ng” ora “door o pen i ng . ” As S ti en and Ce buh arwal k ed Dea n t o the squad car afterDean had bee n apprehended, St i en as ked Dean i fanyo ne el se w as i n the house, and Dea n r epl i ed no . Ce buh ara sk ed Dean ab o utthe s to l enr i fl es , a nd Dea n grant ed th e o ffi ce r s per m i ss i o n t o r et r i ev e th e g uns f r o m the fr o ntc l o se t. S ti ena l so ment i o ne d tha t th e h ou se had a br oke n w i nd ow and thatDean co oper ate d wi thhi m , a nd a l so s ta te d tha t susp ect D ean ha d a c ut on o ne o fhi s l egs . A tto rneyS ull i van cr oss - exam i ned S t i e n a b o utthe n a t ur e o fthe sound h e h e a r d a s h e a ppr o a c he d the r e s i de nc e a nd a l s o a t t e mpt e d u ns uc c e s sfull y t o getOffi cerS ti en to sa y that Dean r efused to co ns en t to the s ea r ch

. Det ective J o hn W as sn ert es ti fi ed th athe he ar d the bre aki ng o f g las s on the west s i de ofthe re si dence shor tl y b ef or e Dean’ s a pp re hensi on. W as sn erfurther m enti oned that, a fterCebuhar had i nfo rm ed hi m that Dean conse nted to the sea rch, W ass ner avo i ded shar ds ofN o. 07

- 3627 5 gl ass i n an at tem pt to ente r the ho use through the b ro ken w i nd ow on the w estsi de ofthe re si dence. D ean c al l ed J o se ph Ta y l o r, a wi ndo w re pai r m anwho sa i d he ha d ne ve r met Dean
. T ay l o r t es ti fi ed th ato n the Satu rd ay before the hearing he h ad i ns p ecte d De an ’s re si de n c e an d concl ud ed that none o fthe w i nd ows on the west si de had re centl y b een bro ke n . A fri end of D ean ’s, M elvin Brad ley, testifi ed th a t h e secu red De an ’s house after hi s ar re st and di d no t obs er ve an y b roken w i nd ow. Fi nal l y, Dean te sti fi ed thathe c l i m bed thr ough a wi n d o w o n th e we s t s i d e wi th o u t b r e a k i n g i t ; a f te r he w as caught, Dean sa i d, one ofthe offi cer s s ai d he had co m e f o r the g uns , b utDe anmade no r es po ns e to the o ffi ce r ’ s st at ement
. On cr o ss - ex am inat i o n De anmai nta i ne d tha t he i nj ure d hi s l egwhenhe fel l whi l e r unni ng f r o m hi s r es i d ence a nd no t f r o m c l i m bi ngthr o ug h a w i nd ow ofbr oke n gl ass . H e agr eed thathe ha d cooper ate d w ith th e p olic e th ro u gh ou t th e d ay o f h is ar re st, ac kn ow ledg e d h i s mul t i pl e fe l o nyc o nv i c t i o ns , a nd a l s o a dmi t t ed that at the t i m e o fhi s a rr esthe knew about the thr ee gu n s in h is c los et an d th e h er oin e l s e w h er e inh is re siden ce . On r edi r ec t ex ami na ti o n, D ea n ment i o ne d tha t he had ex peri ence w i th the pol i ce a nd had l ear ned that offi cer s nee ded per m i ssi on t o sea rch his p re m i ses i fthey did nothave a w ar ra nt. I n a r g ui ngDe an ’ s m otion, S ul l i va n i ns i st ed th atthe offi cer s’ te sti m ony w as not cre d ibl e be cause tw o w i tnesse s t est i fi ed that no window i n Dean’s r esi dence h ad r ecent l y b een dam age d. Sul l i van al so conte nd ed that Dean, wh o w as f am i l i arwith the la w of sea rch and sei zure ,6 N o. 07

- 3627

w ou ld h av e k n ow n th at t h e p o l i c e c ou ld n ot en te r h is house once he was outs i de. The t r i alj udg e was uns ur e whethe r De anha d b r o k ena w i nd ow as he l eft hi s ho use, but the cour t di d m ake a fi ndi ngtha t th e o ffi ce r s ha d h eard ei th era l um i num c r a s h i n g o r a wi n d o w b r e a k i n g a n d u l t i ma t e l y c o ncl ud ed that the c ondit i on o fthe w i nd ow d id n ot aff ect th e o ffi ce r s’ c r edibi l i ty
. As t o whethe r De anha d c o nsente d to the s ear ch, the cour t cr edi ted th e te sti m ony of Of fi ce r s Ceb uha r a nd S ti en ; the c ou rtr ea so ne d tha t th e two wi tn es se s wer e ex per i en ce d o ffi ce r s, the i r di ff er en t posi ti ons i n the pol i ce depar tm ent render ed unli kel y a c olla b or at i v e e ffor t t o fa b ric at e a st or y, an d th eir te st im ony had ap p eared to be tru t h fu l. In cont rast, the cou rt r ea so ne d tha t Dea n’s pr i o r fel o ny c o nv i ct i o ns , hi s st r o ng i ncenti ve to conco ct a st or y, and t h e i nj ury he sust ai ned on th e d ay of his ar re st se em ed to u n d er m in e h is c re d ibili ty. The co urt hel d that the go ver nm ent h ad sa ti sfi ed i ts burden ofpro ofand est abl i shed th at Dean conse nted to the s ea r ch

. Fol l o wi ngthe s uppr es si o n h ea r i ngthe di st r i ctc o urt gr anted Dean’ s r equest f ora substi tute appo in te d l aw yer b ec au se D ea n st at e d th at h e h ad lost co n fid en c e in Sul l i van and ir re conci l abl e co m m unica ti on di ffi cul ti es per si st ed be twe enthe m . De an then m o ve d f o r r ec o nsid er atio n ofthe rul i ng o n hi s m oti on t o supp re ss becau se, D ean a r g ue d , he w as p rej ud iced by Sulli van ’s ha ndl i ngo fthe ma tter. The c o ur t den i ed th e m o ti o n, st at i ngtha t S ul l i va n h ad pr es en te d wi tn es se s su ppo r ting Dean’s ve rs i on o fev ents. Dean then e nter ed a c ondit i onalN o. 07

- 3627 7 g ui l t y p l e a a nd wa s f o un d gui l t y o fp o s s e s s i ngthe we a po ns a nd w as se nt en ce d to a te r m of1 20 months ’ i m pr i so nm ent. On a ppea l Deanar g ue s tha t the di st r i ctco ur t’ s r ea so ni ng in s u p p or t of its fin d in g th at h e c on se n te d to th e s ea rc h is fl aw ed f or the f ol l owing re aso ns: ( 1) Cebuhar and Sti en h a d mo t i v e t o l i e ab o u tc o n s e n tb e c a u s e th e y w e r e e mplo yed i n the sam e pol i ce depar tm en t and wanted to en su r e th atthe c o ur t woul d u p hold the s ea r ch, ( 2) the offi cer s’ f ai l ure to obt ai n w ri tte n conse nt to se ar ch f or the guns und er m i ned thei r cre dibi l i ty, (3) Dean was u n like ly to h av e c on se n te d kn ow in g t h a t h er oin w ou ld al so h av e been f ound, and (4 ) two purport edl y unbi ase d w itness es supp or ted Dean’ s co ntenti on that he did not bre ak a w i nd ow. A s to the f ourth re aso n, how ev er , D ean ackno w l edges that the window ’ s co nd i ti on does not have a di re ct c onnecti on t o the credibi l i ty ofthe offi cer s’ co nt en ti o n tha t he c o ns en te d t o the s ea r ch

. It is wel l se ttl ed that the g ove rnm ent m ay conduct a w ar ra n tle ss se ar c h if ve rb al con se n t is give n . Sc hne ck l ot h v
. B ust am onte, 41 2 U .S. 21 8, 22 2 (1 97 3); U nited S ta tes v . Ren k en , 47 4 F .3d 98 4, 98 6-8 7 (7th C ir. 20 07 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vi l l egas , 38 8 F.3d 317, 32 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The i ssue here i s o ne o f cre dibi l i ty; t h e tw o offi cer s t est i fi ed that Dean had gi ven or alcon se n t; Dean sai d he did not

. W e deferto a dist ri ct cour t’ s c redibi l i ty fi nd i ngs m ade duri ng a supp re ssi on hear i ng unl ess theyar e cl ear l y e rr oneo us. U nite d S t at e s v. G rov es , 530 F.3d 50 6, 51 0 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. B er nitt, 392 F.3d 87 3, 87 8 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ). In d ee d , w e w ill up hol d th e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s cho i ce o fwh om to bel i eve8 N o. 07

- 3627

u n les s t h e c ou rtcr ed ite d ex c e e d in gly im p ro b ab le t es tim on y b e c a us e the t r i a l c o ur t i s i n the b e s t po s i ti on t o m ak e th at j u d gm en t. U nited Sta tes v. M o ntes , 38 1 F
. 3d 631, 63 7 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Thor nt on , 19 7 F
. 3d 241, 2 4 7( 7 th Ci r . 1 9 9 9 )
. As we ha v e s a i d, “ [ w] e do n o ts e c o nd

g ue ss the s en te nc ing j udg e’ s cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o ns because he o r she has had the bes t o pp or tuni ty to obs er ve the v erbaland non- verbalbehav i oro fthe w i tness es f o cus i ngo n the s ubj ec t’ s r ea ct i o ns a nd r es po ns es t o the in te r r o g at o r i es , the i r f ac i ale xpr es si o ns , a tt i tu des , t o ne of v oic e, ey e c on ta c t, p os tu re an d bo d y m ov em en ts , as w ell as c on fused orner vous speech patt er ns i n contr ast w i th m er el y l oo ki ng atthe col d pages of a n appell ate re cor d.” U ni t e d St at e s v. Wo o ds , 233 F.3d 482 , 484 (7th C ir. 2000 ) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). I n th is case the district cou rt cred ited t h e tw o officers for m an y rea s o n s: (1) th ey w ere exp erience d officers f ro m di ff er en t divi si ons and w oul d thus be l ess l i kel y t o col l abor ate and f abr i cate a sto ry, and (2) they had appeare d to t es ti fy t r uthful l y . And, i nde ed, the r ec o r d pr o vi des no e v i d e n c e th a tth e y h a d t e s t i fi e d u n t r u th fu l l y a ta n y t i me b efo re the hear i ng. I n contr ast, the cour t r eas oned that Dean’s pri orfel ony convi cti ons, hi s s tr ong i ncenti ve to c o nc o c ta s t o r y , a nd h i s l e gi nj ur y und er mi ne d h i s c r e dibi l i ty
. Al to g ethe r, i t was pe r f ec tl y r at i o nal forthe d ist ric t c ou rtto h av e b elie ve d th at D ea n ’ s d e s ire to av oid a n o t h er co n vic tio n p ro vid ed a gr ea te r m ot ive for h im to f a b r i c a t e a s t o r y tha n a nymo t i v e tha tc o ul d b e a t tr ibu t e d t o t h e o ffice rs . See U nited Sta tes v. B a ss , 32 5 F
. 3d 847, 84 9- 50 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3) ( upho l di ngdi st r i ctc o ur t’ s fi ndi ng th at officer’s testim ony w as m ore cred ibl e th an a felon’s). The re st ofDean’ s a rg um ents f ailbec ause none o fthemN o. 07

- 3627 9 ris es to th e le ve l o f m ak in g t h e o ffice rs ’ st or y e x c ee d in gly i m probabl e. Cebuhar’ s e xplanat i on that Dean’ s o ra l co ns en t i n fr o nt o ft wo o ffi ce r s r en der ed wri tt enc o ns en t unnecessar y, and that the e xpe d ien t nature ofthe si tuatio n r endered i t i nconveni ent, supports the concl usi on th at t h e a b se n c e o f w rit te nco n se n t d id n ot su b st an tia lly und er m i ne the o ffi cer s’ cr ed ibi l i ty. W ri tte n conse nt, o f c ou rs e, is n ot co n st itu tio n a l l y re q u ire d

. Se eVi l l egas , 38 8 F. 3d at 324; Uni t e d S t at e s v . Pr ice, 5 4 F
. 3d 342, 34 6- 47 ( 7th Cir
. 19 95)
. Dean’ s co oper ati ve dispos i ti on a t the ti m e o f his ar re st sugge sts thathe b el i eve d i t was be tte r to al l ow th e p olic e t o re tr iev e t h e g u n s, ev en th ou gh h e w as w ell aw ar e that guns and drugs were w i thi n the house. Final l y, al though Dean di d prese nt two witnes ses wh o tes ti fi ed th atthe r e was no b r o k enwi ndo w a t hi s ho us e, e ve n h e concedes that the e xact c ondit i on o fth e w i nd ows w as at m ostper i pheralto the questi on o fco nsent. Dean al so ar gues that the dist ric t co urt abused i ts di screti o n whe n i t r ul ed th atDe anha d f ai l ed to pr es en t f acts , cas e l aw , and re aso ni ng su bsta nti aleno ugh to w ar ra nt the gra n ting ofthe m oti on t o re consi der. Dean a r g u e s th a tS u l l i v a n ’ s p e r f o r ma n c e wa s d e fi c i e n tf o r t he f ol l owing re ason s: ( 1) S ull i van’ s pro f or m a wri tte n subm i ssi ons w er e cur sor y a nd i ll-p repared, ( 2) S ull i van f ai l ed to vi gor ousl y c ro ss- exam i ne Cebuhar’ s e xplanat i on f o r no t se ek i ngwri tt enc o ns en t, ( 3) i n a r g ui ngthe mot i o n, Su lliva n d id n ot refe r to th e o ffice rs ’ failu re to ob ta in w ri tte n conse nt or thei r m oti ve to l i e, and ( 4) the dist ri ct cour t ag re ed to Dean’ s r equest to re pla ce S ull i van. Dean also conte nd s tha t S u lli van ’s al leged ly d efi cient perform ance pr ej ud i ced hi m bec ause he pl eaded gui l ty onl y a s a r esul t of counsel ’ s f ai l ure to w i n the m oti on t o supp re ss.10 N o. 07

- 3627 Dean’s ar gum ent f ai l s be cause he poi nts t o no s hor tcom i ng i n Sul l i van ’s pre senta ti on that co uld have changed the outco m e. The sup p re ssi on hea ri ng tur ned on the questi on o fa cre dibi l i ty j ud gm en t. M oti ons to supp re ss need not be e l abor ate o r eve n w ri tte n, and Dean has f ai l ed to dem onst ra te that a l onge r w ri tt en subm i ssi on m i ght ha ve al ter ed the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s cr edibi l i ty fi ndi ngb ecau se th ati ss ue was r es o l ve d a t th e he ar i ng aft er ex te n siv e t es tim on y. Se e U ni t e d St at es v. Banks , 40 5 F.3 d 5 59 , 5 68 (7 th C ir. 20 05 ); Johnson v. N orris , N o. 07

- 3058 , 2008 W L 31661 52, at* 6 ( 8th Ci r. A ug. 8, 2 008). N ordoes D ean exp lai n how a m ore-vigorous ch all en ge to C ebu ha r’s expla nati on f ornoto btai ni ng wri tte n cons en t t o sea rch w oul d have a l te re d the di str i ct c ourt ’ s fi nd i ng. S ull i van ask ed Cebuhar about his fai l ure to obt ai n w ri tte n conse nt, an d the di st r i ctc o ur t he ar d Ce buh ar ’ s ex planation

. The co u r t received allof th e inform ation it need ed to det erm in e t h e p lau sib ility of h i s t es tim on y. Sim ilar ly it is u n lik ely th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtn ee d ed an ex p licit re m in d er d u rin g a rg u m en ts th at w rit te n co n se n t w ou ld ha ve b o ls t ered Ce bu ha r’s credibili ty or that th e officers had a m oti ve to l i e a n d in fa ct di d prevar i cate
. Final l y, D ea n ’s d ifficu lty ge tt in g a lon g w ith Su lliva n an d h is prefer ence f orsubst i tute c ou nseldoes notr efl ect on S u l liva n ’s p er for m an c e. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. H us t on , 28 0 F.3d 116 4, 1168 ( 7th Cir. 2002). W e uphol d the d en ial ofDean’ s m oti on t o supp re ss a nd A FFIRM hi s co nv i ct i o n.

12- 17- 08