### In the



# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

No. 13-1148

U NI T E D S TAT E SOF A M E RI C A , Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v.

F E R N E L L A. S TAR

N E S , Defen dant-Appellant.
Appe al f ro m the Uni ted S tates Distri ct Co urt fo r the Nor thern Distri ct o f Il l i noi s, Western Di v i sio n. No. 3: 09 -cr- 50 01 5- 1 — Frederic k J. K apa la , Judg e.

A RGU E D N OV E MB E R 8, 2013

— D E C I D E D D E C E MB E R 23, 2013
Before P O S N E R

, R OVN E R

, and W I L L I AM S

, Circ uit Judges. R OVN E R , Cir cui t Judge. After receiving ci tizen complaints of drug tr affi cki ng, the Rockfor d P olic e Department arr anged an undercov er contro lled purchas e of crack cocaine from a low er lev el apartment at 922 Nort h C hu r ch St reet in Rockfor d, Illi noi s. Three days later , the poli ce secu red a w a r r a nt to 1

As we r eci te the f acts in this case, i t occ urs to us tha t this i s a go od time 1 to remi nd the b ar tha t judges, li ke m ost other pe opl e, p refe r to read bri efs (co ntinued. ..)2 No. 13-1148
search “ 922 N. Church St reet low er apartment, Rockfor d Illi noi s.” The w arr ant described the premi ses to be searched as
a “tw o stor y

, t w o -fam i ly dwelling, whi te wi th black tr i m, located on the w est si de of stre e t with the numb ers ‘922’ appearin g on the fro nt of the re si dence w i th low er apar tment being l ocated on the ground floor .” The low er apar tment w as actually the low er lev el of a tw o -s t o r y house that had been
conv ert ed from a single fami ly re si dence into a t w o-flat. The poli ce knew th at they w ould be facing tw o obstacles when they executed the search. The fi rst w as that mere hour s before the planned rai d, a shooting occu rr ed at the resi dence. P olic e offi cers conduc tin g r a ids assu me that drug dealers are armed (and the assumpti on i s gener ally corr ect, as w eapons
are a necess ary too l of the d r ug t rade. United States v
. Gulley, 722 F .3d 901, 908 (7th Ci r
. 2013)), but the recent shooting i ncreased the ris k that the w eapons w ere loaded and ready and t he possess or s of those w eapons w ere agitated and on hi gh alert

. The poli ce offi cers also knew that tw o aggr essi v e pi t bulls li v ed on the pr emi ses.

( ...c onti nued) 1 wri tten i n straightfo rward, pl ain l anguage and not l egalese. Begi nning each sentence with the word “that” or prece di ng each previo usly descri b ed
conce pt with the word “said ,” and other od di tie s stereo typic all y ass oci ated with l awy ers, di srupts the fl ow of a b ri ef and thus weakens i ts i mpact. The

sam e i s true when a b ri ef reci tes the facts b y descri b i ng each witness’ testimo ny pi ecemeal rather tha n b y tel l i ng a story chrono l ogi call y. As judge s we are ab l e to di v or ce the di stracting te xt fro m the content i n
eva l uating a case, b ut the ro l e of a prudent adv ocate i s to ma ke th e court’s jo b easier , not more di ffi cul t. There are many i l l uminating b oo ks on wri ting eff ecti v e b ri efs and every pr ac titi oner b efo re this Co urt woul d b e wise to i nv est a few ho urs i n readi ng one.No. 13-1148 3
After knocking on the front door of the house and receiving
no response, inv esti gato rs forced their w ay into the bui l d ing

. The fi rst offi cer to enter the house found hi mself in a sm all foy er wi th tw o open door s. One door led to the fi rst floor apartme nt

. Th e other door led to an ini tial set of ascen ding stai rs, four or fi v e of whi ch were v i si ble before they turned at a landing. The offi ce i mmedi ately e ncountered a pi t bull who i ni tiall y turned and ran aw ay from the offi cer , t hrough the open door to the stai rw ay , and up a few steps tow ard the upper apartment, before alter ing course and chargin g tow ard the offi cer
. The offi cer sh o t and kill ed the dog on the fi rst landing and then proceeded up those same stai rs to perfor m a prot ecti v e sweep of the up per apartment. As he ran thro ugh the ki tchen of the upper apartment, he notic ed on the c ounter
v ar io us mixi ng bowls, sev eral large chu nks of an off-whi te
su bs tance, some scales and rubber gloves

. In the bedroo m he di scov e r e d t he defendant, Fer nell St arnes, and a w oman in bed. The offi cer detain ed St arnes and the w oman and escorted them downstai rs. O t he r o ffi cers then left to seek a second

w arr ant to search the upstai rs apartment, leaving one offi cer behind at the bott om of the stai rs to prev ent any one from enter i ng the apar tment. Whi le some offi cers w ere seeki ng the second w arr ant, other detectiv e s sear ched the low er apartment (for whi ch they already had a w arr ant) and sei zed tw o se mi- automatic rifles, tw o loaded ammu ni tion magazi nes, a loaded .45 cali ber semi automatic hand gun, and drug tr affi cking paraphernalia. After e x e cuting the search w arr ant on the second floor , the offi cers sei zed St arnes’ photo i denti fi cati on car d s, approx i

-4 No. 13-1148 mately 290 gr ams of co caine, 72.5 gr ams of cocaine base, $36,186 i n cas h, and more drug t raffi cking parapher nali a. The gover nm e nt charged St arnes wi th possess i on wi th i ntent to di strib ute cocaine in violati on of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)( 1), possess i ng a fi rear m as a felon in violati on of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and possess ing a fi rear m in furtherance of a drug tr affi cki ng offense i n violat i on of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1)( A). St arnes mov ed to supp ress the evidenc e sei zed from the second floor after the execution of the s econd search w arr ant. After an evide nt ia r y hearin g, the di stric t court deni ed the motion to supp ress. E ven t ually St arnes enter ed a gui lty plea bu t r e serv ed hi s right to challen ge the deni ed motion. The low er court sentenced St arnes to serv e consec uti ve se ntences of 63 months on Count 1, and 60 months on Count 2. He now challen ges the di stric t court’s ruli ng on the motion to supp ress, arg uing that the evidenc e sei zed from t he upper apartment could not be consi dered becau se inv esti gato rs ini tiall y enter ed the apartment wi thout a w arr ant or any other lawfu l reason to enter

. W e rev i ew de nov o a di stric t court's legal conclu si on t ha t the poli ce acted reasonably in perfor ming a prot ecti v e sweep. United Stat es v
. T

apia, 610 F .3d 505, 510 (7th Ci r
. 2010). And w e
rev i ew factual questi ons for clear err or
. United States v
. Delgado , 701 F .3d 1161 , 1 1 64 (7th Ci r
. 2012). Questi ons about whether the part icu l ar ci rcums tances supp or ted a w arr antless search often i nv olv e mi xed questi ons of law and fact, whi ch w e
rev i ew de nov o. Id. Our analysis start s wi th the presumpti on that w arr antless searches and sei zures wi thi n a h om e vi ol a te the Fo u rth Am e n d-No. 13-1148 5
ment’s prohibi tion again st unreasonable searches and sei zures unles s they fall into one of the numerous exceptions, inclu ding prot ecti v e sweeps. Kentu cky v
. Kin g, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1856 (2011). A prot ecti v e sweep i s a qui ck and li mi ted search of p r e mises conduc ted to pr o t ect the safety of poli ce offi cers or other s. Maryla nd v
. Bui e , 4 9 4 U.S. 325, 327 (1990). Under certain ci rcums tances such a s w eep i s per mi ssi ble because leg i tim ate go v e rnm ental i ntere sts outw ei gh an indi vidu al’s intere st in the prot ecti on of the Four th Amendment. Id. at 331. In gener al, the Four th Amendment permi ts a prot ecti v e sw eep i f the searching offi cer possess ed a reasonable beli ef based on s peci fi c and art i culab le facts whi ch, taken tog ether wi th the rat io nal inferences from those facts, reasonably w arr anted the offi cer in believi ng that the area swept harbor ed an indi vidu al posing a danger t o the o ffi cer or other s. Id. at 327 (internal ci tations omi tte d); T apia, 610 F .3d at 510, Leaf

v
. Sheln utt, 400 F .3d 1070, 1086 (7th Ci r
. 2005). The sweep mus t also be just ifie d by more than a “mere inchoate and unparticulari zed sus pi ci on or hunch,” reg arding the danger

. Buie, 494 U.S. at 332, T

apia, 610 F .3d at 510. The search mus t be cursory , lasting no longer than i s necess ary to di spel t he reasonable sus pi ci on of danger

. Buie, 494 U.S. at 335–36; T apia, 610 F .3d at 5 1 0. It mus t also be li mi ted to a cursory vis ual i nspec tion of places where a person mi ght be hi ding. Buie, 494 U.S. at 327; T

apia, 610 F .3d at 510. The inqui ry i s an exceptionally fact-intensi v e one in whi ch

w e mus t analyze myriad factors inclu ding, among other consi derat i ons, t he confi gurat i on of the dw e l l ing, the gener al6 No. 13-1148
surroundi ngs, and the oppor tuni ties for ambu sh. United States
v
. B urrows , 48 F .3d 1011, 1016 (7th Ci r
. 1995). An ambu sh in a confine d set tin g of unknown confi gurat i on i s just such a si t ua t i on i n whi ch an offi cer mi ght need to perfor m a prot ectiv e sw eep. Buie, 494 U.S. at333, T apia, 610 F .3d at 511.
In thi s case there w ere many other sub st a nt ial, par ticular

i zed factors that w ould allow a reasonable offi cer to conclu de that he, hi s fellow offi cers, or another bystander mi ght face danger

. First, the offi cers had reliab le information tha t drugs

w ere being so l d fr o m the low er uni t of the house and that a shooting had occurred on the premi ses just a few hours prior

. Th e offi cers had also been informed that there w er e t w o aggr essiv e pi t bulls on the premi ses and that only one had been sub dued. The door s to both the se co nd floor and fi rst floor apartments w ere open, and the tw o apartments had been

carv ed out of a former single fami ly home. In fact, i t appeared to some of the offi cers as though the home mi ght be being used

as one uni t (and i ndeed, i t turns out that i t w as). Mor eov er , the poli ce could not hav e known for certain whether there w ere other poin ts of acces s betw e e n the tw o uni ts, such as a back stai rcase or a fi re escape, and whether , there fore, a dangero us dog or person mi ght be moving betw een the tw o uni ts. In fact, the aggr essi v e dog i ni tiall y ran tow ard the upstai rs apartment i ndi cati ng that the dog mi ght be prot ecting so meo ne on the upstai rs floor

. Fin ally

, becau se one of the detectiv es w as forced to fi re multi ple shots at an attacking dog i mmedi at e ly after enter i ng the house, the o ff icer s knew that any occupan ts qui ckly w ould hav e been alert ed to their presence by the gunfi re.No. 13-1148 7
Furt hermor e, the se a r ch i tself appear s t o hav e been shor t, cursory , and li mi ted to only those places that a person mi ght be hi ding. See Buie, 494 U.S. at 335–36. The sweepi ng offi cer ran thro ugh the apart ment look ing briefly into the bathroo m, t he kitch en, and the bedroo m. He di d not need to open any cabinets or draw e r s or touch anythin g to see the sus pi ci ous look i ng whi te sub stance and drug-sellin g p a ra phernali a on the kitch en counter

. Once the poli ce di scov ered St arn e s and hi s compani on, they secu red and removed them i mmedi ately and

v acated the upper uni t. In th e meanti me, all of the poli ce offi cers r emained o utsi de of the second- floor apartment until the courti ssu ed the w arr ant. One police offi cer w as stati oned

a t the landing of the ascen ding stai rs to ensure that no on e enter ed. Thi s case i s the frater nal twin of our deci si on in T apia, 610 F .3d at 505. I n that case, the Rockfor d poli ce approached the resi denc e of a drug dealer and convic ted felon armed wi th a
w arr ant to arr est, bu t not search. Upo n ar riving at the house, the poli ce no tic ed another gang member’s v ehi cle parke d in the driv ew ay

. After a few min ut e s of knocking on the front door , a poli ce offi cer stationed at another location outsi de the house notic ed that someone ha d j ust exited the basem ent. Moments later

, havin g w a l k ed out of the basem ent stai rw ell and thro ugh the li ving ro om, the defendant, T api a, opened the front door

. The poli ce arr ested T api a and perfor med a prot ectiv e sweep of the rest of the resi dence, inclu ding the basem ent where T api a had been, and di scov ered a gun. Jus t as the poli ce di d here, the Rockf or d poli ce ret urned wi th a search w arr ant to conduct a complete search of the h ouse. Due to the dis covery of the gun, the government ch a r g e d T api a wi th being a8 No. 13-1148
felon i n po sses si on of a fi rear m. T api a, li ke St arnes, mov ed to supp ress the evidenc e of the gun, arg uing that the prot ecti v e
sweep of the basement w as un reasonable. Id. at 507–08. Jus t as i s the case here, the holding in T apia w as v ery much fact-depend ent. The court conclu ded that the offi cers had
reason to beli ev e that other gang members could be present at the house and pose a thr e a t to offi cers. The conclu si on w as supp or ted by the following facts: T api a w as the leader of a gang and o n p aro le for a 2005 unlaw ful use of w eapons convic tion; he w as li ving in the basem ent of the resi dence wi th other gang members; T api a’ s gang and riv al gang members had recently been shooting at each other on nearby street s; there w as a Lincoln N a v ig a tor in the driv ew ay whi ch the poli ce thought belonged to a fellow gang mem be r and w as large enough to hold fi v e or si x p e o p l e ; T api a emerge d from the basem ent. The court conclu ded that the offi cers had reason to beli ev e that armed gang members could be in the basem ent and therefor e mi ght po se a threatto t he poli ce. The T apia court speci fi cally rej ected the defendant’s arg ument that the o ff ice rs could hav e adequately prot ected themselv es sim ply by guarding the basem ent door

. Sim i larly , i n thi s case the di stric t court deter mined that t he r e w as goo d
reason to beli ev e that secu ring the door to the second floo r apa r t ment wi thout doin g a prot ecti v e sweep may not hav e been effecti v e and could hav e subjected the offi cers to ambu sh.
In T api a we relied heavily on another fact-intensi v e finding i n the seminal case of Buie

. In B u i e , tw o men—one w earing a red running sui t—commi tte d an armed ro bbery

. The offi cers
ev entual ly secu red an arr est w arr ant for Bui e and afterNo. 13-1148 9
confi rmi ng that he w as home, enter ed the house to arr est hi m. Once i nsi de, sev eral offi cers fanned out thro ugh the fi rs t and second floor s. One offi cer st ood at the top of the basem ent stai rs and or de re d a ny one hi ding there to come out. Ev entually B ui e emerge d and w as arr ested. A second offi cer enter ed the basem ent and perfor med a prot ecti v e sweep to ensure that no
one remain ed hi dden. Whi le there , he notic ed a red running sui t in p l a in sight o n a stack of clothi ng. Recognizing the ris k of ambu sh, the Supreme Court announc ed the holding that carries the day today : The Four th Amendment permi ts a proper ly li mi ted prot ecti v e sweep in conjuncti on wi th an in-home

arr est when the searching offi cer possess es a reasonable beli ef based on speci fi c and art i culab le facts that the area to be swept harbor s an indi vidu al posing a danger to t hose on the ar rest scene. Buie, 494 U.S. at 337. St arnes a r gues t hat Buie and T apia can be di stingui shed as they both addressed prot ecti v e sweeps inci dent to an arr est in
a home rat he r t han the execution of search w arr ant. The phi losophy behind a prot ecti ve sweep, how ev er , remain s the

same reg ardless of how the offi cers arr i v ed in the home. When offi cers enter the resi denc e of a cri minal sus pect and hav e
rea so n t o beli ev e that a particu lar area mi ght harbor an i ndi vidu al (or as i n thi s case, an indi vidu al and an ani mal) who poses a danger to the offi cers or other s, the Four th Amendment permi ts a qui ck and li mi ted prot ecti v e sweep. As the Supreme Court reasoned, offi cers who are in a cri minal sus pect’s home fa ce the di sadv antage of being on an adv ersary ’s turf a nd10 No. 13-1148
subject to ambu sh. Thus the co ns t itutionali ty of a prot ecti v e
sweep does not depend on whether that sweep i s inci dental to
a search w arr ant, an arr est w arr ant, or a consens ual search. See e.g. Leaf , 400 F

. 3 d at 1087. See also , United States v
. W erra , 638 F .3d 326, 350-351 (1st Ci r
. 2011) (stati ng that a prot ecti v e sweep i s proper whethe r a n arr est w arr ant, a search w arr ant, or exigent ci rcums tances prompt the agent’ s entry ); United States
v
. Caraba llo, 595 F .3d 1214, 1224 -1225 (11th Ci r
. 2010) (holding that o nc e legally on board a boat due to probable caus e and Flor i da mari ne law

, mari ne offi cers could perfor m a prot ecti v e
sweep); United Stat es v
. Gould, 364 F .3d 578, 593 (5th Ci r
. 2004) (allowing prot ecti v e sweep pursuant to consent e nt ry ) ( abrogated on other grounds by Kentu cky v
. Kin g, 131 S. Ct. 1849, 1861 (2011)) ; United S tat es v
. T aylor , 248 F .3d 506, 513 (6th Ci r . 2001) (approv i ng prot ecti v e sweep by offi cer left behin d while

w arr ant w as sought after offi cers ini tiall y enter ed wi th consent); United States v
. Garcia , 997 F .2d 1273, 1282 (9th C ir

. 1993) (permi tting prot ecti v e sweep pursuant to consent entry ); United States v
. Patrick

, 959 F .2d 991, 9 9 6

– 9 7 (D.C. Ci r .1992) (uph oldi ng a prot ecti v e search where poli ce were lawfu lly on premi ses pursuant to consent) ( abr ogat ed on other g rounds by Apprendi v
. Ne w Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000))

. What matter s are the speci fi c facts that w ould giv e a reasonable offi cer , who i s lawfu lly i nsi de a home, a “reasonable beli ef bas ed on speci fi c and art i cula ble facts whi ch, take n tog ether wi th the rat i onal i nferences from those facts, reasonably w arr ant[] the offi cer in beli eving that the area swept harbor ed an indi vidu al posing a danger to the offi cer or other s.” Buie, 494 U.S. at 327 (internal ci tations omi tte d).No. 13-1148 11
St arnes’ arg uments about inconsi stenci es in the detectiv es’ descri ption of the prot ecti v e sweep and i ts rat i o na l e are i rr elev ant. As long as the offi cer had a reasonable beli ef of the danger , based on speci fi c art i culab le facts, any inconsi stenci es in his r e p o rt i ng do not matter

. See Id. at 327. As w e noted abov e, a bevy o f facts supp or ts the conclu si on that such a
sweep w as reasonable and prudent. I n a ny ev ent, the di stric t court found credible the detectiv e’s explanation that he swept the upper apartment for potent i al threat s and that the search consti tuted a pr ote cti v e sw eep i rr especti v e of the fact t hat hi s repo rt di d not use thi s preci se ter m. W e giv e speci al deference to the di stric t court’s deter minati ons of cred i b i l i ty

. United States
v
. Groves , 530 F .3d 506, 510 (7th Ci r
. 2008). W e see no reason to upset the di stric t court’s rat i onal and well-reasoned fin d ings on these facts i f su ch findings were indeed nec essary
. W e conti nue to r e co g niz e that “the sweep i s a devic e that

can easi ly be perv ert ed to ach iev e ends other than those acknowledged as legiti mate in Buie .” Burrows , 48 F .3d at 1017. Thi s opin i on nei ther expands nor contracts law enforcement’s right to perfor m such a sweep. Regar dless of the context of an offi cer’s entry i nto a home, the same conci se st a nd ard announced in Buie stands: The Four th Amendment permi ts a proper ly li mi ted prot ecti v e sweep in conjuncti on wi th an in-home

arr est when the searching offi cer possess es a reasonable beli ef based on speci fi c and art i culab le facts that the area to be swept harbor s an indi vidu al posing a danger to t hose on the ar rest scene. Buie, 494 U.S. at 337.12 No. 13-1148 The judgment of the dis tr i ct court isaffi rmed.