## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08

- 4135 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. B R I AN L. B URNS I DE , D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the C entral D istricto f Illino is. No . 1:07- cr-10110

—Jo e Bil ly Mc Dad e, Judge .
A RGUED S EP TE MBE R 25, 2009

— D ECI DE D D ECE MBE R 4, 2009

Be f or e E A S T E RB R OO K, Chie f Judg e, an d K ANNE an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges . K ANN E , Circuit Judg e . Whi l e o n pa r o l e f o ra c o ca i ne dist ributi on co nvi cti on and fo l l owing m onths ofpol i ce i nvest i gati on, defendant Bri an Burnsi de w as ar re ste d f orposs ess i on o fa contr ol l ed substa nce. In a s ear ch i nci dent to hi s a rr est, pol i ce found la rg e a m ou n ts of cra ck coca i ne o n Burnsi de’s per son. Poli c e then s ear ched Bu rns ide’s r esi dence w here theyr eco ver ed m or e cr ack2 N o. 08

- 4135

c oc ain e, co c ain e, a h an d g u n , an d m or e t h an $3 0,0 00 in cash. A federa lgr and j ury charg ed Burnsi de i n a onecount ind i ctm ent with posse ssi on o fm or e than fi fty gr am s o f cr ac k c oc ain e w ith th e i n t e n t t o d ist rib u te
. See 21 U
. S. C. §§ 841( a) ( 1) , (b) ( 1) ( A )
. Burnsi de fi l ed a m oti on to supp re ss evi dence, ar guing tha t the o ffi cer s l acke d p ro b ab le c au se for h is a rre st . H e a lso arg u ed t h at h is unl awfula r r es t ta i nt ed bo ththe e vi den ce f ou nd inc i den t to th at ar r es t an d th e se ar ch war r an t l at er o bt ained

. The d ist ric t c ou rtd en ie d t h e m ot ion . B u rn sid e e ve n tu ally pl e d gui l t y t o the c ha r g e a nd wa s l a t e rs e nt e nc e d. Bu rnsi de ar gues on a pp ealthatthe distri ct c ourter ro neousl y deni ed the m oti on t o supp re ss. H e al so see ks to w i thdraw his gui l ty p lea, ar gui ng tha t the di str i ct cour t j ud ge i napp ro pri ate l y par ti ci pated i n the ple a co l l o quy . W e fi nd no mer i t to Bur ns ide ’ s cl ai m s, a nd we a ffi r m.
I. B ACK GR OUN D B ria n B u rn sid e w as a c ra c k c oc ain e d ea ler . In J uly20 07, P eo ria Pol i ce Offi cerChad Batte rham re cei ved i nfo rm ati on from two co nfi denti ali nfo rm ants perta i ni ng to Burnsi de’s drug acti vi ti es. Both info rm ants i den ti fi ed Bur ns i de as a hi g h- vo l um e cr ac kc o ca in e deal er . The fi rs t info rm ant s ai d that Burnsi de w as a coca i ne deal eri n the Peor i a a re a a nd thathe was se l l i ngs ev eral k i l o g r ams o fc o ca i ne pe rmonth. The i nfo rm ant a l so provi ded a detai l ed descr i pti on o f Bu rnsi de’s r esidence. The se cond i nfo rm ant knew Bu rnsi de by hi s s tr eet
- nam e, S hor ty Bank Rol l

. BecauseN o. 08

- 4135 3 of O ffice r B at te rh am ’s p er so n al k n o w l ed ge an d h is pol i ce ex peri ence i n Peor i a, as wellas a detai l ed physi caldescrip tio n prov i ded bythe i nfo rm ant, he was co nfi d entS ho r tyBa nkRo l lwas i n f ac t Bur ns i de. To furtherr efi ne hi s i denti fi cati on, Offi cerBatte rh am as ked the info rm ant t o sel ect a photo gr aph f ro m a photo ar ra y o fs i x men wi ths i m i l arc ha r ac te r i st i cs . The i nf o r m an t c h os e t h e p h o t og ra p h of B u rn sid e a n d id en tifie d h im as Sh or ty B an k R oll. Offi cerBatte rham l oca ted the r esi dence descr ibed by the tw o i nfo rm ants. H e per f or m ed a c he c k on the w hi te Cad i l l ac par ke d in the dri veway. The carwas re gi ste re d t o Te r r y Bu r ns i de , Br i a n Bu r ns i de ’ s b r o the r . I n a r e c o r ds c he c ko n the r e s i de nc e , Offi c e rBa t t e r ha m di s c o v e r e d a p oli ce rep ort of a p riorbu rglary in w hich Terry B urn side stated that the h ou se bel o n g e d to his brother, B rian. Finally, Offi cer B atterh am ran a crim inal history check on Burnsi de, wh i ch r eve al ed that Bu rnsi de w as c u rrentlyo n paro l e fro m a M i nnesot a co nvi cti on f or d istribut i ngc o ca i ne , a nd tha t he ha d fi ve pr i o rfel o ny drug co nvi cti ons. I n Septe m ber, 2007, th e Pe oria Police D ep artm en t’s Vice and N ar cot i cs Unit i ni ti ate d sur vei l l ance o f Bu rnsi de. Offi cer s obse rved and fo l l owed Burnsi de as he l eft hi s ho m e. S er gea nt Bainterand O ffice r M i l l er conducted thei r obs er vati on fro m tw o s ep ar ate unmar k ed po l i ce ve hi cl es . Bo th o ffi ce r s sa w a w om an, DeE va Hall am , approa ch Burnsi de’s ve hi cl e, lea n in for approxi m atel y thi rty t o f or ty seco nd s, and l eave car ry i ng a bro w n pla sti c g ro cer y b ag.4 N o. 08

- 4135

O ffic er M anion arr ived short ly afterthe tra n sac ti on betw een 1 Bu rnsi de and H all am took place

. T h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s b r i e fa l s o s t a t e s th a ti n s i de th e b r o wn 2 grocery bag w as a p las ti c b ag contai ning num erous plast icte aroffs. Aft erHal l am l eft Bur ns i de’ s ve hi cl e, Offi ce rM i l l era nd Off i c e rMan i o n s a w Ha l l a m t hr o w the b a gi n a n earby 1 du m pster
. Offi cerM i l l erthen sto pp ed H al l am and re cover ed th e ba g . Hal l am ex pl aine d tha t sh e r ec ei ved th e bag fro m a fri end w ho aske d her to thro w i t a w ay. Offi cer M i l l ers m el l ed a co ca i ne h yd r o ch l o r i de o do ro n the b ag, w h ich als o c o n t ain ed a kilo gr am w ra p p er , pu rp le ru b b er glo v e s , w etp ap er to w els , an d so d a c an s. A d d i- 2 tio n ally , he d isc ov er ed a ro c k of c oc ain e c l u t c h ed in H all a m’ s h a nd

. Offi cerM i l l eri nform ed Offi cerBatte rham o fthes e d evelop m en ts, w ho, in tu rn, alerted th e team of off ic e rs f o l l o wi ng Burn si de. W he n Offi ce r s All enba ug h a nd A rm entr out obs er ved Burnsid e fai lto si gnala turn, they acti vate d the l i ghts on thei r pol i ce v ehi cl e a nd at tem p ted to pul lBur ns ide o ve r ; ho wev er, Bur ns i de be g andr i ving er ra ti cal l y, sl owing dow n and then spee ding up . I t a lso appeared t o the o ffi cer s that B u rn sid e was tryi ng to call som ebod y on h is cell p hon e. E ven tu all y, th e officers bo xe d i n Burns i de, who a ppea r ed to at te m pt to g eto ut ofthe vehi cl e whil e i t was st i l lm oving. Bel i eving Burnsi de w as going to fl ee, o ffi cer s pul l ed Bu r ns i de o uto fthe c a r, f o r c e d h i m t o the g r o un d, and place d him in h an dcuff s. Burnsi de w as ar re ste d fo r po ss es si o n o fa c o nt r o l l ed subs ta nc e an d f o rdri vingN o. 08

- 4135 5 wi th o u ta v a l i d I l l i n o i s d r i v e r ’ s l i c e n s e . Wh i l e s e a r ch i ng Bu rnsi de, Offi cerA l l enbaugh ob ser ved an unusual “bul ge” i n Burnsi de’s pants, wh i ch Burnsi de cl ai m ed was a he r ni a. Al l enba ug h r emov ed th e o bj ect and f o und a lar ge pla sti c ba g c ontaini ng se ver ali nd i vi du albag s ofcr ack coca i ne. F e a r i ngBur ns i de ha d b y ce l lp ho ne i ns t r uc t e d s o meb o dy at his reside nc e to d e s t r oy any furt he r eviden ce, offi cers re turned t o th e house. A fterco nd ucti ng a prot ecti ve sw eep du ring w hich no o n e w as foun d , the offi cers soughtand re ceiv ed a sea rch w ar ra nt fro m a m agi str ate j ud ge. The o fficer s r el i ed on a l lo fthe evi dence r ecei ved u p to an d t h ro u gh th e a rre st of B u rn sid e a s p ro b ab le cause j usti fi cati on f orthe w ar ra nt. S ubs eque nt l y, the o ffi ce r s se ar ch ed th e hou se , s ei zing on e h alf ofa ki l ogr am o fcr ack coca i ne, o ne fullki l ogr am o fc o ca i ne , a ha ndg un, a nd mor e th an$ 30 , 00 0 i n c as h. Bu r ns i de n o w a r g ue s tha tn e i the ro fthe o ffi c er s h a d a va n ta ge p oin t fro m w h ich th ey co u ld d et er m in e if H al l am ha d b ee n c ar r y i ngthe b agpr i o rt o a ppr o ac hi ng Bur ns i de’ s ve hi cl e. Bur ns i de fur th era ss er ts tha t bo thhe an d H all am to l d po l i ce tha t sh e ha d b ee n c ar r y i ng two c ar to ns o fc i g ar et te s pr i o rt o a ppr o ac hi ngthe ve h icle , an d t h a t t h e t w o c ar to n s w er e la te r fou n d in Bu rnsi de’s ve hi cl e. Bu rnsi de al so ar gues that the pol i ce di d not hav e pr obabl e ca use t o c on du ct a Terrys to p a nd fr i sk, o r, i n the al ternati ve, thattheye x c eed ed the perm i ssibl e l i m i ts of the Terryst op by m ani p u lat i ng and r em oving the bul ge i n hi s pants.6 N o. 08

- 4135 Fi nal l y, Burnsi de ar gues t hat be cause offi cer s l acke d p robabl e ca use t o conduct the Terry s t o p a n d fr i s k , a ny evi dence f ound in the s ear ch ofthe re si dence ther eafter was “ fr ui t o fthe po i so no us t r ee . ” H e a l so a r g ue s th atthe o ffi ce r s’ f ai l ur e to i nc l ude th e pr o te ct i ve se ar ch i n the war r an t appl i ca ti o n pr o hibi ts the m fr o m r ely i ngo n the “go od f ai th” e xcepti on t o the e xcl usi onar y rule

.
II. A NA LYSIS Bu rnsi de ra i ses two i ssues on appeal

. Fi rs t, he a rgues that the di str i ct c ourter re d w hen i t d en i ed hi s m oti on t o su p p ress. S econ d , he argu es th at th e d istri ct cou rt’s par ti ci pat i o n in the pl ea c o l l o quyc o ns ti tu te s pl ain e rr o r . W e di sc us s ea cha r g um en t i n tur n.

A
. The M o tio n to Su pp ress W hen r evi ew i ng the d ist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fa m oti on to supp re ss, we re vi ew f actualfi nd i ngs forcl earerr or and l ega lquesti ons deno vo . U n it ed St ates v. M osby, 54 1 F.3d 764, 767 ( 7th C ir. 2008 ) ( ci t i ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. G rov es , 530 F.3d 50 6, 50 9 (7 th C ir. 20 08 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. M cIn tire, 51 6 F
. 3d 576, 5 78

- 79 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) )
. M i xed qu e s t i o ns o fl a w a nd f a c ta r e r e v i e we d d en o vo . U nited St at e s v. Fi as ch e, 5 2 0 F
. 3 d 6 9 4 , 6 9 7( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 )
. We acco rd speci aldefer ence to the di str i ct c ourt ’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons because the re so luti on o fa m oti on t o su p p re ss is alm os t a lw ay s a fac t-s p ec ific in q u iry , an d it i s the di str i ct c ourtwh i ch hear d t he te sti m ony and obse rv ed th e w itn es se s a t t h e s u p p re ss ion h ea rin g. U ni t edN o. 08

- 4135 7 State s v. Hendrix , 50 9 F
. 3d 362, 37 3 (7 th C i r. 20 07)
. A f actual fin d in g is c lea rly err on eo u s o n ly if, afte r c on sid er in g a ll th e ev i den ce , w e c anno t av o i d o ri g no r e a “de fi ni te a nd fi rm co nvi cti on that a m i sta ke has be en m ad e.” U nited S ta tes v. M arshall, 1 5 7F
. 3 d 4 7 7, 4 8 0

- 8 1 ( 7 th Ci r . 1 998) (in te rn al q u ot at ion m a r k s om itt ed ). W e fin d n o c re d ible r ea so n h er e to di sturb the di st r i ctc o ur t’ s den i alo fthe m oti on t o supp ress . W e a rr i ve at that deter m i nati on afte r consi deri ng two subs tanti ve i ssues : ( 1) wh ether o ffi c e r s h a d probabl e c a us e t o a r r e s tBu r ns i de , a nd p r o pe r l y s e a r c h e d B u r n s i d e i n c i d e n t t o th a t a r r e s t; a nd ( 2) whethe ro ffi ce r s ha d s uffi ci en t pr o babl e ca us e f o rthe sea rch w ar ra nt.

1. Th e A rres t and Search T h e d ist ric t c ou rtfou n d th at th e o f f ice rs h ad p ro b ab le ca us e t o a r r e s tBu r ns i de f o rp o s s e s s i o n o fa c o nt r ol l ed s ub s t a nc e . Ac c or di ng l y, i tf o l l o ws , a nd the c o ur th e l d, that the s ubsequ en t sei zure o fcr ack coca i ne fro m B u rn sid e’s p an ts w as law fu l. Bu rn side ar gues ( w eak l y, we thi nk, gi ven the f acts o f th i s c a s e ) tha tthe o ffi c e r s l a c k e d p r o b ab l e c a us e t o a rr est hi m. Bu r ns i de c o nc e de s , a s he mus t, tha t the po l i ce had re aso nabl e s uspic ion t o conduct a Ter ry st op d u e t o h is f ai l ure to si gnalwh en tur ni ng and bec ause they bel i eve d he w as dri vi ng with an i nval i d dri ver ’ s l i cense. SeeTerry v. O hio , 39 2 U
. S
. 1 ( 1 9 6 8 )
. B u tB u r n s i d e c l a i ms th at any e vi dence co l l ecte d by the pol i ce pr i or t o t he stop w a s i n su ffici en t to arrest him f or poss ession of a contr ol l ed subs tance. H e a l so ar gues that because he was8 N o. 08

- 4135

u n law fu lly ar re st ed , th e e vid en c e g at h er ed from h im dur i ng the pa t
- do wn s ub s e qu e nt t o hi s a r r e s t must be s up pr e s s e d. “T h e F ou rt h A m en d m en t p ro h ibit s u n re as on ab le sea rche s o r seiz ures , and cour ts excl ud e e vi dence ob ta in ed th ro u gh an u n re as on ab le s ea rc h or s eiz u re .” M osby, 54 1 F .3 d at76 7. But see Guzm an v. City of Chi cago, 565 F. 3d 393, 39 8 (7th C i r. 20 09) ( noting tha t “ [ e] xcl usi on i s no t a ne ce ssa r y c o ns eque nc e o fa F o ur thAm en dm en t vi ol ati on, and the benefi ts ofexcl usi on m ust o utw ei gh the c ost s. ” ( ci t i ng He r r i ng v. U ni t e d S t at es , 129 S. Ct. 69 5, 70 0 (2 00 9))) . H ow ev er , po lice m ay a r r e st an ind ivid u al if they have probabl e ca use t o bel i eve that the i nd i vi du al en ga ge d in cr im in al c on d u c t, M osby, 541 F. 3d at 767, as an ar re st supp or ted byp robabl e ca use i s r eas onabl e byi ts ve ry n at u re , see A twa te r v. C ity of Lago Vis ta , 53 2 U.S
. 31 8, 354 ( 2001 ) ( “I fan o ffi cerhas probabl e ca use t o bel i eve that an i nd i vi du alhas com m i tte d e ven a ve rym i nor cr i m i na lo ffense in hi s pr es en ce , he may, wi th o ut viol atin g t h e Fourth A m en d m en t, arrest th e offen d er. ”). W he n p oli ce c o nd uc t a w arran tless search , the cou rt ofappeal s m ake s a n i nd ependent deter m i nati on a s t o w hetherthe sea rch w as supp or ted bypro babl e ca use o r r ea so nabl e su spi ci o n. M cIn tire, 5 16 F. 3d at 577 ( ci t i ng O r n e la s v. U nited Sta tes , 5 17U. S
. 6 90 , 6 97( 19 96 ) )
. The offi cer s’ subj ecti ve m oti vati ons ar e ir re l evantas l ong as they have probabl e cause to j usti fy the se ar ch and sei zure . See Whren v. U nited Sta tes , 517 U
. S. 806, 812-13 (1996 ). “[ D]et er m i ni ng wh etherpro babl e ca use ex i sts i nvol ves a ‘p ra c tic al, co m m on -se n se d ec isio n w h et h er , give n allN o. 08

- 4135 9 the c i rcum sta nces setf or th .

. . t h er e i s a f ai r probabi l i ty th at con tr ab an d o re vi den ce o fa c r i m e wi l lb e f o und in a parti cul arpl ace. ’ ” U n it ed St ates v. Ellis , 49 9 F
. 3d 686, 689 (7th Cir. 2007) ( q uot i ng U nite d S t a t es v. H ines , 44 9 F.3d 808 , 814 (7th C ir. 2006) (al terations i n origin al) ).

“ ‘ Prob ab l e cause i s a fl uid co ncept bas ed on co m m on- sense i nt er pr et at i o ns o fr ea so nabl e po l i ce offi ce r s as t o the to ta l i tyo fthe c i r cumst an ce s’ kno wn atthe t i m e th e eve nt o ccurr ed. ” Id. at 689 ( q uot i ng U nite d States v. B re it, 42 9 F
. 3d 72 5, 7 28 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 5) )
. The e ve nt s l ea di ngup to an ar re st ar e v i ew ed fro m the sta nd poi nt o f an obj ectiv ely rea so n ab le p olic e o ffice r. O r ne l as , 51 7 U.S
. at69 6. W e thi nk the pol i ce o ffi cer s in thi s ca se w er e a rm ed wi thmor e th ana s uffi ci en t amoun t o f info r m at i o n a t th e ti m e o fBurnsi de’s ar rest to const i tute probabl e ca use. Fi rs t, the offi cer s were aw ar e o fBurnsi de ’s five pri or fel ony c onv ictions for th e m an ufac tu re or delivery ofa contr ol l ed substa nce. S eco nd , the office rs knew that B urn side w as cu rre n t ly on pa role from M inn esota f or a drug- re lat ed offense. Thi rd, Offi cerBatte rham r ecei ved r el i ab l e i nf o r m ati o n fr o m t wo di ffer en t i nf o r m an ts who claim ed that Bu rnsid e w as a large-s c a le dru g d ealer; fur th er m o r e, the inf o r m at i o n s uppl i ed byo ne o fthe i nfo rm ants buttr ess ed and w as consi ste nt with Offi cer Bat te r ha m ’ s k no wl edg e o fBur ns i de’ s al i as , S ho rty Ba nk R oll. Fou rt h, office rs ob se rv ed B u rn sid e p ar tic ip at in g in conduct co nsi ste nt with drug tr afficking

. Fi fth, after Bu rnsi d e f ai l ed to use a turn si gnaland offi cer s ini ti ate d the t ra ffi c st op, Burnsi de drove er ra ti cal l y, m ade a hurri ed cal lo n hi s ce l lp hone, and appeare d to m ake a fl i ght a tte m pt.10 N o. 08

- 4135 Bu rnsi de ar gues that the offi cer s di d not hav e a cl ear va nt ag e po i nt fr o m whi ch to wi tn es s th e al l eg ed dr ug tr an sa ct i o n betw ee n Burns i de an d Hal l am; the r efo r e, he ar gue s th atthe o ffi ce r s co ul d n ot con cl us i ve l y de te r m i ne whethe rH al l am appr o ac he d Bur ns i de’ s ve hi cl e wi ththe br o wn gr o ce r y b agi n h erha nds

. Bur ns i de as se r ts tha t he di d no t g i ve H al l am th e ba g, northe ro ckofcr ac kc o ca i ne l ate r f ound in her fi st, wh en she l eaned i nto hi s v ehi cl e. Bu rnsi de’s ar gum ents m i ss the m ar k. A s the di str i ct c ou rt not ed, the offi cer s di d not nee d to prove an a ctual d ru g t ra n sa c tio n to ok p lac e. Fo r an arr es t, offic er s o n ly need to b eli eve o bj ecti vel y that the co nd uct o bser ved w as co n sis te n t w ith d ru g t ra f f ick in g. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v. B rown , 36 6 F
. 3d 456, 45 8 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04)
. The o ffi cer s, em plo yi ng ev en a m odi cum o fcom m on sense, had prob ab l e c a us e t o c o ncl ude tha ts o methingi l l e g a lo c c ur r e d. M or eo ve r, O ffice rs B ain te r an d M iller w er e s p ec ially tr aine d i n n ar co ti cs en for ce m en t te chni que s. In fo r m i ng a r e a s o nab l e be l i e ftha ta drugt r a ns a c t i o n o c c ur r e d, th eywer e per m i tt ed to v i ew the e ven ts th r o ug h the pri sm o fthei r tr ai ni ng and experi ence. U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fun ch es , 3 27F
. 3d 58 2, 5 86 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 3)
. Ev enwi th o ut the s uspici ous Hall am tr ansact i on, the pol i ce had suffi ci ent pr obab l e ca use t o ar re st Bu rnsi de. Bu rnsi de furtherar gues that, ev en i fo ffi c er s h ad r easonab le suspic i on t o perf or m a Ter ry sto p, they im p er m iss ibly ex c ee d ed th os e lim its w h en s u b se q u en tly sea rchi ng hi m . W e nee d not a dd re ss thi s a rgum ent, how eve r, bec ause the o fficers had probabl e ca use t o ar re st B u rn sid e. It foll o w s, a fort iori, thatthe offi cer s’ se izu re of c r ac k c oc ain e fro m B u rn sid e in c id en t t o h isN o. 08

- 4135 11

ar re st w as law fu l. Se eU ni t e d S t at e s v . Te j ada , 52 4 F
. 3d 809, 811 (7th C ir. 2008) ( ci t i ng C him el v. Ca li forni a , 39 5 U.S
. 75 2, 763 (1969 ))
. Based on the to tal i ty ofthe ci rcum sta nc es t h e pol i ce ha d a n o bj e c t i v e l y r e a s o n ab l e b a s i s t o b e l i e v e a c r i me ha d b ee n o rwas b eingc o m m i tt ed. The r e was s uffi ci en t pr o babl e ca se t o a r r es t Bur ns i de an d to pe r f o r m the sea rch i nci dent to thatar re st.

2. TheSe ar ch War r ant Bu rnsi de m ake s tw o ar gum ents re gar ding the val i dity o fthe s ea r chwar r an t. F i r st, he a r gu es th atb ec au se the offic er s us ed in for m at ion re c ov er ed fro m h is arre st in the warr ant a p p lica tio n, the w ar ra nt was tainted by such i nfo rm ati on. There f or e, he a sse rt s, any ev i dence l ate r disc ove re d i n hi s ho m e wa s frui t o fthe poi sono us tr ee. S ec o nd, assu m i nghe i s co r r ec t, Bur ns i de ar g ue s th atthe po l i ce c anno t r ely o n the g o o d f ai thex ce pti o n t o the ex cl usionar y r ul e be ca us e th e po l i ce f ai l ed to no ti fy the j ud ge ofthe prot ecti ve sw eep per f or m ed pri orto applying f orthe w ar ra nt. W hen w e r evi ew a dist ri ct j ud ge’s d ec isi on a s t o w he the r a pr e v i o us l y i s s ue d wa r r a nt wa s s up po r t e d by probabl e ca u se , our re vi ew i s deno vo . See M cIn tire, 51 6 F
. 3d at5 78
. Howev er, we g i ve “great defer en ce ” to the iss u in g jud ge ’s d et er m in at ion o f th e e x ist en c e o f p ro b ab le c au se . Id. ; cf

. id
. at57 7 ( “A m agi str ate ’ s ‘ deter m i nati on ofpro babl e ca use s houl d be pai d gre at defe ren c e by review ing cou rts.’ ”) ( quo ting Illino i s v. G a tes , 46 2 U.S
. 21 3, 236 (1983 ))
.12 N o. 08

- 4135 W e wil laffi rm a cour t’ s fi nd in g of pr obab l e ca use u n less the supp or ti ng affi davi t, i n l i ght o fthe tot al i ty o fthe c i r cumst an ces, “f ai l s to a l l eg e spe ci fi c f ac ts a nd ci r cumst an ce s th atr ea so nabl y l ea d t o the b el i eftha t th e i tem s s ought i n the sea rch w ar ra nt ar e l i kely t o be l oca ted in the p l ace to be sea rche d.” U nite d States v. Hobbs , 509 F.3d 353, 361 (7th Cir. 2007) ( ci t i ng Illin o is v. G a tes , 46 2 U
. S. 213, 238 (1983 ); U nited S t a t es v. Wiley, 475 F
. 3d 908, 91 4-1 5 (7 th C ir. 20 07 )). In d et er m in in g w h et h er p ro b ab le cause exi sts , o ffi cer s m ay d ra w r eas onabl e infe re nces abou t t he l ikel y storage location of eviden ce; these inferen ces are ba sed up on th e t y p e o f offense an d the n atu re ofthe l i kel y evid en c e. Id . ( ci t i ng E ll is , 499 F.3d at 690 ). W i th r ega rd t o drug deal er s, ev i dence i s l i kel y t o be fou n d atth e d ea ler s’ re sid en c e. Id . ( citing E ll is , 49 9 F
. 3d at 691). Bu r ns i de c a nn o ta dv a nc e h i s s ub s e qu e nts e a rch w ar ra n t a r g u m en ts , ho w ev er , bec au se th e fa ilu re of h is unlawfular re st prem i se precl ud es any furtherexam i natio n . B ec au se w e find th at th e po lice h a d p ro b ab le cause to ar re st Bu rnsi de, the offi cer s were perm i tte d to i n c lu d e in t h e warr ant a pp l i cati on the ev i dence they disc ove re d du ring the se ar ch i nci dent to hi s a rr est
. Consi d er i ng the r ange ofev i dence, the pol i ce pr ov i de d s uffi c i e ntp r o b ab l e c a us e , b o th fr o m t he i ri nvestigation an d from the sea rchi nc iden t to Bu rnsid e’s ar r es t, f o rthe magi st r at e j udg e to i ss ue a v al i d war r an t to s e a r c h B u r n s i d e ’ s h o me . S u c h fi n d i n gr e n d e r s t he p rotec ti ve s wee p a nd a tt en dan t g o o d f ai tha r g um en t m oo t be cause i t was neve r u se d b y pol i ce a s j usti fi cati on f orthe w ar ra nt.N o. 08

- 4135 13

Fed eral Ru le o fCrim inal Procedure 11( c) ( 1) s tat es : “In 3 G e n e r a l . A n a t t o r n e y fo r th e g o v e r n m e n ta n d th e d e fe n d a n t ’s atto rn ey , or the d efend an t w he n p ro ceed ing p ro se, m ay d iscuss (co n tin u ed ...) W e ho l d that the i ssui ng st ate co urt j ud ge had a subst an tialand l ega l l y s uffi ci ent b asi s forco ncl ud i ng tha t pr o babl e ca us e ex is te d t o i ss ue the war r an t, a nd tha t th e dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deni alo fthe m oti on t o supp re ss evid en ce recov ered from the sea rch w as p rop er.

B. ThePle a Col l oq uy Fin ally , B u rn si d e a rg u es th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtp ar tic ipated i n ple a negot i ati ons du ring the change

- of

- ple a he aring in viol ation of Fede ral R ule of Crim inal Proced ure 11 ( c) ( 1)
. Thu s, he a ss er ts hi s g ui l typl eai s t ainted, a nd m ove s t o w i thdraw it

. W e di sag re e. Because Burnsi de did notse ek to w i thdraw his gui l ty p lea prior to reach ing this cou rt, w e review Bu rnsid e’s c laim o f a R u le 1 1 v iola tio n for p lain err or . U ni t e d St at e s v. Vonn , 53 5 U.S
. 55 , 5 9 (2002 )
. To v acat e s uch a pl ea und er the pl ai n e rro r sta nd ar d, w e m ust fi nd that( 1) an e rr or has o ccurr ed; ( 2) i t was “p lai n”; ( 3) i t a ffecte d a subst an tia l r i g h t o f th e d efe n d an t; an d (4) it s er iou sly affec ted th e f ai r ne ss , i nt eg r i ty, o rpub l i c r epu ta ti o n o fthe j u d icia l p ro c ee d in gs . Jo h n son v. U nited Sta tes , 520 U
. S. 461, 466-67 (1997). “Rule 11 ( c) ( 1) cat ego ri cal l y pr ohibi ts the c ou rt fro m par ti ci pati ng i n pl ea ne g o ti at i o ns b etwee n the g o ve r nm en t a n d th e d efe n d an t’s at to rn ey .” U nited St at e s v. 314 N o. 08

- 4135

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 3 an d reac h a p lea a g reem en t. T h e c o u r t m u st no t pa rticip ate in th es e d isc u ssi o n s.” Lin der, 53 0 F .3d 55 6, 56 2 ( 7 t h C i r. 20 08 ); see also U ni t e d St at es v. K raus , 137 F.3d 447, 452 (7th C ir. 1998). “Excludingthe j ud ge fro m the ple a di scussi ons ser ves th r ee pur po se s: i t m i ni m i ze s th e risk th atthe de fen dan t w i l lbe j ud i ci al l y c oer ced i nto ple adinggui l ty, i t pr ese rv es th e im p artia lit y of th e cou rt, and i t avoid s any ap p earance o fi m propri ety
. ” Krau s , 137F.3d a t 45 2; see In re U nited Sta tes , 572 F.3d 301 , 312 (7th C ir. 2009) ( citi ng U nite d States v. O ’Nei ll, 43 7 F
. 3d 654, 66 0 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( Po sn er, J
. , c o nc ur r i ng ) ( co m m en tingtha t j ud ges i n o ur adv er sa r i als y st em do no t do ub le a s pr o se cut o r s) )
. The j ud ge w ho a dvocate s for a par ti cul arpl ea bar gain m ay re sent the g ove rnm ent o r the defendant f ordi sag re eing. See In re U nited Sta tes , 57 2 F
. 3d at 311. Bu tn o ta l lj ud i c i a lo b s e r v a t i o ns e xp r e s s e d wi th r e s pe ct to ple a a gr eem ents vio late the rul e. In f act, the dist ri ct j u d ge sh ou l d o f t e n ta ke an ac tiv e ro le. Lin der, 53 0 F
. 3d at 562. Fo r exam ple , “o nce the par ti es ha ve them sel ves nego ti ate d a pl ea agr eem en t a nd pre sente d that a gr eem ent t o the c ourtf orapprov al, it is not o nl y per m i tte d b u t e x p ec te d th at th e c ou rtw ill t a k e a n ac tiv e ro le in evaluati ng the ag re em ent. ” Krau s , 137 F. 3d at 45 2; see F e d. R
. Cr i m. P
. 1 1 ( e ) ( 1 ) a dv i s o r y c o mm i t t e e n o te ( 1974 am end. ) ( “I t i s co ntem pla ted that the j ud ge m ay par ti cipa te i n s uchdi sc us si o ns a s m ayo cc urwhenthe pl e a a g r e e men ti s di s cl ose d in o pe n c o ur t
. ” )
. T hi s h o l ds tr ue ev en i fthe agr eem ent i s info rm aland notbi nd i ng.N o. 08

- 4135 15

“Tr
. ” r efer s t o the t ra ns c ri ptofthe c han ge ofpl ea he ar i ng. 4 18 U. S. C. § 35 53 ( e) gi ves the gove rn m en tdi s c re t i on t o m ake 5 a rec om m endation t o the dist ri ctcourt j ud ge to s ente nce a d e fen d an t be low the sen ten cing gu id eline s m an d ato ry m inim um du e to the defe nd ant’ s cooperati on and s ub st anti al ass is tance
. S ec tio n 35 5 3 (e) p ro v id es : “ Upo n mot i o n o f t heGove r nme nt, the 6 court s hall have the authority to i m pose a s ente nce bel ow a l evel (co n tin u ed ...) See U nit e d S ta tes v. C a rver, 160 F.3d 126 6, 1269 ( 10th Cir. 1998 ). The dis trict courtdi d not v i ol ate Rule 11 ( c) ( 1) bec ause ther e was no ple a n eg oti ati on o r agr eem ent b etween Bur ns i de an d the g o ve r nm en t. I t i s i m po ss ibl e f o rthe di st r i ctc o ur t to ha ve pa r ti ci pat ed i n pl ea ne g o ti at i o ns that neverhappened. The dis tr i ct c ourtj u d ge sai d, “I thi nk the r ec or d i s cl earthatther e i s no co oper ati on ag r ee m en t be tw ee n the de fen dan t an d the g o ve r nm en t and accor ding to the g ov er n m ent [ ther e] neve r has b ee n o n e an d s o th at ’s as t h e s itu at ion st an d s.” (T r. at27 .) 4 The re c or d furtherr eve al s that the go ver nm ent deni ed Bu rnsi de any hope f orl eni ency by decl i ni ng to fi l e a s ub s t a nt i a la s s i s t a nc e mo t i o n, n otingtha tBu r ns i de 5 re peatedl y r efused to co op er ate
. S i m i l ar l y, the j ud ge m ade i t abund antl y c l earthatthe cour t co uld notf or ce th e g o v e r n me n t t o n e g o t i a t e wi th B u r n s i d e o v er t he que s t i o n o f whe the r the g o v e r nme nt mi ght fi l e a m o ti o n for subs ta nt i ala ss i st an ce o n h i s be ha l f

. The 616 N o. 08

- 4135

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 6 es tabli she d b y st atute as a m ini m um s ente nce s o as to r efle ct a de fen dant ’ s s ubs t ant i al as s i s t anc e i n the inv est i gat i on or p ro se cu tio n o fan o th er p er so n w h o h a s co m m itt ed an o ffen se .” (e m p h a sis ad d ed ). U n i te d S tat es v. B aker, 489 F. 3d 366, 371 n. 3, upo n w hich 7 B u rn sid e he a v ily re lie s, d o es n o t h el p h im . F ir st, B akerdoe s no t control the holding ofthi s court. Sec ond , Bu rnsi de quo tes (co n tin u ed ...) g o ve r nm en t st at ed i n ope n co ur t tha t i t was pr epa r ed an d wi l l i ngt o g o t o t r i ala nd wou l d no t m ak e su cha mot i o n. A l though Burnsi de expres sed h i s desi re f orthe gov er nm ent t o fi l e a subst an tia l as si sta nce m oti on, he a l so a c k n o wl e d g e d th a t th e go v e r n me n td i d n o ta ta n y t i me i nd uce hi m to pl ead gui l ty i n or der t o re cei ve i t. Burnsi de, w i th fi ve pri orfel ony drug c on victi ons, i s no st ra nger to cri m inalpro ceedi ngs; neve rthel ess , he m ay have bel i e v e d th a t, b y o ffe r i n gu p h i s g u i l t y p l e a , th e g o v er nm ent m i ght feelo bl i gat ed to r eci procate w i th a substa nti alas si sta nce m oti on. S uch an unsubstanti ate d b elie fdoes notco nsti tute the e xi ste nce o fa ple a neg oti atio n or a gr ee m en t. M or eo ve r, giv e n t h e in c on tr ov er tib le f act that a pl ea agr eem en t with the gov er nm ent di d not exi st, the dist ri c t courtpro vi ded Burnsi de w i th a re cess d u rin g w h ich h e c ou ld rec on sid er h is p lea w ith h is fam ily an d h is law ye r. W e d o n otse e a n y e vid en c e in th e re c or d th at th e d ist ric t c ou rtina p p ro p ria te ly p ar tic ipated i n a pl ea nego ti ati on in vi ol ati on o fRule 11
. Bu t Burnsi de al so ar gues that R ule 11 ( c) ( 1) can be vi o l at ed when th er e i s i n f ac t no pl ea a g r eem en t, a nd he 7N o. 08

- 4135 17

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 7 B akerin the ho pes thatwe wi l l r ea d hi s quo t at i on s t andi ng a l o n e . F o o tn o t e 3 , h o w e v e r , sp e c i fi c a l l y r e fe r e n c e s t h e c o u r t ’s u se o f U n ite d S ta te s v . Ha rr is , 6 3 5 F .2d 52 6 , 52 8 (6t h C ir . 19 8 0 ), quoting, “ ‘ [ T]he j ud ge s hou ld n o t part ic ipate i n the ple a bargaining p rocess .’ ” (em p ha sis ad d ed ). N ota b ly, B u rn sid e also fails to q u ot e th e rem ain d er o f footn ote 3, w hich states, “R u le 11 ( c ) ( 1) doe s no tm er el y gua rd a g ai ns tj udi c i al par t i c i pat i on i n pl ea di s c us s i ons whenthe y r es ul ti n a bar gai n; i tal s o prohibit s parti ci pation that e ffect ivel y und erm ine s the parti es re ac hi ng a ba rg ai n ( or a bet t erbar gai n)
. ” As the quo t at i on f r o m Ha rr is an d th e fo o tn o te su g g es t, B akeri s e as i l y di s t i ngui s hab le. In th at ca se, t h e g ov ern m en t an d B ak er h ad b een att em pt i ng t o c om e t o a c om m on gr ound wi th r es pec tto the pl ea ag re em en t
. The di s t ri c tc our tuni latera l l y wei ghe d i n the day bef ore tr ia l to e ncourage the parti es to com e t o a plea a g re em en t. I n d o in g so , th e ju d g e p ro v id ed co m p a ri so n s o f a pri or c as e with a s i m i l ar f ac tpat t er n t o i ndi c at e ho w h e m i ght be able t o prov id e B aker a m ore at tr act ive s ente nce i fhe ple d gui l t y. Fur the r, the par t i es an d the c our tdi s c us s ed the s t atus of the plea negotiat ion and w hat the gov ernm ent had o ffered Bake r. Not s ur pri s i ngl y, the D. C. Ci rc u i the l d thatthe j udge i m per m i s s ibl y a nd pr ej udi c i al l y par ticip at ed i n pl ea nego t i at i o ns . In c ontras t, the dist ri ctc o u rt i n thi s cas e c ond ucted i t s el fas i fthe par t i es ha d no p l ea ag re em en t

— w hich they d id not

— an d ther e w as no p lea b arg ain ing p ro cess. urge s us to fi nd thata Rule 11 vi ol ati on occu rs wh eneve r a j ud g e p a r t i c i pa t e s i n a p l e a di s c us s i o n. S pe c i fi c al l y, he ar gues that th e di str i ct c ourtvi ol ate d Ru l e 1 1( c) ( 1)

— r eg ar dl es s o fthe co ur t’ s m o ti ve s an d i nt en ti o ns

—because th e d ist ric t c ou rtj u d ge ad d re s s e d B u rn sid e a n d h is counselr ega rd in g th e co nsequences ofhi s pl ea pri orto Bu rnsi de ente ring a ple a o fgui l ty.18 N o. 08

- 4135 Bu t Rul e 1 1( c) ( 1) cannot be read in a vacuum . A pri nci pal pu rpos e o fRule 11 ( c) i s t o presc ribe the r esponsibili ty o fthe c o ur tt o e ns ur e tha ta de fe nd ant w ho p l e a ds gui l ty has m ade an info rm ed ple a. Fe d. R . Cri m . P. 11 adv i so r y c o m m i tt ee no te ( 19 74 a m en d. )
. Inde ed, the di s t r i c tc o ur tj ud g e h a s a d u tyto m ake such inquir i es u n d er R u le 1 1(c )(1) an d oth er p ro vis ion s o f R u le 1 1. U nited St at e s v. Frank, 36 F .3d 89 8, 90 1-0 2 (9 th C ir. 19 94 ); see a lso Fed. R. C ri m . P. 11 ( b) , ( c)
. Fo r exam ple , the j ud ge m ust “address the defe nd ant perso nal l y” bef or e a ccepti ng a g ui l typl ea t o a sc er ta i n th e de fen dan t’ s unde r st an di ng ofth e c h arges and penal ti es and to ensure thatthe ple a is v olu n ta ry . Fed . R. C rim . P. 11 (b ), (c); see M cC ar t hy v. U nited Sta tes , 3 94 U. S
. 4 59 , 4 65

- 66 ( 19 69)
. And, b efo r e th e cour t en te rs j ud gm ent o n a guil ty ple a, the j ud ge m ust in q u ire an d be fu lly sa tis fied th at th er e is a f a c t u al b as is f orthe ple a. Fe d. R. Cri m . P. 11 ( b)

. Su b sta nti al l y a l lo f th e r equi r ed co l l o quyo cc ur s pr i o rto the de fen dan t ac tu ally st at in g t h at h e p lea d s g u ilty

. Frank, 36 F. 3d at 902. Fi nal l y, Rule 11 i s no t intended to “ ‘ est abl i sh a ser i es of tr aps f ori m perfectl y a rt i cul ate d or alr em ar ks. ’ ” U nited State s v. C ano -Varel a , 49 7 F
. 3d 1122 , 11 33 ( 10th Cir
. 20 07) ( q uot i ng Frank, 36 F. 3d at 903). Bur ns i de i g no r es the f ac t tha t a pri nc i palpurpo se ofthe cate gor i calbarag ai nst j ud i ci alpart i ci pati on in the ple a bar gaini ng pro cess i s t o prot ect the parties a gainst i m pli ci t o r expli ci t pr ess ure to set tl e cr i m in al c ase s o n te rm s fav or ed by th e jud ge . Id
. H ere, th e d istri ct cou rt was ne i th erpr o m o tinga g ui l typl ea no ra t r i al

. The re cor d cl ear l y r efl ects the f act that th e j ud ge i nfo rm ed Bu rnsi de that w i thout a s ubstanti alas si st an ce m oti onN o. 08

- 4135 19

This i s unlike U ni t ed Sta t es v. C as al l as , 59 F.3d 117 3, 117 7 (11th 8 Ci r. 19 95 ) , upon whic h B u rn side re l i es , wher e the j udge c ontr ast ed the fifteen-year m and atory m ini m um s ente nce that the defe nd ant f aced by going to t ri al w ith th e te n - year m and at or y m i ni m um thathe f ac ed by pl ea di ng g ui l t y. fr o m the g o ve r nm en t, he woul d b e sentenc ed to the man da t o r y mi ni mum o fl i fe i mpr i s o nme nt
. Bu r ns i de ackn ow ledge d tha t h e hea rd and un d erstood the j ud ge’s sta tem ents. The cour t further com m unica ted the c lear expectat ion thatthe gov er nm ent woul d not m ake a substa nti alas si sta nce m oti on, and Bu rnsi de acknow l edged that f act as w el l

. The co urt never to ok a posi ti on with re spect to Bu rnsi de’s l i kel i hood o fsucce ss at tr i al, with orwitho ut the evidence Bu rnsi de so ught t o supp re ss. Fin ally , th e cou rt w en t on to in for m B u rn sid e th at, i f he pl ed gui l ty, he woul d be g i vi ng up h is r i ght t o go to trial

. I t i s p aten tly obvious to us that the d istri ct cou rt did notat tem pt to per suade orco er ce Burnsi de i nto a ple a o fgui l ty. Bu rnsi de advances the a fter
- the- f act ar gum ent that, because ther e was no benefi t t o h im fr om a change of ple a, the j ud ge’ s st at em ents m ust hav e ind uced B u rn si d e t o p lea d gu ilty

. A s p re vio u sly st at ed , th er e is 8 no e v iden ce of any su ch coercion. Rath er, the record r e v e a l s o nly the di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s c a r e ful l y a r t i c ul a t e d, i nform at i o na ldi al o g ue wi thBur ns i de co nc erni ngthe va riou s o p tio n s a va ilab le t o h im , alon g w ith p os sib le co ns eque nc es o fe ac h. F i na l l y, Bur ns ide se emi ng l y a ss er ts tha t, b ec au se he changed h i s m i nd se ver alti m es du ring the co l l oquy,20 N o. 08

- 4135

con clud ing w ith his p lea of gu il ty, th ere is som eth ing of a def ac t o R ul e 11 ( c) ( 1) v i o l at i o n. Thi s ar g um en t i s wi th o ut m er i t. “Ther e is nothi ng i nherent l y c oer ci ve about re quir i ng a d efendant to m ake a deci si on

— ei therpl ead gui l ty orgo to tr i al

— so r efus i ngt o g i ve a de fen dan t m or e t im e t o m u l l his op tio n sim p ly d oe s n otfall w ith in the purvi ew o fthe rul e. ” C ano -Varel a , 4 97 F .3d at11 33 ( i nter nalquotat i on m ar ks om i tte d). H er e, the dist ri ct co ur t pr o vi ded a r ec ess f o rBur ns i de to c o ns i derthe c o ns e qu e nc e s o fp l e a di nggui l t y . La t e r, wh e n Bu r ns i de a g a i n c l a i med h e wa s c o nfused, the c o ur to ffe r e d a se co nd re ce ss a nd b eg ant o r es ch edu l e th e he ar i ngf o rthe ne xt da y. B ur ns ide th en cha ng ed his m ind again. L ater, when Bur ns i de ch an g ed hi s m i nd y eta no th er time, the cour t a dvis ed, “N ow, m ake s u re thi s i s what yo u w ant t o do now because Ihave bee n ver y pati ent for t h e past 30 m in u te s.” (T r. 31 .) W e fi n d t h at the di str i ct c ourtj ud ge did noti napp ro pri ate l y influence Burnsi de ’s deci si on a nd thatno vi ol at i o n o fR u l e 1 1 ( c ) ( 1 ) o c c u r r e d

. R a th e r, th e j u d g e ’ s c o mm en ts wer e si m pl y a n a tt empt t o r es o l ve the i nc o nsi st en t po si ti o ns b eingt ak enb y B ur ns i de. Thr o ug ho ut th e c o l l o qu y , th e d i s t r i c tc o u r tp a t i e n t l y l i mi t e d i t s c o mm en ts to rele va n t in for m at ion of w h ich B u rn sid e s h ou ld ha ve b ee n m ade awar e an d c o ns i der ed when m ak i ng hi s cho i ce.
III. C ON CLU SI ON B urn side pres en ted n o eviden ce th at p oli ce offi cers l ac k ed pr o babl e ca us e f o rhi s ar r es t an d the s ubs eque nt sea rch ofhi s ho m e. W e there f or e fin d that the dist ri ctN o. 08

- 4135 21

cour t co rr ectly deni ed the m oti on t o supp re ss evi dence. Lik ew i se, the dist ri ct c ourtdi d not v i ol ate Rule 11 ( c) ( 1) du ring the pl ea col l oquy. A ccor dingl y, we A FFIRM .

12- 4- 09