2005 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

8-3-2005 

# U SA v . R itt e r P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 04-3489

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd 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 l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

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

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . R itt e r " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 627. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/627P 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. 04- 3489

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ; G O V ER N M EN T O F TH E V I RG I N I SLA N D S, A p p e llan ts

v. ERNI E RI TT ER; REGGY RI TT ER; DA LE RI TTER

A p p ea l from the D istri ct C o u rt of the V i r gi n I s l ands ( D i s t r i ctC our tC r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00007) D i s t r i ctC our tJ udge: R aym ond L

. Fi nch

A r gued: A pr i l 20, 2005 Be f o r e : NYG AARD * , R E N D E L L a n d S M IT H , C irc u it

J udges- 2 - *H onorabl e R i chard L . N y gaard as s um ed s eni or s t at us on Jul y 9, 2005 ( Fi l ed: A ugus t3, 2005) B ruce Z. M ar s hack O ffi ce of t he U

. S. A t t or ney 1108 K i ng St r eet , Sui t e 201 C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00820 R i char d A

. Fr i edman [ ARGUE D] U

. S. D epart m entof J us t i ce, R oom 1264 C r i m i nal D i vi s i on, A ppel l at e Sect i on 1 0 S t r e e t& C o n s t i tu t i o n A v e n u e N

. W. th W as hi ngt on, D C 20530 C o u n se l fo r Ap

p e lla n ts U ni t ed Stat es of

A m er i ca; G over nm ent

of the Vi r gi n I s l ands J om o M eade [ ARGUE D] 112 Q ueen Cros s St r eet F re d e rik ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00840 C ouns el f orAppel l ee Erni e Ri t t er M ar t i al A

. W ebs t er 116 Q ueen Cros s St r eet F re d e rik ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00851 C ouns el f orAppel l ee Reggy Ri t t er- 3 - ( cont i nued) T hur s t on T

. M cK el vi n [ ARGUE D] K i r s t en G

. D ow ns O ffi ce of Feder al Publ i c D efe nder P. O

. B ox 223450 C h ristia n ste d , S t. C ro ix U SV I , 00822 C ouns el

f orAppel l ee D al e Ri t t er

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge.
T he U ni t ed St at es of A m er i ca and t he G overnm entof the V i r gi n I s l ands ( col l ect i vel y , t he “gove r nm ent ”) appea l fr om t he or derof t he D i s t r i ctC our tof the V ir gi n I s l ands gr ant i ng brot hers Ernie, R egina l d an d D al e R i t t er’ s m oti on t o sup press phy s i cal evi d ence . W e w i l l vaca t e the or derof the D i s t r i ct C o u rt a n d re m a n d f

o r f u rth e r f in d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on.- 4 - I . B AC KGROU ND A . F a cts
I n A ugus t of 2002, w hi l e conduct i ng aer i al s ur vei l l ance , O ffi cer C hri st op her H ow el l of S t
. C roi x, V i rgi n Isl and s, w or ki ng j oi nt l y w ith t he Feder al D rug E nfor cement A dm i nis t rat i on H igh Int ensi t yD rug T raffi cking A rea Ta sk F orce ( “T ask F orce”), ob ser ved m ari j uan a grow i ng i n a roof

l ess s t abl e att he r earof a hous e i n Fr eder i cks t ed, St

. C r oi x. A m an cou l d b e seen t end i ng t he plant s. O ffi cer H ow el l no t i fi ed T ask F o rc e g ro u n d u n its, w h o e n ter e d th e p re m ise s w ith o u t a w a rra n t, des t r oy ed the gro w i ng m ar i j uana pl ant s and appr ehende d t he gar dener

. T he gar deneradmi t t ed cul t i vat i ng and t endi ng t he pl ant s b u t de ni ed r es i di ng i n t he hous e; no char ges w er e fi l ed agai ns thi m . T hr ee a ddi t i onal pl ot s of m ar i j uana pl ant s gr ow i ng i n a fi el d behi nd t he hous e w er e al s o di s cover ed and de s t r oy ed d u ri n g th e ra id

. T h e f o llo w in g S p rin g , o n A p ril 2 4 , 2 0 0 3 , O f f ice r H o w e ll re c e iv e d th e f

irst o f tw o a n o n ym o u s c a lls re latin g to th e p ro p e rty p rev iou sly su rve il led an d ind icati n g that it s reside n ts w e re g ro w in g m a riju a n a o n th e p re m ise s. T h e u n id e n tifi e d f e m a le cal l eradvi s ed O ffi cer H ow el l t hat t he “occ upant s of t he hous e” – no names w er e pr o v ided

– w er e gr ow i ng m ar i j uana “ t o t he r earof t hei rr es i dence

. ” She advi s ed thatt her e w er e “‘ hundr eds o f p lan ts’ lo c a ted in th e h o rse sta b les a n d th e f ie ld a d jac e n t to- 5 - t he s t abl es . ” ( H ow el l A ffi davi t
. ) O ffi cer H ow el l not ed the in f o rm a tio n b u t to o k n o im m e d ia te a c tio n . T w o w e e k s la te r , o n M a y7 , 2 0 0 3 , O f f ice r H o w e ll recei ved a secon d cal l

. A gain, t he call er r em ai ned ano ny m ou s, b u tOf f i c e rHo we l l t e s t i f

i e d t h a th e b e l i e v e d i tt o b e t h e s a me per s on w ho had pl ace d t he A pr i l cal l

. T he s econd c al l pr ovi ded addi t i onal i nform at ion : th e inf o rm an t r ep ea ted th e a ll egat i on that m ar i j uana w as bei ng gr ow n i n t h e b ac k of the r es i dence but a d d e d th a t sh e h a d p e rso n a llyo b se rv e d so m e o n e c a rry in g p lan ts into the h o u se, an d sh e ha d h ea rd fro m an o ther p erso n that there w er e atl eas tt w o i ndoorgr ow r oom s i ns i de the hous e. T he tip ste r, h o w e v e r, d id n o t n a m e o r d e sc rib e a n yo f th e re sid e n ts of the ho use, no r di d she indi cat e preci sel y w h ere i n the hou se pl ant s w er e gr ow i ng. O ffi cer H ow el l di d notr emem beras ki ng f o r m o re s p e c if

ic in f o rm a tio n . F o llo w in g th e se c o n d c a ll, O f f ice r H o w e ll i m m e d iate ly a p p lied f o r a w a rra n t, b a sin g h is a f f id a v it i n su p p o rt o f

p ro b a b le caus e on bot h t he 2002 r ai d and t he i nfor m at i on pr ovi ded byt he anonym ous t i ps t er . O t hert han t o dr aw upon hi s p rev i ous exper i ence i n 2002, O ffi cerH ow el l di d notunder t ake a ny a d d itio n a l c o rr o b o ra tiv e i n v e s tig a tio n to d e te rm in e , in tera lia , how m anyi ndi vi dual s reside d in the hous e ati s s ue. T he aff i davi ti dent i fi ed the pr oper t ybyr efe r ence t o an ae r i alAtn o t i me h a v e t h e p a r t i e s d i s p u t e d t h a tAt t a c h me n t“ A” 1 fea tur es t he R i t t er s ’ pr oper t y and i s t he s ame pr oper t yt hatw as t he s ubj ectof t he 2002 r ai d i ni t i at ed by O ffi cerH ow el l ’ s aer i al s ur vei l l ance . T he part i es now agr ee thatt he pr oper t y ’ s corr ectdes cr i pt i on 2 is 87 M ars H il l. H o w ev er, O ff icer H o w ell testif

ie d that M ars H i l l “i s par tof N ew St r eet ” and thatconfusion as t o addr es s es on t he i s l an d il lustr at ed the nee d t o at t ach a phot ogr aph of the pr emi s es t o be s ear ched.

- 6 - p h o to g ra p h (“ A ttac h m e n t ‘A ’” ), w h ich s h o w s a lar g e m a in 1 s t ru c tu r e o rr e s i d e n c e wi t h a tl e a s tt wo o u t s i d e d o o r s v i s i bl e, along w i t h t w o addi t i onal s t ructur es on t he pr emi s es . T he w arr ants ubs equent l yi s s ued byt he M agi s t r at e J udge i dent i fi ed t he pr emi s es t o be s ear ched as “N o know n num berN ew St r eet Fr eder i ks t ed St

. C r oi x U

. S. V

. I

. fur t her pi ctur ed on A t t achment

‘ A ’ ”, and aut hor i zed the governm entt o s ear ch for“mar i j uana 2 and i t ems us ed t o pr oces s , and fa ci l i t at e the gr ow i ng of m ari j uan a, i

. e. , l i gh t i ng , ai r- con dit i on i ng un i t s, ven t i l at i on un i t s, s cal es and pac kagi ng m at er i al s . ”
H o w ell w a s o n e o f m an ylaw en fo rce m en t of fice rs p r e s e n tf o rt h e e x e c u t i o n o f

t h e w a r r a n tt h e f

o l l o w i n g d a y. H o w e v e r, at th e su p p re ss io n h e a rin g b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt,O n lytw o w itn esse s testi fied in total – H o w ell an d A n d re 3 P eterso n , an inv esti g ator fo r th e O ff ice o f th e P u b li c D ef

en d er. H o w e ll h im se lf

w a s o n a p e rim e ter tea m . H e d e sc rib e d h is 4 r es pons i bi l i t y as the “affi anton t he s ear ch” bys t at i ng: “Y ou m i gh tsay t hat I , I deci ded w ho w ou l d d o w hat duri ng t he co urse o f th e s e a rc h .”

- 7 - he w as the onl yw i t nes s t o t es t i fyr egar di ng t he r ai d. O ffi cer 3 H ow el l expl ai ned thatt hos e pr es enton t he s cene i ncl uded var i ous “t eams” – entr yt eams ( w ho conductan i ni t i al s w eep of t he pr emi s es for p eo p l e) , per i m et ert eams ( w ho s ecur e the per i m et er ) and s ear ch t eams ( w ho conduct a more t hor ough s ear ch and a ctual l ys ei ze e vi dence )

. A ts o m e p oi ntdur i ng t he w a rra n t’s e x e c u tio n , en trytea m m e m b e rs, w h o w e re th e f irst to inf il tr ate the p remi s es , r eal i zed that the p rop erty ’s m ain s tru cture w as nota s i ngl e dw el l i ng but , r ather , cons i s t ed of a t least four s epar at e apa r t m ent s . T he r ecor d i ndi cat es t hateach of the defe ndantbr ot her s – E r ni e, D al e and Regi nal d – occupi ed s epar at e apa r t m ent s , al t hough i ti s notcl ear w h ich of t he br ot her s , ot hert han D al e, w as hom e att he t i m e of t he r ai d. D es pi t e the di s coveryof m ul t i pl e uni t s i n t he r es i dence , aft er t h e e nt r yt e a ms f

i n i s h e d t h e i rp r e l i mi n a r ys we e p , s e a r c h t e a ms w er e s enti n t o m or e thor oughl ys ear ch the pr emi s es and col l ect evi dence

. W hi l e t he r ecor d does notm ake c l earw hetherO ffi cer H o wel l e v e n e n t e r e d t h e h o u s e , h e t e s t i f i e d a s t o t h e evi dence obs er ved and s ei zed i ns i de. 4Th e mot i o n was f i l e d b yd e f

e n d a n tEr n i e Ri t t e r , a n d t hen 5 jo in e d b yh is b ro th e rs R e g in a ld a n d D a le R itte r.

- 8 - H o w e ll’s te stim o n y c o n c e rn in g th e se q u e n c e o f e v e n ts is im p rec ise, b u t ult im ately , m arij u an a, gu n s an d ca sh w ere col l ect ed fr om var i ous l ocat i ons w i t hi n t he bui l di ng, i ncl udi ng t he br ot her s ’ r espec t i ve apa r t m ent s . A s pr edi ct ed byt he anonym ous t i ps t er , t w o i ndoorgr ow r oom s , one dow ns t ai r s and one ups t ai r s , w ere di s cover ed. M ar i j uana w as al s o found gr ow i ng i n atl eas tt w o m or e ar eas ei t her i n orout s i de the home. I n addi t i on, a ri fl e w as found ei t herl ay i ng orhangi ng on t he bed of Erni e R i t t er al ong w i t h a s econd gun i n hi s cl os et ; m oneyand drugs w er e found i n t he oven orbr oi l erof D al e R it ter ; and m a ri ju a n a w a s d isc o v e re d o n D a le R itt e r’s p e rso n a f ter a p a tdo w n b yoff

i cers . B . D i s t ri ct C ourt P roce edi ngs T h e D istric t C o u rt g ra n ted th e d e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n to su p p ress all p h y sical ev iden ce . A lth o u g h the D istri c t C o u rt 5 r ej ect ed def

endant s ’ cont ent i ons t hatt he w arran tw as not su p p o rte d b y p ro b a b le c a u se a n d th a t it f a iled to a d e q u a te ly des cr i be the l ocat i on t o be s ear ched, t he C our t found t hat , bas ed on w hatt he off

i cer s d is cover ed as t o t he true cha r act erof the r e s i d e n c e , t h e warr a n t d i d n o t d e s c r i b e wi t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y t he p lac e to b e se a rc h e d

. C iti n g to th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s o p in io n in Mar yland v. G ar r is on , t he D i s t r i ctC our thel d t hatt he w arr ant- 9 - w as faci al l ydefici ent – i n o t her w ords, the en t rytea m s’ d isc o v e ryo f

m u lti p le u n its in sid e th e re sid e n c e h a d e ss e n tially funct i oned t o r etr oact i vel yi nval i dat e the s ear ch w arr ant
. 480 U .S . 7 9 , 8 6 -8 7 (1 9 8 7 ). A c c o rd in g to th e D istric t C o u rt, H o w e ll and hi s fel l ow offi cer s enj oy ed a “w i ndfal l ” buts houl d nothave act ed upon i t – “O nce t he pol i ce offi cer s r eal i zed t he bu il di ng w as a mul t i

- uni tdw el l i ng, the C our tholds that t he s ear ch w arran t w as d ef

ec ti v e fo r f

ail ing to sp ec ifyw h ich u n it (s) w ere t o be s ear ched. ”
T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n te n d e d th a t th e w a rra n t sh o u ld nonethel es s be dee m ed s uffi ci entbeca us e the “good f ai t h” e x c e p tio n sh o u ld h a v e a p p lied . T h e D istric t C o u rt re jec ted th is ar gum ent , not i ng t hatt her e ar e fours i tuat i ons i n w hi ch the gener al pr es um pt i on of good fa i t h, w hi ch generall yat t ache s bas ed on the mer e i s s uance of a w arr ant , i s negat ed: ( 1) [w h en ] t he magi s t r at e [j udge] i s s ued the w a rra n t in re lian c e o n a d e lib e ra telyo r re c k les sly f a lse a f f id a v it; ( 2 ) [ w h e n ] th e m a g istra te [ju d g e ] a b a n d o n e d h is j udi ci al r ol e and f

ai l ed t o per for m hi s neutr al and det ache d funct i on; (3 ) [ w h e n ] th e w a rra n t w a s b a se d o n a n a f f id a v it

“ so lac k in g in in d icia o f p ro b a b le c a u se a s to- 10 - re n d e r o f

f icia l b e lief

in its e x iste n c e e n tirely unr eas onabl e”; or ( 4) [w hen] t he w arr antw as s o fac i al l ydefi cient t hati tfai l ed t o par t i cul ari ze t he pl ace t o be s ear ched ort he thi ngs t o be s ei zed.
U. S

. v . Hodge , 246 F. 3d 301, 308 ( 3d C i r . 2001) ( ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. B as ed on the w arr ant ’s f ai l ur e t o par t i cul ar i ze the pl a c e t o b e s e a r c h e d , t h e Di s t r i c tCou r tf o u n d t h e warr ant fac i al l ydefe ct i ve and bas ed on the fourth fac t orabove, decl i ned to ap p lythe g o o d fa ith ex ce p ti o n . “W h en the p o li ce o ff icers r eal i zed thatt her e w er e mul t i p le d w el l i ng uni t s and the s ear ch w arr antg av e them no gui dance as t o w hi ch uni t ( s ) w er e t o be s ear ched, t he pol i ce of fi cer s coul d notbe s ai d t o have be en exec ut i ng t he w arr anti n good fai t h b y su bs equent l ys ear chi ng atl eas tfourdi ffe r entr es i dent i al uni t s . ” A l l evi dence s ei zed pu r s u a n t t o t h e s e a r c h warr a n t , t h e Di s t r i c t Cou r tt hus c o n c lu d e d , s h o u ld b e s u p p re s s e d

. II. A NALYSI S A . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew Th e Di s t r i c tCo u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r4 8 U. S

. C. § 1612; w e have j uri s di ct i on overt hi s governm entappea l p u rs u a n t to 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 3 1

.- 11 - O n a m ot i on t o s uppr es s , t he governm entbear s t he bur den of s how i ng t hat eac h i ndi vi dual actcons t i tut i ng a s ear ch o r s e iz u re u n d e r t h e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t w a s re a s o n a b le

. U ni t ed St at es v. Johns on , 6 3 F .3 d 2 4 2 , 2 4 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). W ith resp ec t t o a su p p ression o rde r, w e re v iew the D istri ct C o u rt ’s f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r, s ee U

ni t ed Stat es v. R obers on , 90 F. 3d 75, 77 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( ci t i ng O r nelas v. U ni t ed Stat es , 517 U

. S. 690, 699- 700 ( 1996) ) , and exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew o v e r i ts le g a l d e te rm in a tio n s , s ee U n it ed St at es v. C oggi ns , 28 V .I. 2 4 1 , 9 8 6 F .2 d 6 5 1 , 6 5 4 (3 d C ir . 1 9 9 3 ). H o w e v e r, w 

### he n a di s tri c t co u rt , i n r e vi e wi ng am a gi s tr at e ’ s de t e rmi nat i on of p ro b ab le cau se, b ases its p ro b ab le cau se ru lin g o nf acts c ont a i ne d i n an a ffi davi t , we e xe r cis e pl e nary r e vi e w ove r

the d istrict co urt’s d ecisio n . U ni t ed Stat es v. C onl ey , 4 F. 3d 1200, 1 2 04 

### ( 3 d C i r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c i t at i o n s o mi tt e d )

. I n c o ntr a s t , b o thour c ourt and the di s tri c t c ourt e xe r c i s e a de fe r e nt i a l r e vi e w of the m ag istrate’s in itial p ro b ab le cau se d eterm in atio n . I d. at 1205 ( c i t i ng Illino isv. Ga tes , 462 U.S. 21 3, 23 6 (19 83 ))

. B. D i s c us s i on T he Fourt h A m en d m en t of the U n it ed S tat es C o n sti tut i on provides: “T he ri gh t of the peo ple t o b e secure i n thei r per sons, hous es , paper s , and ef

fec t s , agai ns tunr eas onabl e s ear ches and s ei zur es , s hal l notbe vi ol at ed, and no W arr ant s s hal l i s s ue, but upon pr obabl e ca us e, s uppor t ed byO ath o raff i r m at i on, and par t i cul ar l y des cr i bi ng t he pl ace t o be sea r ched, and the per s ons ort hi ngs t o be s ei zed. ” U

. S. C o n st. am end. I V

. T he r i ghtof- 12 - se c u rityin p e rso n a n d p ro p e rtya f f o rd e d b yth e F o u rth A m endment m aybe i nvaded i n var i ous di ffe r ent w ay s by s ear ches and s ei zur es – her e, d efe ndant s chal l enge the m ag istrate’s i ssu an ce o f th e w arran t as w ell as th e g o v ern m en t’ s exec ut i on of t hatw arr ant ; how ever , “[i ] t m u st al w ay s be re m e m b e re d th a t w h a t th e C o n stitu tio n f o rb id s is n o t all s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s , b u t u n re a s o n a b le s e a rc h e s a n d s e iz u re s ,” E lki ns v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 3 6 4 U .S . 2 0 6 , 2 2 2 (1 9 6 0 ).

1. P rob ab l e C au se T h e th re sh o ld re q u ire m e n t f o r iss u a n c e o f

a w a rra n t is pr obabl e ca us e. H ow ever, i n r evi ew i ng t he i s s uance of a w arr antand gi ven the hi s t or i c pr efe r ence expr es s ed byour c o u rt s f o r th e w a rr a n t p ro c e s s , s ee J ohns on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 333 U

. S. 1 0 , 13- 14 ( 1948) , w e ar e t o det er m i ne w hethert he m a g istra te h a d a “ su b st a n tial b a sis ” f o r c o n c lu d in g th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e w a s p re s e n t, I

l l i nois v. G at es , 4 6 2 U

. S

. 2 1 3 , 2 3 6 (19 8 3 ). “[T] he Four t h A m endment r equi r es no m or e. ” I d. T 

### he Distri ct Co urt, viewing the “t otal it y of the c ircum st ance s, ” i d. , 

### and deferring to a pri ncipleof t artic ulat ed by

this Co urt – that

“ a ft e r - the

- fa c t

s c r utiny s ho ul d n ot

t akethefo rm

of de no vo re view,” se e , e . g. , Uni te d States v . Nine t y - Two Thous and Four H u n d re d T w en ty -T w o D o lla rs a n d

F if ty -s ev en Cen ts ($ 92, 422. 57) , 307 F. 3d 137, 146 ( 3d Ci r . 2002) ( quot i ng G at es , 4 6 2 U. S. a t2 35)



### – coul d “ not fi nd that the s e ar c h warr ant appl i c at i on wa s de voi d of pr obabl e c au se, ” notwi ths t andi ng

### It is “wel l e st abli shed that

the pre vail ing p arty

belo w need 6 

### n o t cro ss-ap p eal to entitle h im to sup p o rt th e j u d g m ent i nh is favo r on g roun ds expres sly re ject ed by the c ourt below.” S

w a rb v . Le nnox , 405 U. S. 191, 202 ( 1972) ( Whi t e , J

. , c onc urri ng) ( c i t i ng W alling v . Gen

. In dus

. Co. , 330 U.S. 54 5 (19 47 ))

. Beca use the Ritt er s have att ac ked on a pp ea l t he Distri ct

Co urt’ s re as on ing, no t the re sult ac hieved, they ar e not barr ed fromre v isitin g th e p ro b ab le cau se issu e h ere. S ee M a ss. M u t. L ife In s. Co . v. L u d

w ig , 426 US 47 9 (19 76 ).

- 13 - 

### O f f i c e r H o w ell’s admissio nth at h e d idn o th in g to in d e p en d ently

co rro b o rate th e an o ny

m o u s caller’s tip s. T h is co n clu sio n , w e th ink , requ ires d iscu ssio n . Erni e and Re gi n aldRi tt e r c l a i m on appe a lthat

the D istrict C o urt erredinco n clu d in g th at th e r e e x istedp ro b ab le cau se to sup p o rt th e m ag istrate j u d g e’s issu an ce o f a w arran t. 6 

### The y a s s e rt th at Offi c e r

Howe l l ’ s a ffi davi t

wa s ba s e d on no thing m ore than uncorrobo rat e d a no ny mou s tips and that s uch i nform at i on doe s not

form an a de quat e ba s i s for the i s s uanc e of a w ar rant un der G a tes and i t s pr oge ny . 462 U. S. at 233 (rep lacin g tw o -p ro n g test w ith a “to tality o f th e circum stan ces” approach fo r d et er

mining if an inf

orm ant’ s tip es ta

blis hed prob able ca

use) . The go vernm ent c ounters that How el l’ s affidavit a pp ropria te ly in co rp o rate dh is p as t p er sonal e xp erience o f h av in g s eizedm arij u an a f ro m th e p ro p erty

inqu estio nin 2 0 0 2 t o c o rr o b o r at e th e mo r e r e c e nt an o ny mo u s t ip s . T o s o me ex tent, w e th ink , b o thp arties’ assertio n s h av e m erit.- 14 - O n t he one ha nd, a w arr ant m ay i s s ue even i n t he abs ence o f d ir e c t, f

ir s t- h a n d e v id e n c e . See U ni t ed Stat es v. B ur t on , 288 F. 3d 91, 103 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( not i ng t hat“di r ectevi dence l i nki ng t he resi den ce t o cri m i nal a c ti vityi s not r equ i red t o est abli sh p ro b a b le c a u se ” ); U

ni t ed St at es v. Jones , 28 V

. I

. 375, 994 F. 2d 1 0 5 1 , 1 0 5 6 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) (“ W h ile id e a llye v e rya f f id a v it w o u ld cont ai n d ir ectevi dence l i nki ng t he pl ace t o be s ear ched t o t he cr i m e, i ti s w el l es t abl i s hed that di r ect evi dence i s notr equi r ed fo r the i ssu an ce o f a searc h w arran t.” ). G ates re q u ire s th a t a cour t cons i der i ng t he suff i ci ency of an a gent ’ s aff i davi tl ook at th e “ to tality o f

th e c irc u m sta n c e s,” a n d , in e m p lo y in g th is fl exi bl e s t andar d, t he Supr eme C our t h as expl ai ned thatt he

“ tas k o f th e iss u in g m a g istra te is s im p lyto m a k e a p ra c tica l, comm on- s ens e dec i s i on w hether , gi ven al l t he ci r cums t a nces s et for t h i n t h e a f

f i d a v i t b e f

o r e h i m, i n c l u d i n g t h e ‘ v e r a c i t y ’ and

‘ bas i s of know l edge’ of per s ons s uppl y i ng hear s ayi nfor m at i on, t h e r e i s a f

a i rp r o b a b i l i t yt h a tc o n t r a b a n d o re v i d e n c e o f a c r i me w i l l be found i n a part i cul arpl ace . ” I d. at 238-39 ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n ot herw or ds , an i s s ui ng cour tneed onl yconcl ude th a t it w o u ld b e re a so n a b le to se e k th e so u g h t-a f ter o b jec ts in t he pl ace des i gnat ed i n t he af fi davi t ; a courtneed notdet er m i ne th a t th e e v id e n c e is in f

a c t o n th e p re m is e s . See Conl ey , 4 F. 3d a t 1 2 0 5 (“ K e e p in g in m in d th a t th e tas k o f th e iss u in g m a g istra te i s s i m pl yt o det er m i ne w hethert her e i s a ‘fa irpr obabi l i t yt hat contr aband or evi dence of a cr i m e w i l l be found i n a part i cul ar pl ace ’

. . . a r evi ew i ng cour ti s t o uphol d t he w arr antas l ong as t her e i s a s ubs t ant i al bas i s fora fa i rpr obabil i t yt hatevi dence w i l l be found. ”) ( quot i ng G at es , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 2 3 8 ))

.A T erry s t op, of cour s e, r equi r es onl yr eas onabl e s us pi ci on, 7 se e T e rr y v . O h io , 392 U

. S. 1, 20 L

. E d. 2d 889, 88 S. C t
. 1868 (1 9 6 8 ), a le ss d e m a n d in g lev e l o f su sp icio n th a n is re q u ire d to e s ta b lis h p ro b a b le c a u s e .

- 15 - O n t he ot herhand, how ever , i n A la b a m a v . W h ite , 496 U .S . 3 2 5 (1 9 9 0 ), w h e re th e S u p re m e C o u rt a d o p ted th e “ to tality of t he ci r cumst ance s ” t es tt o det er m i ne w hether an anonym ous ti p coul d pr ovi de r eas onabl e s us pi ci on fora Ter r y s t o p , t he

7 C o u rt stre ss e d tw o f

a c to rs: (1 ) a n o f

f ice r’s a b ili tyto c o rro b o ra te s i gni fi cantas pect s of the t i p, and (2) t he t i p’ s abi l i ty t o pr edi ct futur e eve nt s . W h e r e c o rr o b o r a t i o n o ri n d e p e ndenti nves t i gat i on aft er rec eipt of an a nonym ous t i p i s l acki ng – and thus t he p re d ictiv e v a lu e o f

th e tip g o e s u n tes ted b e f o re a w a rra n t is i s s ued – court s have f

ound offi cer s ’ s ubs equentr el i ance on t he w a rr a n t u n re a s o n a b le

. 

### S ee, e.g , U n ited Sta tes v. Wilh elm , 80 F .3 d1 1 6 , 1 2 1 -2 2 (4 thC ir. 1 9 9 6 ) ( r e l i an ce unreaso n ab le b ecause magis tr at e a ct ed as rubb er st am p b y approv ing “bare bone s ” a ffi davi t

ba s e d s ol e l y

upon unc orr obor at e d anony m ous tip ); Un ited Statesv. We aver , 99 F .3d 1 37 2, 1 38 0 (6th C ir

. 19 96 ) ( re li ance unre as on able beca use dete ctive had n o p er sonal know l e dg e of

un l awf ula c t i vi ty , di d n ot

c on du c t any visual r e c onna i s s anc e of ar e a , ha d o n ly t h ird

- p a r t y h e a r s a y i nform at i on on m ari juana - gr o w i ng ope r at i on on pr ope rty , and de t e c t i ve ex ecutedw arran t h im self ).
H er e, l ike the offi cer - aff i ant s i n t hes e ca s es , O ffi cer H ow el l , aft err ece i vi ng an anonym ous t i p cal l , m ade no a t t empt- 16 - t o ver i fyt he i nfor m ant ’ s al l egat i o n s th r o u g h f u rt heri ndepende nt in v e stig a tio n . B u t, u n lik e th e o f f ice rs in th o se c a se s, H o w e ll d id h a v e a rg u a b lyre lev a n t p re v io u s e x p e rie n c e w ith th e p ro p e rtyin ques t i on an d inc l uded thi s “hi s t or i cal i nfor m at i on [r egar di ng] t he p r e v i o u s s e i z u r e i n Aug u s t 2 0 0 2 ” i n h i s a f f i d a v i t
. T he q u e stio n is w h e th e r th is e x p e rie n c e w a s s u f f icie n tly corr obor at i ve s o as t o gi ve the t i p pr edi ct i ve val ue. I tcoul d be sa id th a t th e c o n n e c tio n to th e p re v io u s ra id w a s te n u o u s in t er m s of ac tual corr obor at i on – i t occurr ed seve n m ont hs befor e, t he m ar i j uana w as bei ng gr ow n i n t he s t abl e ar ea , the per s on appr ehende d w as the gar denerw ho appar ent l ydi d notl i ve on t he pr e mi s e s , a n d t h e r e a p p e a r s t o h a v e b e e n n o d i r ect connec t i on t o t he hous e ori t s i nhabi t ant s. H ow ever , O ffi cer H ow el l ’ s p r evi ous obs er vat i on, t he s i m i l ar i t yof the type of offe ns e, t he fact t hatt he curr entt i p i nvol ved both t he hous e and t he s ur r oundi ng out doorar ea, and the l ogi cal i nfer ence t hatt he gar denerm i ghthave be en author i zed byt he i nhabi t ant s o f the ho use t o g row t he m ari j uan a, al l po i nt t o the pl aus ib le r el at i ons hi p betw een the pr evi ous event and t he t i p. W e ca n s ee how an off

i cerand a magi s tr at e coul d vi ew t he t i p as est abli shi ng an ident i fi able pat t ern of acti vity o n the prem i ses. T h is is a clos e c ase . W ere w e re v iew ing the m ag istrate’s deci s i on de novo , w e m igh t r ea ch a d iffe ren t r esu lt

. H o w ev er, t he S u p r e me Cou r th a s c h a r g e d u s , whe n r e v i e wi n g t he s uffi ci encyof an aff

i davi t and r es ul t i ng w arr ant , nott o engage i n 

### “ a ft e r - the

- fa c t scr

uti ny” that

“ t ake [s ] thefo rm

of de no vo r e v i e w .” G at es , 462 U

. S. at 235. M or eover , w e r evi ew fo r aJ udge Sm i t h r ai s es exce l l ent ques t i ons r egar di ng t he r el i ance 8 O ffi cerH ow el l pl ace d on anonym ous t i ps w hi ch w e mi ghtfi nd per s uas i ve i f w e w er e conduct i ng a de novo re v iew f o r p ro b a b le c a u se a s w a s th e situ a tio n , f o r e x a m p le, in th e c a se Ju d g e S m ith f in d s a n a lo g o u s , U

ni t ed Stat es v. R ober

s on , 90 F. 3d 75, 77 ( 3d C i r . 1996)

. H ow ever , w e ar e r evi ew i ng d e fe r e n ti a lly for subst an t i al basis f

o r a m a g istra te’ s c o n c lu sio n th a t p ro b a b le c a u s e e x is te d

.

- 17 - “s ubs t ant i al bas i s ” forconcl udi ng t hatpr obable caus e exi s t ed, i d. a t2 3 6 ( c i t a t i o n o mi t t e d ) , wh i c h i s o n e s t e p r e mo v e d f r o m a di r ect ed pr obabl e caus e i nqui r y appl i cabl e w hen revi ew i ng w arran tl ess s top s an d sea rch es. H ere , the d ef ere n ti al st an d ard 8 w i t h w hi ch w e vi ew t he 

### m ag istrate’s in itial p ro b ab l e cau se de t e rmi nat i ont i ps t he s cal e i n fa v o r of de t er m i ni ng t hatt he m agis t rat e had a “subst anti al basi s” for fi nd i ng probab l e cause e x i s t e d

. I n s o c o n c l u d i n g , we a r e mi n d f u l o f t h e S u p r e me C o u rt’s c o n sis ten t ad m o n iti o n s o v e r th e c o u rse o f th e las t h a lf centur yr egar di ng ourpr efe r ence forw arr ant s and the natur e of o u r ta sk in re v iew in g w a rra n ts iss u e d b yju d icia l o f f ice rs: T he p o intof the Four t h A m endment

. . . i s not t hati tdeni es l aw enforcem entt he s uppor tof the us ual i nfer ence s w hi ch r e a s o n abl e men dr aw fr om evi dence

. I t s pr ot ect i on cons i s t s i n r equi r i ng t hat t hos e i nfer en ce s be dr aw n bya neutr al and det ache d m agi s t r at e i ns t ead of bei ng j u d g ed by t he off icer engage d i n t he oft en compet i t i ve- 18 - ent erpr i s e of f

err et i ng outcr i m e. A nyas s um pt i on that ev iden ce su ff

ici en t to su p p o rta m ag istrate’s di s i nt er es t ed det er m i nat i on t o i s s ue a s ear ch w arr antw i l l j us t i fyt he off icer s i n m aki ng a s ear ch w i t houta w arr antw oul d r educe t he A m en d m en t t o a n u ll ityan d leav e the p eo p le’s hom es s ecur e onl yi n the di s cr et i on of pol i ce off i cers . . . . W h en the r i gh tof p ri vacym ust r eas onabl yy i el d t o t he ri ght of sea r ch i s , as a rul e, t o b e d e c i d e d b y a j u d i c i a l o f f i c e r , n o tb y a p o lice m a n o r g o v e rn m e n t en f o rc e m e n t ag e n t. Johns on v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 333 U

. S. at13- 14.
A m agis t rat e’s “deter m i nati on of probab l e cause s houl d b e pai d gr eatdefe r ence byr evi ew i ng cour t s . ” S

p in e lli [ v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 393 U

. S. 410, 419 ( 1969) ]

. “A grudgi ng or negat i ve at t i tude by r evi ew i ng cour t s t ow ar d w arr ant s , ” i s i n c o n s i s t ent w i t h t he Four t h A m endment ’ s str ong pr efe r ence f o r se a rc h e s co n d u c ted p u rsu a n t to a w a rra n t; “court s s houl d noti nval i dat e [w arr ant s ] by i nt erpr et i n g [ a f

f i d a v i t s ] i n a hyper t echni cal , r ather th a n a c o m m o n s e n s e , m a n n e r.”
G at es , 462 U

. S. at236 ( quot i ng and U ni t ed Stat es v. V

entr es ca , 3 8 0 U .S . 1 0 2 , 1 0 8 , 1 0 9 (1 9 6 5 )). T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s c lea rly i ndi cat ed that t he concl us i ons of a neutr al m agi s t r at e r egar di ng- 19 - p r o b a b l e c a u s e a r e e n t i t l e d t o a g r e a td e a l o f d e f e r e n c e b y a revi ew i ng cou rt , and th e t em ptat i on t o secon d-guess t ho se c o n c lu s io n s s h o u ld b e a v o id e d

. G at es , 462 U

. S. at236. A ccor di ngl y , w e fi nd t he i s s uance of t he w arr ant t o have been pr oper . A cknow l edgi ng t he s us cept i bi l i t y to a t t ack of anonym ous t i ps w hen d iss ect ed de novo – a s J u d g e S m ith for cef ul l yur ges – w e not e thateven i f th e is s uance of the w arr an t w er e fa ul t yundert he appr opr i at e s t andar d, O ffi cer H o w e ll’ s re lia n c e o n it is c le a rl yn o t s u b j e c t to a tta c k , 

### Un ited States v . Le on , 468 U. S. 897 ( 1984) , as Ju d g e S m ith re a d ily c o n c e d e s . 2 . P a rticu larity R eq u irem en t A partfrom requi ri ng probab l e cause, t he w arr ant cl ause of t he Four t h A m en dm ental s o unambi guous l yr equi r es t hat w arr ant s m us tpar t i cul ar l ydes cr i be “t he pl ace t o be s ear ched, a n d th e p e rso n s o r th in g s to b e se ize d .” U .S . C o n st. a me n d

. I V. T he par t i cul ar i t y r equi r ement not onl y pr events ge ner al se a rc h e s, b u t als o “ a ss u re s th e in d iv id u a l w h o se p ro p e rtyis s ear ched ors ei zed of

t he l aw ful author i t yof the exe cut i ng o f f ice r, h is n e e d to se a rc h , an d th e lim its o f h is p o w e r to s e a r c h. ” U

ni t ed Stat es v. C hadw i ck , 433 U

. S. 1, 9 ( 1977) (c ita tio n o m itte d ).
H e re , rely in g o n th e S u p re m e C o u rt’s d e c isio n in Mar yland v. G ar r is on , t he D i s t r i ctC our tconcl uded thatt he go vernm ent’ s di scoveryof m ult i ple dw el lin gs on defe nd ants ’- 20 - pr oper t yr etr oact i vel yi nval i dat ed the w arr ant– i n es s ence , re n d e re d th e w a rra n t d e f e c tiv e f ro m th e sta rt f

o r f a ilu re to par t i cul ar i ze the pl ace to be s ear ched. W hi l e w e agr ee that Mar yland v. G ar r is on contr ol s t he i ns t anti ssue, w e di s agr ee w ith th e D istric t C o u rt’s in ter p re tatio n a n d u se o f th a t c a se to g ra n t d e f e n d a n ts ’ m o tio n . I n G ar r is on , B al t im or e pol i ce of fi cer s obt ai ned and exec ut ed a w arr ant t o s ear ch t he per s on of L aw r ence M cW ebb and “the pr emi s es know n as 2036 Par k A venue thi r d fl oor apart m ent
. ” I

d. at 80. W hen t he pol i ce a ppl i ed fort he w arr ant a n d w h e n th e yc o n d u c ted th e se a rc h p u r s u a n t to th e w a rra n t, t heyr eas onabl ybel i eved thatt her e w as o n lyone apa r t m enton t he pr emi s es , M cW ebb’ s , l ocat ed on the thi r d fl oor as des cr i bed i n t he w arr ant
. A p reli m i naryi nves t i gat i on had bee n under t aken, w hi ch i ncl uded m aki ng cal l s t o t he ut i l i t ycompany to c o n f ir m th a t th e th ir d f

l o o r h a d o n ly o n e d w e llin g . I d. In fac t , the thi r d fl o o r w as di vi ded i nt o t w o apart m ent s , one occupi ed byM cW ebb and one byG arr i s on. W hen pol i ce a rriv e d a t th e v e stib u le o f th e th ird f lo o r o f th e b u ild in g to ex ec u te th e w arran t t o sea rch M cW eb b ’s ap artm en t, they w ere abl e t o s ee i nt o bot h M cW ebb’ s apart m entt o t he l eftand G arr i s on’ s t o t he r i ght , as the door s t o bot h w er e open. I tw as onl yaft erG arr i s on’ s apart m ent w as ent er ed and c ont r aband ha d b ee n d isco v ere d that an yo f th e o ff icers rea li ze d th a t th e thir d fl oorcont ai ned tw o apart m ent s; u p unt i l t hatpoi nt , al l of the o ff icers rea so n ab l ybel i eved thattheyw er e s ea rch ing M cW eb b ’s- 21 - apart m ent
. “A s s oon as they b eca m e aw ar e of thatfac t , t he s ear ch w as di s cont i nued. ” I d. a t 7 9

. A tt he out s et , t he G ar r is on C ou rtno t ed that“t he case pr es ent s t w o s epar at e cons t i tut i onal i s s ues , one conc erni ng t he val i di t yof t he w arr antand the otherconce r ni ng t he r eas onabl enes s of t he manneri n w hi ch i tw as ex ec u ted.” 480 U

. S. at 80. I n t he ca s e bef or e us , t he D i s t r i ct C our t concl uded t hat the o ffi cers ’ dis cov ery of m ult i ple uni t s i nsi de d efen dan t s’ r es i dence r etr oact i vel yi nval i dat ed the w arr antfor l ack of par t i cul ar i t y . “O nce th e pol i ce of fi cer s r eal i zed the bui l di ng w as a mul t i

- uni tdw el li n g , the C our thol ds t hatt he s ear ch w arr ant w as defe ct i ve forfai l i ng t o s peci fyw hi ch u n it (s) w er e t o be sea rch ed. ” B ut , i n G ar r is on , t he Su prem e C ou rt dir ect s us to per for m a di ffe r entanal y s i s . I n fac t , i tr ej ect s the conce ptof retroac ti v e inv ali d ity that w as th e b asis fo r th e D istri ct C o u rt ’s order grant i ng defe nd ants ’ s up press i on m oti on and i nst ruct s us, instead , to ex am ine th e re aso n ab lene ss o f th e w arra n t’s exec ut i on. Si m i l art o t he ci r cumst ance s pr es enti n G ar r is on , her e, t her e ca m e a poi nti n t he execut i on of the w arr antw hen the offi cer s “[w ] i t h t he bene fi tof hi nds i ght[knew ] t hatt he des cr i pt i on of [the pl ace t o be s ear ched] w as br oad er than appr opr i at e beca us e i t w as bas ed on t he m i s t aken bel i ef tha t th e re w a s o n ly o n e [ d w e llin g o n d e f e n d a n ts ’ p ro p e rt y ].” G ar r is on , 480 U

. S. at85. “The ques t i on i s w hethert hatfac tual m i s t ake i nval i dat ed a w arr antt hatundoubt edl y w oul d have be en- 22 - val i d i f i t had r efl ect ed a compl et el y acc ur at e under s t andi ng of t he bui l di ng’ s fl oo r pl an. ” Id

. C ons i der i ng t hi s ques t i on, t he Supr eme C our t ans w er ed i n the negat i ve, emphasi zi ng t hatt he cons t i tut i onal i t yof pol i ce offi cer s ’ conducti n t he exe cut i on of t he w arr ant– nott he val i d ityof the w arr ant– i s t he cruci al i s s ue, and i t m us tbe j udged “i n l i ghtof the i nfor m at i on avai l abl e t o t hem at t he t i m e theyact ed. ” Id

. T hos e i t ems of evi dence t hat em er ge af t ert he w arr anti s i s s ued have no b ea ri ng on w hetheror nota w arr antw as val i dl yi s s ued. J us tas t he di s coveryof cont r aband cannotval i dat e a w arr ant in v a lid w h e n iss u e d , s o is it e q u a llyc lea r th a t the d isc o v e ry o

f fa c ts d e m o n str a tin gth a t a v a lid w ar r antw a s unnece s s ar i l y br oad does not r etr oact i vel

y i nval i dat e the w ar r ant . T h e v a lid ity of t he w arr ant m us t be as s es s ed on t he bas i s of the i n f o r ma t i o n t h a t t h e o f

f i c e r s d i s c l o s e d , o r h ad a dut y to di s coverand t o di s cl os e, t o t he i s s ui ng M agi s t r at e. I d. ( foot not e omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added)

. T he Gar r is on C o u rt t hu s concluded t hat a search w arr ant, “i nsofa r as i tauthori ze[s] a sear ch that turn[s] ou t t o be am biguou s i n s cop e ,” w ill , nevert hel es s , be uphel d agai ns ta part i cul ar i t ychall enge i f the w arr antdes cr i bed the structur e as i tw as know n ors houl d have been know n t o t he off

i cer s aft err eas onabl e i nqui r yundert he c ir c u m s ta n c e s . I

d. at 86

. T h er e f

o re the D istri ct C o u rt ’s- 23 - s uppr es s i on or dercannot be uphel d on t he bas i s of i t s pr offe r ed re a so n in g th a t th e o f

f ice rs’ d isc o v e ryo f

m u lti p le u n its w ith in t he r es i dence i nval i dat ed t he w arr ant
. A ccor di ngl y , as di r ect ed b y G ar r is on , w e m us t eval uat e t he offi cer s ’ conducti n carr y i ng o u t th e w a rr a n t. 3. Ex e c ut i on o f

t he W ar r ant A l t hough t he off

i cer s l aw ful l y embar ked upon t he s ear ch o f th e p re m ise s w ith a w a rra n t su p p o rte d b yp ro b a b le c a u se , d id t her e come a ti m e w hen thei rexec ut i on w entbey ond w hatt he w a rra n t p e rm itt e d a n d , th u s, ra n a f o u l o f th e F o u rth Am e n d me n t ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n o f u n r e a s o n a b l e s e a r c h e s ? G ar r is on n ec essa ri lyinf

o rm s th is i n q u iry . F rom the S u p rem e C o u rt ’s opi ni on i n t hatcas e, s ever al r el evant pr i nci pl es can be di s t i l l ed, al l of w hi ch foc us on t he conduc tof a r eas onabl e off i cer and the re a so n a b len e ss o f h is b e lief a s to w h e th e r th e se a rc h a t issu e is p ro c e e d in g b e y o n d th e f o u r c o rn e rs o f

th e w a rr a n t.
F ir s t , i f t he off

i cer s had know n, ors houl d have know n, th a t th e re w e re se p a ra te d w e llin g s c o n tain e d in th e p ro p e rty pi ctur ed i n A t t achment “A ” t o O ffi cerH ow el l ’ s aff i davi t , t hey w oul d have “be en obl i gat ed t o excl ude [thos e ar eas forw hi ch pr obabl e ca us e w as notes t abl i s h ed ] f rom t he s cope of

t he r eques t ed w arr ant
. ” 480 U

. S. at85. O ffi cer H ow el l t es t i fi ed t hat t he m ul t i

- uni t natur e of defe ndant s ’ r es i dence w as not know n t o offi cer s pr i or t o exec ut i on of t he w arr ant
. Second, m er e entr yi nt o t he bui l di ng’ s comm on ar eas w as r eas onabl e andI ns ofa r a s the w arr antati s s ue i n G ar r is on named an 9 i ndi vi dual as oppos ed t o m er el yl i s t i ng an addr es s , t he fa ct s of ourcas e cl ear l ydiffe r. U ndert he fa ct s of G ar r is on , t he Supr eme C our tr ecogni zed that offi cer s , dependi ng upon w hen t he err ori s di s cover ed, w i l l ei t herhave t o l i m i tt hei rs ear ch (w h ich a ssu m es th e w arran t’ s m ist ak e is n o ti ce d b ef o re e n try i nt o an unr el at ed ar ea) o r d i s cont i nue the s ear ch ( as s um i ng, as w as t he ca s e i n G ar r is on , th a t o f f ice rs h a v e a lre a d ym ista k e n ly under t aken a s ear ch of pr emi s es out s i de the sco pe of the w a r ra n t). In th e in sta n t ca se , w h e re th e re a re m u lti p le d e f e n d a n ts a n d g e n e ra lize d p ro b a b le c a u se to se a rc h a p ro p e rty as oppos ed t o a s peci fi c i ndi vi dual ’ s apart m ent , t he l i nes ar e not s o c le a rl yd e lin e a te d

. 

### S

ee P eo p le v. L u ckett , 273 I l l

. App. 3d 10 23 , 102 8 (19 95 ) ( 

### “[ T ] h e p ro b ab le cau se requ irem ent w o u ld be re nd er ed virt

ually m eaning le ss if po li ce could legal ly se ar ch sev eral liv in g un its up o na m ere sh o w in g th at o n e o f th e un its, no t s peci fica lly

identi fied, c on ta ined the c o n tr ab and sou gh t. ”) ( c i t i ng U n ited Sta tes v. B u sk, 693 F.2d28 (3d C ir . 198 2)).

- 24 - l aw ful beca us e t he offi cer s carr i ed a val i d w arran t a ut hor i zi ng en try u p o n the pre m is e s . I d. at86. A s di s cus s ed above , t he w a rra n t to s e a rc h d e f

e n d a n ts’ re sid e n c e w a s v a lid a n d it i s undi s put ed thatt he w arr ant w as di r ect ed s peci fi cal l yt ow ar d t he p rop ertythat o ff

icers d id in fa ct e n ter. T h ir d , o n ce the o ff icers knew ors houl d have know n of the err ori n w hatt hey encount er ed ver s us w hatw as author i zed by the w arr ant , t hey w e re o b lig a ted to e ith e r lim it th e se a rc h to th o se a re a s c lea rly cover ed byt he w arr antort o di s cont i nue ent i r el yt hei rs ear ch. I d. a t 8 7

. H e re , n o tw ith sta n d in g th e ir d isc o v e r y o f m u lti p le 9N e v e rth e les s, th e g o v e rn m e n t sta tes th a t itis p re se rv in g its 10 r i gh t to ar gue on r emand t hats om e exc ept i on t o t he w arr ant r equi r ement , s uch as exi gentci r cumst ance s , j us t if i ed the cont i nued s ear ch of defe ndant s ’ i ndi vi dual apart m ent s . ( B r i ef o f A p p ell an t at1 7

. )

- 25 - u n its, the o f

f ice rs d id n o t li m it o r dis c o n tin u e th e ir se a rc h . T h is d o e s n o t n e c e ss a rily , h o w e v e r, re su lt i n su p p re s s io n o f a ll p h y sical ev iden ce d isco v e re d d u ri n g the c o u rse o f th e e n ti re s e ar ch. T he G ar r is on C o u r t’ s u lt im a te d ir e c ti v e r e m a in s s a li e n t: “The offi cer s ’ conductand the l i m i t s of t he s ear ch [a r e] bas ed on t he i nfor m at i on avai l abl e as t he s ear ch pr ocee d[s ]

. ” I d. T h is p r i n c i p l e , a l o n g wi t h a r e c o g n i t i o n o f “ t h e n e e d t o a l l o w s ome l at i tude forhones tm i s t akes t hatar e made byoffi cer s i n t he danger ous and di ffi cul tpr oces s of m aki ng arr es t s and exe cut i ng s ear ch w arr ant s , ” G ar r is on , 4 8 0 U

. S

. at 87 (fo o tno te om itted), i s w hatm us t gui de us i n det er m i ni ng i f and w hen the exe cut i on w e n t a w ry. T he governm entar gues t hatany evi dence di s cover ed befor e the r eal i zat i on byoffi cer s t hatdefe ndant s ’ r es i dence compri s ed mul t i pl e uni t s s houl d not be s uppr es s ed butconce des th a t “o n c e th e o f

f ice rs d isc o v e re d th a t th e h o u se h a d m u lti p le d w e l l i ng un i t s, t hey cou l d no l on ger rel y on t he w arran t to ju s tif yth e irs e a rc h o f

th e b u ild in g .” (B ri e f o f A p p e lla n t at 1 7 .) 10 W e agr ee. H ow ever , t he governm enti t s el f poi nt s out , “I ti s not c l e a rf r o m t h e r e c o r d [ ] wh a te v i d e n c e a p a r tf r o m th e t wo m ar i j uana- gr ow i ng r oom s and mi ni

- 14 as s aul tr i fle w asI n addi t i on, al t hough t he entr yt eams’ funct i on w as t o s w eep 11 th e p re m ise s to d e ter m in e w h e th e r a n yp e rso n s w e re p re se n t, ra th e r th a n c o n d u c t a th o ro u g h se a rc h f o r c o n tra b a n d , ce rta in ly t eam m ember s w er e not obl i vi ous t o evi dence i n pl ai n vi ew . For ex am p le, tw o w ea p o n s w ere seize d fro m E rn ie R itter’s apart m ent– o n e from t he cl os et , w hi ch cl ear l ys houl d be s uppr es s ed, and one t hat w as ei t her l ay i ng on t he bed orhangi ng o n the be d p o st, w h ich m igh t h av e be en p lai n lyv isi b le t o o ff icers f ro m a law f

u l v a n ta g e p o in t an d th u s w o u ld n o t n e c e ss a rily re q u ir e s u p p re s s io n .

- 26 - dis cover ed i n t he hous e bef or e t he off

i cer s r eal i zed thatt he h o u s e h a d m u ltip le d w e llin g u n its

. ” ( B ri e f o f A p p e lla n t.) A g a i n , we a g r e e , b u t wou l d g o f u r t h e r , a s we a r e not even cert ai n t hatt he evi dence t o w hi ch the gover n m entr efe r s w as v iew e d b e f

o re th e o f

f ice rs r e a lize d th e yw e re in a m u lti -u n it propert y . T he D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order grant i ng defe nd ants ’ s uppr es s i on m ot i on does noti ncl ude anyfac tual fi ndi ngs on w hi ch w e coul d m ake s uch a de t erm i nat i on on appea l

. N ordoes our r eadi ng of t he col d r ecor d el uci dat e exact l y w hathappene d, and w hen, dur i ng t he exe cut i on of the w arr ant
. T hatw hi ch the D istric t C o u rt f

in d s th a t m e m b e rs o f th e e n trytea m o b se rv e d in the s h are d o r co m m o n are as o f d ef en d an ts’ reside n ce – b ef o re th e yc o n c lu d e d th a t th e re sid e n c e a c tu a llyc o m p rise d m u lti p le a p a rt m ents – w i l l dict at e w hat evi den ce, i f any , shou l d av o id s uppr es s i on. W e ca nnotdi s cern s uch det er m i nat i ve fac t s fr om

11 t he r ecor d, and w e w il l R E M A N D t o t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor f u rt h e r f a c t- f in d in g in th is re g a rd

.- 27 - H ow ever , j us tas “w e do nots uppl yt he t es t i m onyt hatt he g o v e rn m e n t f

a ile d to e lic it d u ri n g th e s u p p re s s io n h e a ri n g ,” U nit ed S t ates v. M

yers , 308 F. 3d 251, 2 5 5 (3d C i r . 2002) , t he g o v e rn m e n t sh o u ld n o t b e a f f o rd e d a se c o n d o p p o rtu n ityto carr yi t s bur den thatt he cha l l enged e vi dence s houl d notbe su p p re ss e d . A c c o rd in g ly , the g o v e rn m e n t m u st liv e w ith its de c i s i o n t o o f

f e r o n l y o n e wi t n e s s

– Off i c e r Howel l – t o m ake a r e c o r d o f t h e e v e n t s o f M a y 8 , 2 0 0 3

. B a s e d o n h i s t e s t i m o n y, and thatof def

endant s ’ w i t n ess, A ndr e Pet er s on, t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt , assu m ing itca n d o so fro m the e v iden ce a lr e a d yb ef o re i t , mu s tma k e f

a c tu a l f i n d i n g s c o n s o n a n t wi t h b o t h t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s deci s i on i n G ar r is on and thi s opi ni on. S h o ul d t he D istri ct C o u rtn ee d fu rth er e lucid ati o n o r clari fica ti o n , h o w ev er, i n l i ghtof ouranal y s i s and gi ven the pas s age of t i m e, i t m ayon r emand r eques tt hatt he w i t nes s es pr evi ous l y cal l ed t es t i fyonce a g a in in o rd e r f

o r t h e C o u rt to m a k e th e re q u is ite f in d in g s . 4. O t her E vi dence Sei zed and Su ppres s ed
W e now tur n t o t he addi t i onal concl us i ons of l aw m ade b yt h e Di s t r i c tCo u r tr e g a r d i n g d e f e n d a n tDa l e Ri t t e r ’ s c l a i ms t hat1) t he s cope of

t he s ear ch w arr antw as exce eded byt he g o v e rn m e n t’s s e a rc h o f h is o v e n a n d b ro iler a n d 2 ) h e sh o u ld nothave be en patt ed dow n abs ent r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hathe w as ar m ed and da nger ous. A s t o t he fi r s tcl ai m , t he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e ter m in e d th a t th e iss u e w a s m o o t b a se d o n its co n clus ion that th e e n ti re se arc h w as u n law fu l. U n d er G ar r is on , how ever , onl yt hatevi dence s ei zed aft eroffi cer s have- 28 - disco v er ed the mul t i

- uni tchar act erof the pr emi s es s houl d be s up p r es s ed. H er e, agai n, w e nee d t he D i s t r i ctC our tt o m ake f a c tu a l f in d in g s. O f

f ice r H o w e ll tes tifie d th a t “ th e re w a s a tra il of t he mar i

j uana l eadi ng fro m the fr ontof the r es i dence t o t he oven, ” but , w hen co u n sel as ked hi m i f thatt r ai l w as w hatl ed o f f ice rs to lo o k in th e b ro iler f o r m o n e y , O f

f ice r H o w e ll r ei t er at ed, “A gai n, I di dn’ ts ear ch i t , t he age ntt hatdi d w oul d be b e tter, b e a b e tt e r o n e to a sk th e se q u e stio n s.” W e w ill R E M A N D fort he D i s t r i ctC our tt o m ake fi ndi ngs and r ender concl us i ons on t hi s i s s ue bas ed on t he evi dence pr es ent l yi n t he r e c o r d a n d O f

f i c e rH o w e l l ’ s c r e d i b i l i t y. S e c o n d , the D istric t C o u rt a g re e d w ith d e f e n d a n t D a le R i t t ert hatt he mar i

j uana di s cover ed on hi s per s on as a r es ul tof a p a td o w n sh o u ld b e su p p r e s s e d . T h e C o u rt re a so n e d th a t, u n d er Y b a rr a v . Ill in o is , 4 4 4 U

. S

. 8 5 , 9 2 -93 (19 7 9 ), the o ff icers nee d e d r e a s o n a b l e s u s p i c i o n t h a t Dal e Ri t t e r was a r med and d an g ero u s, o f w h ich th e g o v ern m en t of fe red n o p roo f. In Y ba rra , pol i ce offi cer s , w ho had obt ai ned a w arr ant t o s ear ch a t avern and it s o w nerforevi dence of drugs , announce d upon ent er i ng t he t avern t hatal l pr es ent w oul d be s ubj ectt o a “cur s or ys ear ch forw eapon s. ” 4 4 4 U

. S. at88. O ne of the o f f ice rs f risk e d th e d e f

e n d a n t an d f

e lt “a c ig a re tte p a c k w ith o b jec ts in it”; a f

ter f risk in g o th e r p a tro n s, th e o f f ice r re tu rn e d to the d ef en d an t, re m o v e d the c igare tt e p ac k fro m d ef en d an t’ s p o c k e t a n d f

o u n d it to c o n ta in h e ro in

. I d. a t 8 8 -8 9

. In r evi ew i ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t y of t he defe ndant ’ s pat dow n, t he S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d :- 29 - T he Ter r

y cas e cr eat ed an exce pt i on t o t he r equi r ement of pr ob abl e ca us e, an exc ept i on w hos e “na r r ow s cope” t hi s C our t“has been car eful t o m ai nt ai n. ” U ndert hatdoctr i ne a l aw enfor cementoffi cer , forhi s ow n pr ot ect i on and s a f e t y , ma yc o n d u c ta p a t d o wn t o f i n d weapons th a t h e re a so n a b ly b e liev e s o r su sp e c ts a re th e n in t he pos s es s i on of the per s on he has acc os t ed. N ot hi ng i n Ter r

y c a n b e u n d e r s t o o d t o a l l o w a g en era li ze d “c u rsor y sea rch fo r w ea p o n s” o r, i ndeed, anys ear ch w hat ever for a ny t hi ng but w eapons . T he “na r r ow s cope” o f the T erry exce pt i on does not per m i t a fr i s k forw eapons on l es s t han r eas onabl e bel i ef ors us pi ci on di r ect ed at t he per s on t o be fr i s ked, even though t hatper s on happen s t o be on pr emi s es w her e an a ut hor i zed n a rc o tic s s e a rc h is ta k in g p la c e .I n s o concl udi ng, t he Supr eme C our tal s o r ej ect ed the 12 governm ent ’ s al t ernat i ve ar gum entt hat , bas ed on governm ent al interest i n “e ff

ec ti v elyco n tr o lli n g tr af fic in d an g ero u s, h ard drugs , ” the Ter r

y “re aso n ab le be lief o r sus p ici o n ” stan d ard s houl d be made appl i cabl e “t o ai d t he evi dence

- gath eri ng funct i on of t he sea r ch w arr ant ” s uch thatper s ons pr es enton “compact ” ar eas t o be s ear ched c an be s ear ched f ordrugs bas ed on r eas onabl e s us pi ci on t hey ar e s om ehow connec t ed w i t h drug tr a f f ic k in g . Y

ba rra , 444 U

. S. at343- 44 ( ci t i ng U ni t ed Stat es v. Di Re , 3 3 2 U .S . 5 8 1 , 5 8 3 -5 8 7 (1 9 4 8 ))

.

- 30 - I d. at93- 94 ( foot not e and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. A tt he s uppr es s i on 12 h e a rin g in th is c a se , O f f ice H o w e ll t e s ti f

ie d th a t w h e n p e o p le are enc ount er ed on the pr emi s es of pr opert yt o be s ear ched d u ri n g the c o u rse o f ex ec u ti n g a se arc h w arran t, u su all ytheyare

“ se c u re d ” a n d “ p a d d e d [ sic ] d o w n f o r w e a p o n s” p ri m a rilyto en su re o ff

icers’ saf

ety
. T h o u g h h e w as n o t i n the a rea w h ere D a le R itt e r w a s ap p a re n tly p a tted d o w n , w h ich O f f ice r H o w e ll des cr i bed as “m or e t ow ar ds t he fr ont , ” H ow el l t es t i fi ed thathe as s um ed D al e R i t t erhad bee n pat t ed dow n fort hi s r eas on. U n d er Y ba rra , t hi s “cur s or ys ear ch for w eapons ” cl ear l yi s not per m i t t ed abs enta r eas onabl e beli ef ors us pi ci on t hatan i ndi vi dual encount er ed i s ar m ed, 444 U

. S. at88, 96. T her efor e, t he evi dence di s cover ed on D al e R i t t er ’ s per s on s houl d be s u p p re s s e d

. See al

s o D oe v. G r oody , 3 6 1 F

. 3 d 2 3 2 , 2 4 3 (3d C ir

. 2004) ( “A s ear ch w arran t f ora pr emi s es does notcons t i tut e a lice n se to se a rc h e v e ry o n e in s id e .” ). W e w ill A F F IR M th is a s p e c t o f th e D is tr ic t C o u rt ’s o rd e r.- 31 - Fi nal l y , t he gover nm ent ar gues t hatevi dence s ei zed f r om “t he s t a b l e ” a n d “ e l s e whe r e o n t h e g r o u n d s ” was l a w ful not w i t hs t andi ng t he di s coveryof m ul t i pl e uni t s i ns i de the hous e. ( B r i ef of A ppel l antat17. ) B eca us e the r eco rd is d evoi d of d e t a i l s c o n c e r n i n g t h e d i s c o v e r yo f t h i s a d d i t i o n a l e v i d e n c e , we w ill R E M A N D f

o r f u rt h e r f a c t- f in d i n g b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt
.

III . C ONC L US I ON
T he s ear ch undert aken i n r el i ance on t he w arr anti s s ued w as r eas onabl e. N ot w i t hs t andi ng t he s ubs equentdi s coveryof a fa ctual m i s t ake i n t he w arr ant concer ni ng t he number of i ndi vi dual dw el l i ngs compri s ed byt he r es i dence , under Mar yland v. G ar r is on , t he w arr antw as notdefe ct i ve forl ack of p a rticu lar ity
H o w ever, w e w i l l R E M A N D t his case for further factf in d in g re latin g to th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e x e c u tio n o f th e w a rra n t. A lth o u g h it i s c lea r th a t law e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ice rs d id n o t li m it o r d isc o n tin u e th e ir se a rc h o f d e f e n d a n ts’ in d iv id u a l ap a rtm e n ts as G ar r is on w o u ld re q u ire , c e rta in e v id e n c e o b se rv e d a s a r e su lt o f o f f ice rs’ v a lid e n tryo n to th e p re m ise s m a yb e a d m is s ib le if t he D i s t r i ctC our tcan make fi ndi ngs as to evi dence obs er ved befor e entr yi nt o i ndi vi dual apart m ent s

– w h etheri n comm on ar eas orpur s uantt o t he pl ai n vi ew doctr i ne – w hi l e the pol i ce h a d a re a so n a b le b e lief

th a t th e se a rc h w a s in c o m p lian c e w ith th e w a rr a n t.- 32 - A d d iti o n a l f

a c t-f in d in g is a lso re q u ire d to re so lv e b o th th e d isc o v e ryo f c o n tra b a n d o u tsid e th e re sid e n c e – in th e sta b le and “e l s ew her e on the grounds , ” and D al e R i t t er ’ s cl ai m t hat evi dence s ei zed f

r om hi s oven and br oi l er s houl d be s uppr es s ed.
W e w i l l A FFIRM t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s det er m i nat i on t hat t he mar i j uana di s cover ed on D al e R i t t er ’ s per s on pur s uant t o a p atdo w n sh o u ld b e su p p resse d u n d er Y b a rr a v . Ill in o is

.

_________________- 33 - S M IT H , C i r cui tJudge , di s s ent i ng i n par tand conc ur r i ng i n t he ju d g m e n t.
B ec au se I b eli ev e that ev en u n d er a d ef ere n ti al st an d ard of r evi ew , t he m agi s t r at e j udge’ s pr obabl e caus e det er m i nat i on sh o u ld n o t st a n d , I d issen t from the p o rt ion o f th e m ajority ’s o p inion v ali d ati n g the issu an ce o f t h e w arran t. H o w ev er, beca us e undert he rul e of U ni t ed St at es v. Leon O f

f ice r H o w e ll c o u l d r e a s o n a b l yr e l yo n t h e i n v a l i d wa r r a n t , I r e a c h t h e s a me r es ul tas t he m aj or i t y : B efor e t hey di s cover ed thatt he bui l di ng t o be s ear ched c ont ai ned mul t i pl e apa r t m ent s , t he co nductof H o w e ll an d th e o th e r w a rra n t-e x e c u tin g o f f ice rs d id n o t v io late th e F o u rt h A m e n d m e n t. U n lik e th e m a

jo ri ty, I d o n o t v ie w th is a s a “ c lo s e c a s e ,” w her e ourdefe r ent i al r evi ew “t i ps t he s cal e i n favor ” of vali dati ng t he m agis t rat e’s fi nd i ng of probab l e cause. T h is is nota mar gi nal cas e of pr obabl e ca us e thats hould be governed b ya p re f e re n c e f o r w a rr a n ts
. See U

ni t ed States v. V

entr es ca , 380 U

. S. 102, 109 ( 1965). R ather , undert he pr ece dentof the S u p re m e C o u rt a n d th is C o u rt, I am d o u b tf u l th a t th e a f

f id a v it even support s a fi ndi ng t hat r eas onabl e s us pi ci on exi s t ed, m uch les s p ro b a b le c a u se . In m yv iew , the m a jo rity ’s a n a ly s is in c o n c l u d i n g t h a tt h e wa r r a n t wa s p r o p e r l yi s s u e d i s f l a we d i n t wo w ay s . Fi r s t , t he maj or i t ydoes notdi s countfors t al enes s t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n H ow el l ’ s M a y2 0 0 3 a f f i d a v i tr egar di ng- 34 - the A u g u st 20 0 2 era d ic a tio n p rojec t. S ec o n d , an d m o re fundament al l y , bycr edi t i ng H ow el l ’ s s u p p o s e d c o rr obor at i on of a “ba r e bones ” anonym ous t i p – i

. e. , a ti p co n sis t i ng onl yof concl us or yal l egat i ons of i l l egal i t y – t he m aj or i t y m i s appl i es t he a n o n ym o u s tip ju risp ru d e n c e o f th e S u p re m e C o u r t an d th is C o u rt, an d m isc o n c e iv e s th e ro le c o rro b o ra tio n p lays in e v a lu a tin g su c h tip s. B o th o f th e se f a c to r s w e ig h stro n g ly agai ns tt he magi s t r at e’ s pr obabl e ca us e det er m i nat i on. S tal en ess Th e ma j o r i t ydo e s n o tc o n f

r o n tt h e f

a c tt h a tb yt h e t i me of the fi r s tanonym ous t i p , H ow el l ’ s i nfor m at i on fr om t he A ugus t2002 m ar i

j uana e r adi cat i on effo r thad age d ei ght m ont hs

. T he s t al enes s of thi s i nfor m at i on r ender s i tof m i ni m al pr obat i ve val ue. It is w ell -estab li sh ed that stal en ess is a c o n textu al i n q u iry and nots i m pl ya mat t erof m eas ur i ng t he age of i nfor m at i on c o n ta in e d in a n a f

f id a v it. U ni t ed St at es v. H

ar vey , 2 F. 3d 1318, 1322 ( 3d C ir

. 1993) ( not i ng t hatt he s peed w i t h w hi ch i nfor m at i on s uppor t i ng a w arr antbecomes s t al e var i es w i t h t he n a tu re o f th e c rim e a n d th e typ e o f e v id e n c e ); U

n it ed Stat es v. Wi l l i a ms , 8 9 7 F

. 2 d 1 0 3 4 , 1 0 3 9 ( 10 Ci r . 1 9 9 0 )

. Byt h e s a me th t ok en, st al eness i m pli es no f ront i er bet w een f

ull -pot encyfres h i nfor m a t i on and the w or t hl es s l ys t al e. W i t h hal f- l i fes vary i ng by cont ext , t he re l i abi l i t y of i nfor m at i on di s s i pat es overt i m e t o t he poi ntt hat s uch i nfor m at i on m us tbe di s r egar ded. For i ns t ance ,A s t he m aj or i t y not es , H ow el l s aw t he ar ea i n ques t i on one 13 ti m e f rom a h eli co p ter, ap p rox im a te lyeigh t m o n ths b ef o re su b m it ti ng hi s aff

i davi t
. T he one pe r s on i nt er vi ew ed byt he o ff icers o n the g rou n d in A u g u st 2 0 0 2 , the m arij u an a c u lt ivato r, d e n ied liv in g in th e h o u se , an d n o c o n n e c tio n b e tw e e n th e m a in bui l di ng and t he m ar i

j uana gr ow i ng i n t he r oofl es s hor s e s t abl es ori n t he fi el d w as ev er m ade. B oth t he hor s e s t abl es and the fi el d ar e des cr i bed i n H ow el l ’ s aff i davi t as bei ng “att he r ear ” of th e m a in h o u se . W h e re , if a t all, th e ro o f les s s tab le s a p p e a r in th e a e ria l p h o to g ra p h (“ A ttac h m e n t A ” to th e a f f id a v it) is - 35 - in f o rm a tio n re g a rd in g a n a lleg e d b u rg lar ’s p o ss e ss io n o f re a d ily fenc ed musi c C D s w i l l di s s i pat e fa s t ert han, s ay , an al l eged bur gl ar ’ s pos s es s i on of a s t ol en C eza nne pai nt i ng t hat m ayt ake t he s us p ec ted t hi ef y ear s t o unl oad. Fur t her , w e have r ecogni zed, qui t e sens i bl y , t hat i nfor m at i on r egar di ng r epea t ed un l aw ful cond uct over an extended peri od su g g e st s a “cont i nui ng offe ns e, ” and t hus i s m or e dur abl e t han i nfor m at i on o f d is c re te o f

f e n s e s . U ni t ed Stat es v. U

r ban , 404 F. 3d 754, 774 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 5 ) (“ [ W ]h e re th e f a c ts a d d u c e d to su p p o rt p ro b a b le caus e des cr i be a cour s e or pat t ern of ongoi ng an d co n ti nuous cri m i nal i t y , t he pas s age of t i m e betw een the occ ur r ence of the f a c ts s e t f o rth in th e a f

f id a v it a n d th e su b m iss io n o f th e a f f id a v it itse lf lo se s s ig n if

ica n c e .”); U

ni t ed States v. Zi m m er m an , 277 F .3 d 4 2 6 , 4 3 4 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).
H er e, t he i nfor m at i on H ow el l us ed to corr obor at e the anonym ous t i p w as w eak a s an i ni t i al m at t er , and t he natur e of 13unknow n. A tbes t , t he conne ct i on betw een the out door m ar i j uana gr o w o p er at i on and the nea rbybui l di ng m us tbe im p u te d , a n d th u s w a s te n u o u s e v e n in A u g u s t 2 0 0 2

. - 36 - t h e crime and t ype of e vi dence i ndi cat es t hatt he i nfor m at i on w a s s u s c e p tib le to b e c o m in g s ta le

. Fi r s t , H ow el l s aw m ar i

j uana gr ow i ng on t he pr oper t yon one occ as i on. B ydefi ni t i o n , one s i ght i ng cannotcons t i tut e a

“ c o n t i n u i n g o f

f e n s e ” s uc h t h a tt h e i n f

o r ma t i o n wo u l d b e c o me s ta le a t a re la tiv e ly slo w ra te
. C om par e Zi m m er m an , 277 F. 3d at43 4 (co n cl udi ng t hatone vi ew i ng of a pornogr aphi c vi deo c lip te n m o n th s b e f

o re re n d e re d th e in f

o rm a tio n s ta le ), w ith U r b a n , 404 F. 3d at 775 ( det er m i ni ng t hata y ear s - l ong pat t ern of gr aftand ext or t i on, t he l as t evi dence of w hi ch w as fr om O ct ober 1 9 9 9 , w as n o t st ale a t the ti m e o f a F eb rua ry2 0 0 0 af fid av it ), a n d Har v ey , 2 F. 3d at1323 ( concl udi ng t hati nfor m at i on conce r ni n g t he r ece i ptof fi ft een c hi l d por nogr aphym ai l i ngs over a per i od fr om t w o t o fi ft een m ont hs before the w arr ant appl i ca t i o n was ma d e was n o ts t a l e )

. Th e Aug u s t2 0 02 d isc o v e ryo f a n o u td o o r g ro w o p e ra tio n w a s a d isc re te e v e n t, a n d th e m a riju a n a w a s d e stro y e d

. T o b e su re , o n e m a ysp e c u late t hatm ar i j uana i s m or e l i kel y t o be r egr ow n i n t he s ame l ocat i on w her e i thas been f

ound t han i n a pl ace w her e i thas neverbeen di s cover ed

. H ow ever , H ow el l ’ s aff i davi tcont ai ns no i nfor m at i on th a tma r i

j uana w as r epea t edl ygr ow n att he l ocat i on, a n d it i s e q u a ll yse n sib le to p o sit th a t p e o p le w ill n o t ag a in c ult i vate m ari

j uan a i n a locat i on al readykn ow n to aut ho ri t i es.- 37 - B eca us e ther e w as no patt ern of i l l egal i t yher e, I bel i eve the i nformat i on fr om t he A ugus t2002 er adi cat i on eff or thad become s t al e b y t he t i m e H ow el l i ncl uded i ti n hi s M ay2003 a f f id a v it. Second, notonl yw as no connec t i on betw een the out door gr ow oper at i ons and the mai n hous e m ade i n A ugus t2002, even if o n e w e re to in f

e r su c h a c o n n e c tio n th e n e x iste d , H o w e ll m ade no e ffor tt o det er m i ne w h ether t her e w as a cont i nui t yof o w n e rsh ip o r o c c u p a n c yo f th e p ro p e rty . W h a t th e m a jo r ity t er m s “R i t t er s ’ pr oper t y , ” ant e n . 1

– a fa i renough char act er i zat i on i n M ay 2003 cons i der i ng t he R i t t er s ’ r es i dency i f not ow ner s hi p of t he compound – m ay have b ee n n o su ch t hi ng i n A ugus t 2002. T her e w as s i m pl yno i nves t i gat i on of ( 1) w ho, if any one, l i ved i n t he bui l di ng ( orw ho ow ned i t ) att he t i m e of t he A ugus t 2002 m ar i j uana er adi cat i on; ( 2) w hethert he occupa nt s orow ner s o f the bui l di ng w er e conne ct ed t o t he A ugus t2002 out doorm ar i j uana gr ow i ng; or( 3) w hetherany change s i n o ccupancyorow ner s hi p had occ ur r ed betw een A ugus t2002 and M ay2003. M or eover , apartfr om t he anonym ous t i ps , H ow el l had no evi dence t hatt he bui l di ng ever hous ed an i ndoorm ar i

j ua na gr ow i ng oper at i on. A nyconnec t i on betw een the out doorgr ow o per at i on and an i ndoorgr ow r oom m u st b e im p u ted . Y e t, th e m a jo ritytra n sp o rts a c ro ss th e e ig h tm ont h i nt er i m t he connec t i on t hey nece s s ar i l y dr aw betw een the i l l i ci tout door a ct i vi t yand thats us pect ed t o have oc curr ed i ndoor s i n A ugus t2002. I n m yvi ew , t he conne ct i on betw een th e o u td o o r m a r ij u a n a c u lti v a tio n a n d th a t w h ich th e m a jo rityI n G at es , t he Supr eme Court i ncorpor at ed t he r eas oni ng of 14 i t s deci s i ons i n A gui l arv. Texas , 378 U

. S. 108 ( 1964) , and Spi nel l i v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 393 U

. S. 410 ( 1969) , i nt o a t ot al i t y - oft he-ci rcum st ances ap pro ach f or eval uati ng i nfo rm ants ’ t i ps. G at es esc h ew ed a sto v ep ipe a p p roa ch that tr ea ts an inf o rm an t’ s
“ v e ra c ity ,” “ re liab ili ty ,” a n d “ b a sis o f k n o w led g e ” – c riter ia devel oped i n A gui l arand S p in e lli– as i ndepende ntand nece s s aryel ement s t o cr edi t i ng t i ps . R ather , i n affi r m i ng t he A gui l arand S

p in e lli cr i t er i a as r el evant i ndi ci a of a t i p’ s val ue, th e C o u rt e sta b lish e d th a t th e in q u iry sh o u ld tre a t th e se c riter ia as r el at ed i ssu es , s uch that“a de fi ci encyi n one maybe compensa t ed for , i n det er m i ni ng t he over al l r el i abi l i t y of a t i p, - 38 - pr es um es t o have occurr ed i ndoor s w as w eak i n 2002, and w as w or t hl es s l y sta l e byM ay2003. Peopl e ar e mobi l e. R eal propert ychan ges han ds.
C or r obo r at i on o f

A nonym ous Ti ps I n I l l i nois v. G at es , 4 2 6 U. S

. 2 1 3 ( 1 9 8 3 ) , t h e S u p r e me C ourt s t r es s ed that , unl i ke t i ps fr om know n i nfor m ant s w ho have pr ovi ded r el i abl e i nfor m at i on i n t he pas t , ort i ps fr om i den t i fi ed cit i zens w ho cou l d b e charged w i t h fil i ng a fal se r eporti f t he t i p pr oved fa ul t y , t he ver aci t yand r el i abi l i t yof anony mou s t i p s t e r s i s “ b yh yp o t h e s i s l a r g e l yu n k n o wn, a nd unknow abl e. ” Id . a t 2 3 7

. G ates a l s o o b s e r v e d t ha t t he s a me defi ci encyobt ai ns r egar di ng t he means by w hi ch an a nonym ous i nfor m antcame by t he i nfor m at i on cont ai ned i n a t i p, w hatt he C o u rt te rm e d th e “ b a s is o f k n o w le d g e .” Id

. at 2 4 6

. In 14bya s t r ong s how i ng as t o t he ot her , orbys om e otheri ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t y . ” G a te s , 4 6 2 U .S . a t 2 3 3

.

- 39 - expoundi n g o n t he “ve r aci t y , ” “r el i abi l i t y , ” and “ bas i s of k n o w le d g e ” in q u ir ie s , G ates and i t s pr ogeny dis t i ng uis h betw een a nonym ous t i ps t hat cont ai n det ai l ed pre di ct i ons of the t a r g e t ’ s f u tu r e a c t i v i t i e s f

r o m t h o s e t h a tme r e l ya s s e r tc r i mi n al w ro n g d o in g o c c u rr in g in th e p a s t o r a t th e tim e o f th e tip

. I n t he form ercat egory , t he ca ses all ow t hatpol i ce co rrob o ra tio n o f th e ti p ’s pre d ict ion s reg ard ing the targ et’s futur e l aw ful act i ons can bol s t er t he t i p’ s cr edi t abi l i t y , and may c re a te th e re a so n a b le s u sp icio n o r p ro b a b le c a u se n e e d e d to s u p p o rt a sei zur e and s ear ch of the t ar getand hi s pr oper t yfor e v id e n c e o f ill e g a l a c tiv ity

. T h e ra tio n a le o f th e se d e c isio n s is th a t if t h e a n o n ym o u s ti p p rov es c o rrect ab o u t th e targ et’s pr edi ct ed l i ci tact i ons “A , B , and C , ” th en the t i p’ s pr edi ct i on t hatt he t ar getw i l l be enga ged i n i l l egal act i vi t y“D ” i s m o re cr e d ita b le

. Id

. a t 2 4 4 ; s ee Spi nel l i v. U ni t ed Stat es , 39 3 U. S. 410, 4 2 7 ( 1 9 6 9 ) ( W h i t e , J

. , c o n c u r r i n g ) ( “ [ B] e c a u s e an i nfor m anti s r i ghtabouts om e thi ngs , he i s m or e pr obabl yr i ght aboutot herfac ts, us ual l yt he cr i t i cal , unver i fi ed fa ct s . ”)

. T he pol i ce c or r obor at i on of the anonym ous t i p’ s i nnocentdet ai l s , t he cas es t eac h, bol s t er s t he ver aci t yand r el i abi l it y o f t he t i p, as w e ll as su g g e sts th a t th e tip ste r is a tru ste d in tim a te o f th e tar g e t,T he Supr eme C our thas s ugges t ed thatpol i ce mayr el yon 15 an an o n ym o u s ti p to co n d u ct a se izure an d sea rch o n th e ti p ’s target i f t he d ang er al l eged i s great , such as a b om b thr e a t. Fl or i da v . J

. L. , 529 U

. S. 266, 273- 74 ( 2000)

. H ow ever , as her e, anonym ous t i ps r egar di ng nar cot i cs d o n otcons t i tut e s uch a s peci al ci r cumst ance . - 40 - and thus m ay be pr i vyt o i ns i de i nfor m at i on conce r ni ng t he ta rg e t’ s a lle g e d la w b re a k in g . W here t he an on ym ou s t i p c o ntai ns on l y“bare bo nes” al l egat i ons of i l l egal i t y , how ever , t he po li ce have no ba s i s on w hi ch t o eval uat e t he cr edi t abi l i t yof the t i p’ s i l l egal cont entby corr obor at i ng t he t i p’ s pr edi ct i ons of t he t ar get ’ s futur e i nnocent a c tio n s. S u c h c o n c lu so rya n o n ym o u s tip s d o n o t am o u n t to r eas onabl e s us pi ci on, m uch l es s pr obabl e caus e, and pol i ce may no tbase a sei zure or search on t hem

. A s w i t h p redi ct i ve ti ps, 15 a “ba r e bones ” anonym ous t i p can t r i ggera pol i ce i nves t i gat i on, s uch as pl aci ng s ur vei l l ance on t he t i p’ s t ar get , t hatm ayr evea l i ndepende nts us pi ci ous act i vi t yupon w hi ch t he pol i ce can then ac t
. W i t h n o t h i n g b u tt h e i l l e g a l i t yt o v e r i f y , h o wev e r , t he i nvest i gat i on of conc l us or yal l egat i ons i t s el f m us tr evea l su sp ici o u s ac ti v ityind ep en d en tl y su ff ici en t t o su p p o rta se izure and s ear ch.
H er e, t he anonym ous t i ps cont ai ned onl y bar e al l egat i ons o f il lega li ty– that the re s id e n ts of the id en ti fied b u il d ing w ere cul t i vat i ng m ar i

j uana i n t w o out doorl ocat i ons and i n t w o i ndoor- 41 - gr ow r oom s , and that a n o ccupa ntof the hous e w as s een carr y i ng m ari

j uana pl ant s i ns i de the bui l di ng. T he t i ps c o n tain e d n o p re d ictio n s o f in n o c e n t ac tiv ityH o w e ll co u ld corr obor at e t o bol s t ert he t i p’ s over al l r el i abi l i t y ; t her e w as n o th in g to c o rro b o ra te e x c e p t f o r th e ill e g a l ac tiv ityitse lf. Y e t, t he maj or i t y , r el y i ng on i nappos i t e “pr edi ct i ve anonym ous t i p” cas el aw , err oneous l yconcl udes t hatH ow el l ’ s v iew ing of out doorm ar i

j u an a gr ow i ng neart he bui l di ng ei ghtm ont hs ear l i ers om ehow “corr obor at ed” the anonym ous t i p. I di s agr ee w ith th is a p p ro a c h , a n d I b e liev e it i s u n p re c e d e n ted , b e c a u se it s ubs t i tut es H o w ell ’ s pr i orknow l edge f oranyt es t i ng of the rel i abi l i t yand bas i s of know l edge of t he t i ps t erand her in f o rm a tio n . T h is s trik e s m e a s a f u n d a m e n tal e rro r w ith pot ent i al l ydanger ous i m pl i cat i ons . T he Supr eme C our thas an aly ze d an o n ym o u s ti p s three ti m es, an d in ea ch ca se the C o u rt has emphasi zed t he t i p’ s acc ur acyi n pr edi ct i ng futur e eve nt s as a m ea n s o f a sses sing it s o v era ll c re d ibil ity . T h e ti p h ere pr edi ct ed no t hi ng t hatcoul d be ver i fi ed, s o w hen the w arr ant iss u e d , the p re d ictiv e v a lu e o f th e tip w a s n il.
P r edi ct i ve Anonym ous Ti p C as es T he Supr eme C our ti n G ates emphasi zed t he val ue of the i ndepende nt pol i ce i nves t i gat i on i n corr obor at i ng t he det ai l s of the G atese s’ na rco ti cs ru n as p red ict ed in an an o n ym o u s let ter. B yt he t i m e he ha d s ubm i t t ed hi s aff i davi tt o t he magi s t r at e, t he offi ceri n G at es had corr obor at ed s ev era l of the pr edi ct i ons cont ai ned i n t he l et t er , i ncl udi ng L ance G at es ’ fl i ghtfr om- 42 - C h ica g o to W e st P a lm B e a c h , F lo rid a , h is c o llec tin g th e f a m ily c a r t h e re , a n d h is q u ic k d e p a rt u re d ri v i n g b a c k n o rt h

. G at es , 4 2 6 U .S

. a t 2 4 4

. T h a t th e a n o n ym o u s lette r ha d c o r r e c tly pr edi ct ed thes e i nnocentfac t s , t he C our tr eas oned, i ncr eas ed the r el i abi l i ty o f the t i ps t er ’ s pr edi ct i on t hatt he trunk of the ca r w o u ld c o n ta in m a ri

ju a n a . I d. Si m i l ar l y , th e bas i s of know l edge of t he anonym ous l et t er w r i t erw as unas s es s abl e bef o re t he det ai l s w er e corr obor at ed. A s to th is c ri te ri a , G at es di s t i ngui s hed bet w een “ eas i l yobt ai ned fa cts a n d c o n d it ion s ex ist ing at t h e ti m e o f th e ti p , ” w h ich a re depr eca t ed, and pr edi ct ed futur e eve nt s t hatonl y an i nt i m at e of t he t i p’ s t ar getw oul d know , aboutw hi ch corr obor at i on of i nnocentdet ai l s b y pol i ce i nves t i gat i on can bol s t ert he p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e tip ’s c o n ten t co n c e rn in g ill e g a lityis a c c u ra te
. I

d. at 244- 46. T hat s ever al of the l et t er ’ s pr edi ct i ons of t he G at es es ’ unus ual t r avel pl ans prov ed true i ncr eas ed the p ro b a b ili tyth a t th e lette r c o n tain e d in f o rm a tio n k n o w n o n lyto th e G a te s e s th e m s e lv e s o r a tru s te d in tim a te o f th e ir s , n a m e l y, that theyw ere tr an sp o rt ing m arij u an a in th e trun k o f th eir car. I d. at246. N ot i ng t he s ubs t ant i al corr obor at i on of di ffi cul t
- t opr edi ctdet ai l s cont ai ned i n t he l ett er, a nd obs er vi ng t hatt he G at es es ’ act i ons w er e “a s s ugges t i ve of a pr earr anged drug run, as i t[w as ] of an or di nary vaca t i on t r i p, ” t he C our thel d t hatt he m a g is tr a te h a d a p ro p e r b a s is f o r is s u in g th e w a rr a n t. I d. at243- 4 6

.- 43 - G at es h igh li g h ts th e il log ic of the m ajority ’ s r el i ance he re on H ow el l ’s ex a n te “ c o rro b o ra tio n ” o f th e a n o n ym o u s tip to ju stif yth e iss u a n c e o f

th e se a rc h w a rra n t: T h e m a jo rityc re d its t he anonym o u s ti p atfac e val ue i n i t s pr obabl e ca us e ca l cul us w i t houtr equi r ing thati t s ver aci t y , r el i abi l i t y , orbas i s of know l edge be vet t ed at al l

. I ndeed, quot i ng G at es , the m a jo rity m en ti o n s “b asis o f k n o w ledg e” as a fa ctor in a m ag istrate’s “pr act ical, comm on- s ens e” pr obabl e ca us e dec i s i on, y etnever re tu rn s to a p p ly it to th e f a c ts o f th is c a s e . I n A la b a m a v . W

h ite , 4 9 6 U. S

. 3 2 5 ( 1 9 9 0 ) , t h e S u p r e me Co u r ta p p l i e d i t s a n o n ymo u s t i p a n a l y s i s f r o m G ates i n a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on cont ext
. T h e anonym ous t i p i n W h ite i ndi cat ed that, ata gi ven t i m e, V anes s a W hi t e w oul d dr i ve a br ow n Pl ym out h s t at i on w agon w i t h a br oken t ai l l i ghtfr om her a p a rtm e n t o n a d ire c t ro u te to D o b e y ’s M o tel, a n d th a t W h ite w oul d be i n pos s es s ion o f a br ow n at t ache cas e cont ai ni ng m a ri ju a n a a n d h e ro in

. Id

. at 326. Fol l ow i ng up on t he t i p, t he pol i ce l ocat ed the s t at i on w agon att he addr es s gi ven, and o b serv ed a w o m an en ter i t and b eg in d ri v ing tow ard D o b ey ’s M o t e l w i t h i n th e tim e f ra m e p re d ic te d

. I

d. at331. A s t he vehi cl e near ed t he hot el , t he pol i ce e ffe ct ed a Ter r y s t op of the car , and a c ons ents ear ch o f the at t ache cas e found i ns i de re v e a le d n a rc o tic s . I

d. at326.
A ppl y i ng t he s ame appr oach i n t he r eas onabl e s us pi ci on c o n t e x t a s i t d i d i n G ates ’p rob ab le ca u se a n aly sis, the C o u rt agai n s t r es s ed the i m por t ance of per s onal obs er vat i ons byA l s o, as i tdi d i n G at es , the C o u rt ag ai n di s t i ngui s hed 16 betw een “ eas i l yobt ai ned fa cts and condi t i ons exi s t i ng att he tim e o f th e tip ” a n d “ f

u tu re a c tio n s o f

th ird p a rties n o t ea sily pr edi ct ed. ” W

h ite , 496 U

. S. at332 ( quot i ng G at es , 462 U

. S. at 245)

. T he C our t not ed t hat any one coul d have “ pr edi ct ed” that t he s t at i on w agon w as par ked at a gi ven l ocat i on beca us e i tw as a condi t i on pr es um abl yexi s t i ng at th e t i m e of the anonym ous p h o n e tip

. W

h ite , 496 U

. S. at 332. I n t he C our t ’ s vi ew , “[w ] hat w as i m p o rt an t w as t h e caller’s ab il ity to p red ict[W h it e’s] fu ture behavi or , beca us e i tdemonst r at ed i ns i de i nfor m at i on – a s peci al - 44 - off icer s i n corr obor at i ng s om e pr edi ct i ons of l aw ful behavi or cont ai ned i n t he anonym ous t i p t o es t abl i s h t he r el i abi l i t yof the t i p’ s i nfor m at i on conce r ni ng t he t ar get ’ s al l eged i l l egal a c tiv itie s . I

d. a t 3 3 1 -3 2 (n o tin g th a t G at es cr edi t ed “the pr opos i t i on t hatbeca us e an i nfor m anti s s how n t o be r i ghtabout s om e t hi ngs , he i s pr obabl y r i ght about ot her fac t s t hat he h as al l eged, i ncl udi ng t he cl ai m t hat t he obj ect of t he t i p i s engage d i n cri m inal act i vi t y , ” and c oncl udi ng t hat“the i ndepende nt corr obor at i on byt he pol i ce of s i gni fi cantas pect s of the i nfor m er ’ s pr edi ct i ons i m par t ed som e degr ee of r el i abi l i t yt o t he o th e r a lle g a tio n s m a d e b yth e c a lle r” ). L ik e w is e , W h ite i t er at ed G ates ’t eac hi ng t hatpol i ce co n firmat i on of a t i p’ s har d- t opr edi ctdet ai l s hel ps t o es t abl i s h t he “i n side r” bas i s of the i n f o rm a n t’ s k n o w le d g e . Id

. at33 2 (“W hen si gn i fi cant as pec ts o f th e c a ller’ s p re d ictio n s w e re v e rif ied , the re w a s re a so n to bel i eve not onl y t hat t he cal l er w as hones t but al s o t hathe w as w el l i nfor m ed, atl eas tw el l enough t o j us t i fy t he st op. ”)

. T he 16fami l i ar i t yw i t h r es pondent ’ s aff ai r s . ” I d. H er e, t he anonym ous t i ps l acke d anypr edi ct i ve i nfor m at i on w hat s oever , t he corr ob orat i on of w hich c o u l d h ave au gm ented t he ti ps’ c re d ita b ility. Th e g o v e r n me n t c i t e s a p r e d i c t i v e a n o n ymou s t i p cas e, 17 U nit ed St ates v . P ad ro , 52 F. 3d 120 ( 6 C i r . 1995) , fort he th pr opos i t i on t hata l aw enfor cementoffi cerm ayus e i nfor m at i on he al r eady pos s es s es t o corr obor at e an anonym ous t i p, and thus ju stif ya se a rc h re q u ir in g p ro b a b le c a u se . T e lli n g ly , the S ix th C i r cui ti n P adr o s peci fi cal l ynot ed that befor e the s ear ch t ook p la ce the off

i cerhad corr obor at ed the i nfor m ant ’ s pr edi ct i ons regar ding t he v ehicl e used a nd i t s r ou t e, t i m i ng , and occu pan t s. Id

. a t1 23. M or eover , dur i ng t he s t op, t he off i cerhad s een a p ro tru d in g a rm re st p a n e l an d e lec tro n ic r e le a se h o o k in p lain v ie w , s u g g e s tin g th e h i d d e n re c e s s p re d ic te d in th e tip

. I d. at 1 2 4

. In sh o rt, s e v e ra l asp ec ts of the in fo rm an t’ s ti p w ere ver i fi ed bef

o re the s ear ch, t hus t he P adr o cour thel d t hat pr obabl e ca us e exi s t e d t o s ear ch fort he nar cot i cs t he anonym ous tip s te r a lle g e d w e re b e in g tr a n s p o rt e d

. - 45 - C our tcons i der ed W

h ite t o be a “cl os e ca s e, ” butt hat“undert he t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s t he anonym ous t i p, as corr obor at ed, exhi bi t ed s uffi ci enti ndi ci a of r el i abi l i t yt o j us t i fyt he in v e s tig a to ry st o p o f

[ W h ite ’s ] c a r.” Id

. 17
I l l us t r at i ng t h e d i f

f e r e n c e b e twee n th e p r obabl e ca us e and re a s o n a b le s u s p ic io n s ta n d a rd s , W h ite not ed t hat t he t i p ati s s ue w as notas det ai l ed, and the corr obor at i on w as not as t hor ough,- 46 - a s i n G a t es , butt hatt he l es s demandi ng r eas onabl e s us pi ci on s t andar d l ow er s t he s um of the qua n ti t yand qual i t yof the in f o rm a tio n th a t m u s t b e e s ta b lis h e d

. Id

. a t 3 3 0 . A lso , u n lik e in G at es , W h ite’s p re d icte d a c tiv iti e s w e re n o t in d e p e n d e n tly su sp ici o u s. T h o u g h itw as a b o rde rl ine c ase , the C o u rt co n cl uded th at t h e p o li ce h ad the re aso n ab le su sp ici o n n ec essa ry t o eff ectt he tr aff

i c s t op. H er e, t he m aj or i t y not es t hat t he Supr eme C our ti n W h ite str esse d that an o ff

icer’s ab il ityto co rrob o rate a ti p , an d the tip’s p re d ictiv e a b ili ty , are th e tw o m o st im p o rta n t co n sid e ra tio n s in t he t ot al i t yof the ci r cumst ance s i n qui r yus ed t o det er m i ne w h e th e r a n a n o n ym o u s tip c o u ld p ro v id e th e re a so n a b le s us pi ci on nece s s aryt o s uppor ta T erry s t op. D es pi t e obs er vi ng t hatr eas onabl e s us pi ci on r equire s a l es s erquantum of pr oof t han the pr obabl e ca use standar d her e, and des pi t e not i ng t hat “the pr edi cti ve val ue of the t i p [w ent ] unt es t ed” be for e the w a rr a n t is s u e d , th e m a

jo ri ty stil l r e f

u s e s to u p s e t th e m a g is trate’s fi ndi ng. T he maj or i t y t hen fr ames the ques t i on her e as w hether H o w e ll’s A u g u st 20 0 2 e x p e rie n c e “ w a s s u f f icie n tly c o rr o b o ra tiv e s o a s to g iv e th e tip p re d ic tiv e v a lu e .”
T h e f u n d a m e n tal e rro r th e m a jo ritym a k e s is th a t it fa ils t o r ecogni ze t hat t her e i s abs ol ut el y not hi ng “pr edi ct i ve” a bout th e a n o n ym o u s tip in th is c a se to c o rro b o ra te, a s th a t te rm is u n d e rs to o d in the ca selaw

. B ec au se th e b asis o f th e ti p ster’s know l edge w as n o tand coul d notbe t es t ed t o s how t hats he l i kel yw as i ndeed a n i ns i der , and b ec au s e the ver aci t yandT he maj or i t ynot es, “ W e ca n s ee how an off i cerand a 18 m a g istra te c o u ld v iew th e tip a s e sta b lish in g a n id e n tif ia b le p att ern o f a cti v ityo n the p rem ises. ” I su b m itthat u n d er Leon , d i s c u s s ed in

fra , O ffi cerH ow el l i s al l ow ed s uch mi s t akes , but th e m a g istra te is n o t. - 47 - r el i abi l i t yof t he t i p’ s su b sta nce w as notand coul d notbe c o r r o b o r a t e d ( i

. e . , t h e r e wa s n o i n n o c e ntp r e d i c t i o n o f “ A, B, a n d C ” th a t, if

c o rro b o ra ted , w o u ld p ro v id e a su b sta n tial b a sis t o co nclude t hat pr edict i on “D ” of il l egal ac tiv i t yw as al so acc ur at e) , t he magi s t r at e w as notper m i t t ed t o r elyon t he a n o n ymo u s t i p i n i t s p r o b a b l e c a u s e c a l c u l u s . I n myv i e w, 18 r efe r ence t o t he m agi s t r at e’ s dut yt o m ake “ pr act i cal , comm ons ens e dec i s i on s, ” G at es , 462 U

. S. at237, offe r s no r efuge for th e le g a l e rr o r e v id e n t h e re . See U ni t ed Stat es v. Leon , 46 8 U. S. 897, 915 ( 1984) ( “Even i f t he w arr antappl i cat i on w as s uppor t ed bym or e t han a ‘ bar e bones ’ aff i davi t , a r evi ew i ng cour tm ay pr oper l yconcl ude that , not w i t hs t andi ng t he def ere nce that m agi s t r at es des er ve, t he w arr antw as i nval i d beca us e the m agi s tr at e’ s pr obabl e-cau se d eterm ination refl ect ed an i m pr oper anal y s i s o f t h e t o t a l i t y o f t h e c i r c u ms t a n c e s . . . . ” )

. Onc e t he a n o n ym o u s tip is d isc re d ited , all th a t is lef t o f th e a f f id a v it i s H ow el l ’ s s i ght i ng and er adi cat i on of out door m ar i j uana “ att he re a r” o f th e b u ild in g e ig h t m o n th s b e f o re , an d th is is n o t n e a rly enough t o s uppor tt he pr obabl e ca us e s t andar d fort he i s s uance o f a w a rra n t. “B ar e Bones” Anonym ous Ti p C as esI ndeed, t he Supr eme Courthas s ugges t ed thatan unver i fi ed 19 tip f r o m a k n o w n , rep e a t in f o rm a n t alo n e d o e s n o t cr e a te p ro b a b le c a u s e . A da ms v . Wi l l i a ms , 4 0 7 U

. S

. 1 4 3 , 1 4 7 (19 7 2 ). T h e v e rif

ica tio n re q u ire d to c re d it an a n o n ym o u s tip is n e c e s s a ri ly g re a te r. C om pa re i d. a t 1 4 6 -4 7 (h o ld in g th a t a tip fr om a know n i nfor m ant w ho had pr ovi ded r el i abl e i nfor m at i on i n t he pas tw as s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta Ter r y stop -an d -frisk f

o r a - 48 - Fl or i da v. J

. L. , 529 U

. S. 266 ( 2000) , i nvol ved an anonym ous t i p t hat a y oung bl ack m al e w ear i ng a pl ai d s hi r tand s t andi ng ata part i cul arbus s t op w as carr y i ng a conc eal ed w e a p o n in v io la tio n o f

F lo ri d a la w . Id

. a t 2 6 8 . A c tin g o n th is s kel et al t i p, the p o li ce i dent i fi ed the t ar getof the t i p and conduct ed a T

erry s to p -a n d -f

ri s k o f h im th a t r e v e a le d a g u n . I d. R ely i ng al m os texcl us i vel yon W h ite , a unani m ous C ou rt in v a lid a t e d t h e s e a rc h

. I d. a t 2 6 9 . U n lik e th e p o st-tip corr obor at i on es s ent i al t o the W h ite deci s i on, t he “a nonym ous cal l conce r ni ng J

. L

. pr ovi ded no pr edi ct i ve i nfor m ati on and there fo re left the p o li ce w ith o u t a m ea n s to test th e inf o rm an t’ s know l edge a nd cr edi bi l i t y . ” Id

. at271. A bs enti ndepende nt c o rr o b o rati o n , the p o li ce im p erm issi b lyreli ed o n the “ b are r e p o r to f a n u n k n o wn, u n a c c o u n t a b l e i n f o r ma n twho n e i t her expl ai ned how he knew about the gun nors uppl i ed anybas i s for bel i evi ng he had i ns i de i nfor m at i on. ” Id

. “I f W h ite w as a cl ose cas e on the r el i abi l i t yof anony m ous t i ps , ” t he C our tconcl uded, “thi s one s ur el y fal l s on t he others i de of the l i ne. ” Id

. Itb ea rs r epea t i ng t hatl i ke W

h ite , J .L

. w as a r eas onabl e s us pi ci on cas e, nota pr obabl e ca us e ca s e as her e. 19g u n ), wi th J

. L. , 529 U

. S. at274 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng A da ms and W hi t e and concl udi ng t hat an anony m ous t i p l acki ng i ndi ci a of reli ab il ityd o es n o t j u sti fya sto p -an d -frisk u n d er T erry ). I vi ew t he “hot s pot ” char act er i zat i on i n R obers on t o be of 20 appr oxi m at el yequal w ei ghti n t he t ot al i t y - of- t he- ci r cumst ance s anal y s i s as t he conne ct i on t he maj or i t ym akes b etw een the o u td o o r m a riju a n a p lo ts e ra d ica ted “ a t th e r e a r ” o f th e m a in h o u se in A u g u st 2 0 0 2 a n d th e in d o o r g ro w o p e ra tio n s a lleg e d in th e tip to h a v e e x is te d e ig h t m o n th s la te r. - 49 - In m yview , t he fa ct s o f t his case are anal og ou s t o those i n U ni t ed St at es v. R obers on , 9 0 F

. 3 d 7 5 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ) (B ec k er, J. , joine d b y N y g aa rd an d L ew is, JJ.)

. T h ere , th is C o u rt ant i ci pat ed the Supr eme C our t ’ s deci s i on i n J

. L. i n concl udi ng th a t an u n c o rro b o ra ted a n o n ym o u s tip th a t c o n tain s o n ly i nfor m at i on r eadi l yobs er vabl e att he t i m e the t i p w as m ade doe s notj us t i fya Ter r

y s to p . Id

. at80. T he R obers on t i p w as t hatan i ndi vi dual i dent i fi ed byhi s rac e, bui l d, cl ot hi ng, and l ocat i on w as s el l i ng drugs on a cornerknow n t o pol i ce as a “hot s pot ” for narcot i c sal es. Id

. at75- 76. T hough br i ef s urve il lance 20 r evea l ed no s us pi ci ous act i vi t y by t he i dent i fi ed i ndi vi dual , t he pol i ce none t hel es s conduct ed a Ter r y stop -an d -frisk o f the tip’s t a r g e t , a n d d is c o v e re d n a rc o tic s . I d. at76. W e hel d t hat r eas onabl e s us pi ci on i s l acki ng w her e a ba r e anonym ous t i p of ille g a l a c tiv ity c o n ta in s o n ly re a d ily a p p a re n t in f o rm a tio n – i.e ., th e tip d o e s n o t c o n tain p re d ictiv e in f o rm a tio n th a t, i f corr obor at ed, w oul d s ugges tt he s our ce i s a r el i abl e i nt i m at e of t he t ar get – and t he pol i ce do nott hemsel ves obs er ve s us pi ci ousA s not ed byt he R obers on p a n e l , t h e p o l i c e coul d have 21 p l a c e d s u r v e i l l a n c e o n t h e t i p ’ s t a r g e t o n t h e c h a n c e t h at he w oul d exhi bi t s us pi ci ous behavi ort o j us t i fya Ter r y s to p . Id

. at 81. T he s ame oppor tuni t yw as pr es ent ed her e, y etH ow el l opt ed n o t t o v isi t th e c o m p o u n d o r co n d u ct an yinv esti g ati o n b ef o re s e e k i n g a warr a n t
. Dee d a n d u t i l i t ys e a r c h e s c o u l d have det er m i ned cont i nui t yor change s i n ow ner s hi p and occ upancy a c ro ss th e e ig h t m o n th s. A sh o rt p o s t-tip v isit p re su m a b ly w oul d have r evea l ed t he out doorpl ot s of m ar i j uana, j us t i fy i ng a w arr antforentr yo n to the pr opert y . Fur t heri nves t i gat i on or su rv e ill a n c e b y H o w e ll m a y h a v e p r o d u c e d in f o r m a tio n p ro p e rly s uppor t i ve of a s ear ch w arr antfort he bui l di ng. A tt he t i m e the m a g istra te is s u e d th e w a rra n t, ho w e v e r, h e h a d n o p o st-tip q u a lify in g in d icia o f

th e tip ’s o v e ra ll relia b ili ty . T h a t th e tip u lt im atelyp rov ed ac cu rate d o es n o t m att er. - 50 - b e h a v io r. I

d. a t 8 0 . T o h o ld o th e rw ise , w e re a so n e d , w o u ld s ubj ectany one t o a sea rch o n t he “s ay - s o of an a nonym ous p ra n k s te r, r iv a l, o r m is in f o rm e d in d iv id u a l.” I

d. at80- 81. 21
I f anyt hi ng, t he maj ordi s ti n g ui s hi ng fea tur es of R obers on c u t a g a in st th e m a jo rity ’s v a lid a tio n o f

th e m a g istra te ju d g e ’s f

in d in g o f

p ro b a b le c a u s e h e re . F i r s t, R obers on i nvol ved mer el yr eas onabl e s us pi ci on, not pr obabl e ca us e. T he m aj or i t y ’ s val i dat i on of the magi s t r at e’ s pr obabl e ca us e fi ndi ng t hr eat ens t o bl urt he di s t i nct i on betw een the tw o s t andar ds by dr aw i ng w hat i s neede d t o es t abl i s h pr obabl e ca us e t ow ar d t he lesser stan d ard

. S ec o n d , as rec en tl y as 2 0 0 1 , the S u p rem e C o u rt has r epea t ed that“the Four t h A m endment ‘ dr aw s a fi r m l i ne atT he maj or i t y ’ s m ist ak en ap p r oach r ai s es t he s pectr e of 22 e v e ryre sid e n c e th a t h a s b e e n th e site o f p rio r illeg a l ac tiv ityin r ece nt m ont hs bei ng an anonym ous t i p aw ayfr om t he i s s uance - 51 - t he entr ance of t he hous e. ’ ” K yl l o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 533 U

. S. 27, 3 9 ( 2 0 0 1 ) ( quot i ng P ayton v. N ew Y ork , 445 U

. S. 573, 590 (1 9 8 0 ); s ee Zi m m er m an , 2 7 7 F .3 d a t 4 3 1 (“ O n e ’s h o m e is s acr os anct , and unr eas on ab le governm enti nt rus i on i nt o t he h o m e is ‘th e c h ief e v il a g a in st w h ich th e w o rd in g o f th e F o u rth A m endment i s di r ect ed’ ”) ( quot i ng P ayt on , 4 4 5 U

. S

. at 58 5 ). B yappr ovi ng t he magi s t r at e’ s pr obabl e ca u se fi ndi ng on t he fl i m sy sh ow i ng of H ow el l ’ s aff i davi t , t he maj or i t ygut s t he w arr antr equi r ement i tpurpor t s t o honor , and fai l s t o r ecogni ze t he s t atus t r adi t i onal l y acc or ded t he hom e i n Four t h A m endment j ur i s prudence

. Su m m ary B yfai l i ng t o di s t i ngui s h betw een pr edi ct i ve anonym ous t i ps and bar e bones anonym ous t i ps , t he maj or i t ym i s conce i ves th e p u rp o se o f c o rro b o ra tin g a n o n ym o u s ti p s. T h e p u rp o se is to t e s t t h e v e r i t y o f t h e t i p s t e r a n d h i s i n f o r ma t i o n , not t he know l edge of

t he off i cerw ho rec ei ves t he t i p and s ubm i t s t he aff i davi t t o t he magi s t r at e. T he pol i cyr at i onal e fort he d istin c tio n is re a d ily u n d e rsto o d : E x c e p t in c a se s w h e re th e tip in v o lv e s “ g re a t d a n g e r,” s u c h a s a b o m b th re a t, th e F o u rth A m endment pr ohi bi t s pol i ce fr om eff ect i ng a s ei zur e and s ear ch b a s e d o n a n o n ym o u s r e p o r t s o f i l l e g a l a c t i v i t y. Se e J

. L. , 529 22of a s ear ch w arr ant
. C ons i s t entw i t h t he maj or i t y ’ s r eas oni ng, a magi s t r at e coul d val i dl yi s s ue a s ear ch w arr an t w her e an aff i davi tas s er t s t he com bi nat i on of an anonym ous t i p of i l l egal act i vi t y i n a cert ai n bui l di ng w i t h a dat abas e “hi t ” s how i ng that t he addr es s had been the s i t e of s i m i l ari l l egal i t yi n t he pas tei ght m o n th s . - 52 - U

. S. at272 ( r efus ing to r ecogni ze a n aut om at i c w eapon exc e p t i o n t o t he r el i abi l i t yanal y s i s beca us e “[ s ] uch an e xcept i on w o u ld e n a b le a n yp e rso n se e k in g to h a ra ss a n o th e r to se t in m ot i on an i nt rus i ve, embar r as s i ng pol i ce s ear ch of the t ar get ed per s o n s i m pl ybypl aci ng an anonym ous cal l fal s el yr epor t i ng th e tar g e t’s u n law f

u l c a rria g e o f

a g u n ” ). In o th e r w o rd s, it is cons t i tut i onal l yunr eas onabl e forpol i ce t o r elyon unt es t ed al l egat i ons byi ndi vi dual s w ho ar e unw i l l i ng t o r evea l th e m se lv e s; th e d a n g e r o f m isc h ief is s im p lyto o g re a t. G o o d F a it h E x ce p ti o n o f U ni ted States v. L eon G a tes ’ defe rence t o m agis t rat es’ probab l e cause det er m i nat i ons w as pr emi s ed on the noti o n t hats ear ches p u rsua n t t o w arran ts are p ref era b le t o w arran tl es s s ear ches bas ed o n e x c e p tio n s to th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t’s w a rra n t re q u ire m e n t. G at es , 462 U

. S. at 236. T he C our t obs er ved thatt he pr es ence of a w arr antdur i ng a s ear ch “r educe s t he per cept i on of unl aw ful or i ntrusi ve p oli ce con du ct , byassur i ng t he indi vidual w ho se pr oper t yi s s ear ched ors ei zed of t he l aw ful au tho ri t yof the exec ut i ng offi cer , hi s need t o s ear ch, and t he l i m i t s of hi s pow erTh i s Cou r t h a s r e c o g n i z e d f o u r s i tu a t i o n s i n w hi ch Leon 23 does nota p p l y , b u tt h e s e a r e mi n o rl i mi t a t i o n s t o t he a p p lic a b ility o f

th e ru le , a n d n o n e a p p ly h e re . See U ni t ed Stat es v . Wi l l i a ms , 3 F. 3d 69, 74 ( 3d C i r . 199 3 ) (quot i ng t he - 53 - t o s ear ch. ” Id

. (cit ati o n o m itted). R elate d ly , the p ri m ary purpos e of the exc l us i onaryrul e i s t o det erunl aw ful pol i ce c o n d u c t, U

nit ed S t ates v. C alandra , 4 1 4 U

. S

. 3 3 8 , 3 4 7 (19 7 4 ), a purpos e thati s w eakl ys er ved, i f atal l , bys ever e af t er - t he- fac t s c ru tin yo f

m a g is tr a te s ’ p ro b a b le c a u s e d e te rm in a tio n s . U ni t ed St at es v. Leon , 4 6 8 U

. S

. 8 9 7 , 9 1 9 -20 (19 8 4 ).
R a th e r th a n d isc o u ra g e o f f ice rs f ro m se e k in g w a rra n ts w i t h t he pr os pectof r evi ew ing cour t s excl udi ng evi dence by ov erturni ng m agis t rat es’ probab l e cause findi ng s a f t er cl ose s crut i nyof t hes e fi ndi ngs , and t her eby i nduce offi cer s t o r el yon w a rr a n t e x c e p tio n s , G at es aff i r m ed the def

er ent i al s t andar d t hat

“ s o l o n g a s th e m a g is tr a te h a d a ‘s u b s ta n tia l b a s is f o r ... concl ud[i ng] ’ t hata s ear ch w oul d uncoverevi dence of w r ongdoi ng, t he Four t h A m endment r equi r es no m or e. ” G at es , 462 U

. S. 236 ( quot i ng Jones v. U ni t ed Stat es , 362 U

. S. 257, 271 (1 9 6 0 ))

. T he Supr eme C our ti n Leon es t abl i s hed a br oad good fai th exce pt i on t o the excl us i onaryrul e thatal l ow s t he in tro d u c tio n o f

e v id e n c e w h e n a n o f

f ice r e x e c u tes a se a rc h in r eas onabl e r el i ance on a w arr ant found on r evi ew t o have be en uns uppor t ed bypr obabl e ca us e. I d. a t 9 2 2

. Leon t hus enabl es 23admoni t i on i n Leon , 468 U

. S. at 921: “I n t he or di narycas e, an o f f ice r c a n n o t b e e x p e c ted to q u e stio n th e m a g istra te’ s p ro b a b le caus e det er m i na t i o n. ”)

. T w o l i m i t at i ons t o t he Leon rul e i nvol ve mi s c o n d u c t , e i t h e r b y p o l i c e e f f e c t i v e l y wr i t i n g t h e i r ow n w arr ants bysubm i t t i ng a deli berat el yor r eckles sl yfal se aff i davi t , orbyt he magi s t r at e aba ndoni ng hi s neut ral r ol e by team ing w ith the of

fi c e rs . Id

. A t hi r d s i tuat i on uphol di ng t he excl us i on of evi dence not w i t hs t andi ng t he pr es ence of a w arr ant i nvol ves t he us e of unpa r t i cul ar i zed ge ner al w arr ant s t hat purpor tt o al l ow offi cer s t o s ear ch fi r s tan d ex p l ai n w her e and f o r w h a t th e y w e re lo o k in g la te r. U ni t ed Stat es v. $ 92, 422. 57, 3 0 7 F .3 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 8

- 4 9 ( 3 d C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). T h e las t li m itatio n to empl oy i ng L eon ’s go od faith exc epti on “app l i es i n o nlyt ho se r ar e ci r cumst ance s i n w hi ch, al t hough a neutr al m agi s t r at e has found t hatt her e i s pr obabl e ca us e, a l ayoffi cerexecu t i ng t he w arr antcoul d notr eas onabl ybel i eve thatt he magi s t r at e w as corr ect
. ” Zi m m er m an , 2 7 7 F .3 d a t 4 4 0 (A lito , J ., d is s e n tin g ). - 54 - appel l at e court s t o i ns t ructm agi s t r at es on t h e co n t our s of the pr obabl e ca us e r equi r ement w i t houtdi s cour agi ng cons ci ent i ous offi cer s fr om s eeki ng w arr ant s , and i tdoes s o w hi l e pr es er vi ng v a lu a b le ev iden ce o f c ri m inal w ro n g d o in g . See i d. ; Zi m m er m an , 2 7 7 F .3 d a t 4 3 6

. Leon is w ell -de sign ed fo r a ca se su ch as th is on e, w h ere th e m a g istra te f

a iled to c o m p re h e n d a n a sp e c t o f F o u rth A m endment j ur i s prudence r equi r ing t he s ynt hes i s of s ever al cas es , a def

i ci encyt hatno pol i ce of fi cercoul d have be en e x p e c te d to re c o g n iz e , m u c h le s s q u e s tio n . In d e e d , Leon i nvi t es- 55 - r evi ew i ng cour t s t o addr es s novel pr obabl e ca us e ques t i ons befo re turni ng t o the goo d faith ex cepti on analy si s:

I f the r es ol ut i on of a pa r t i cul ar F o u rth A m e n d m e n t q u e stio n is nece s s aryt o gui de futur e act i on by l aw enfor cementoffi cer s and m agi s t r at es , not hi ng w i l l p r event r evi ew i ng cour t s fr om deci d i n g t hat ques t i on be f

o r e tur ni ng t o t he goodf a ith iss u e . In d e e d , itf re q u e n tly w i l l be di ffi cul tt o det er m ine w het h er the o ff i cer s act ed r eas onabl yw i t houtr es ol vi ng t he F o u rth A m e n d m e n t is su e . E v e n if th e F o u rth A m e n d m e n t q u e stio n is not one of br oad i m por t , r evi ew i ng cour t s coul d deci de i n par t i cul ar c a se s th a t m a g istra tes u n d e r th e ir s uper vi s i on need t o be i nfor m ed of t hei rerr or s and s o eval u at e the offi cer s’ good fai t h onl yaft er fi ndi ng a vi ol at i on. Leon , 4 6 8 U .S . at 9 2 5 ; s ee U ni t ed Stat es v. $ 9 2 , 4 2 2

. 5 7, 307 F

. 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ).A s ex pl ai ned byt he maj or i t y , t he M ar yland v. G ar r is on 24 i s s u e t o b e a d d r e s s e d o n r e m a n d w i l l tu r n o n w h a t , i f a n y, co n tr ab an d H o w ell an d the w arran t- ex ec u ti n g o ff icers di s cover ed befo re the yr eal i zed thatt he bui l di ng cont ai ned m ul t i pl e apa r t m ent s . A t this p oi nt , how ever , I bel i eve the offi cer s w er e l egal l y poi s ed t o enfor ce t he w arr ant despit e t he fac tt hati tw as i nval i dl yi s s ued. - 56 - F o r th e re a so n s a rticu late d a b o v e , H o w e ll’s af f id a v it d id no t a d equ at el ysupp ortt he m agis t rat e j ud ge’s pr ob able cause d eterm ination

. H o w ev er, u n d er Leon , H o w e ll w a s ju stif ied in r el y i ng on t he i nval i d w arr ant i n or gani zi ng t he exe cut i on of the s ear ch. N o l i m i t at i on t o L eon ’s g o o d fa ith rule a p p li es. T h ere

24 i s no hi ntof m i s conductorabdi cat i on of dutyon t he partof H o w e ll o r th e m a g istra te. T h e d e f icie n c y o f

p a rticu lar ity r egar di ng t he mul t i pl e uni t s of the bui l di ng di d notappea ron t he fac e of the w arr ant ; t hi s defi ci encyw as of the M ar yland v. G ar r is on var i ety , and the maj or i t y ’ s di s cus s i on of G ar r is on for t he purpos es of r emand i s t hor ough and I j oi n i n i t
. R egar di ng th e las t Leon e x c e p ti o n r e c o u n ted in th e m a rg in , this is n o t a ci r cumst ance i n w hi ch an of fi cercoul d no t rea s onabl ybel i eve t he m agi s t r at e’ s pr obabl e caus e det er m i nat i on w as corr ect
. T he s t al enes s and corr obor at i on i s s ues ei t her w ent unr ecogni zed or we r e mi s a p p l i e d b yt h e ma g i s t r a t e , t he D i s t r i c tCo u r t , a n d my tw o c o llea g u e s in th e m a jo rity

. In lig h t o f th e se f a c to rs, it w o u ld be unr eal i s t i c t o co n cl ude thatO ffi cerH ow el l s houl d have r ecogni zed, ques t i oned, and corr ect l yappl i ed the nua n ce s of s t a l e n e s s a nd a no n ymo u s t i p c o r r o b o r a t i o n d o c t r i n e . I n my- 57 - vi ew , t he magi s t r at e’ s pr obabl e c a u s e f i n d i n g s h oul d be r ej ect ed, and the Leon good fai t h exce pt i on appl i ed t o H ow el l ’ s r el i ance o n th e in v a lid w a rr a n t.