Opinion ID: 2997735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Probable Cause Supported Search Warrant

Text: Olson first argues that Tomas’s affidavit in support of the search warrant failed to establish probable cause, therefore requiring the suppression of all evidence obtained through the execution of that warrant. “Whether an affidavit established probable cause is reviewed de novo.” United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 756 (7th Cir. 2003). Before issuing a search warrant, an issuing officer must determine whether probable cause exists for doing so. United States v. Walker, 237 F.3d 845, 850 (7th Cir. 2001). “In determining whether probable cause exists, an official must consider the totality of circumstances.” United States v. Brack, 188 F.3d 748, 755 (7th Cir. 1999) (citing Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). Probable cause sufficient to support a warrant exists where “the known facts and circumstances are sufficient to warrant a man of reasonable prudence in the belief that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found.” Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696 (1996). When those “known facts and circumstances” used to support a finding of probable cause are derived from a confidential informant’s (CI) tip, the legitimacy of a probable cause determination turns on that “CI’s reliability, veracity and basis of knowledge.” United States v. Johnson, 289 F.3d 1034, 1038 (7th Cir. 2002). To assess that credibility, this court asks whether the informant: (1) had firsthand knowledge; (2) provided sufficient details; (3) relayed information which was subsequently corroborated; and (4) testified at a probable cause hearing. Id. at 1038-39. No. 03-3756 5 The government argues that the information provided by Joseph and memorialized in the Tomas affidavit provided a reliable basis for a finding of probable cause and issuance of the warrant. Indeed, the information that Joseph relayed to Tomas was a firsthand account of what he had seen in Olson’s residence. Furthermore, the information was of sufficient detail, describing large quantities of marijuana stored in Olson’s safe and the presence of a pound of marijuana in Olson’s bedroom, as well as several guns in the residence as a whole, that he had observed only two days earlier. Cf. United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 756-57 (7th Cir. 2003) (finding that a search warrant did not establish probable cause where a CI, though asserting that she was the defendant’s girlfriend, failed to divulge details such as where in the home the drugs would be located, the total amount of drugs in the home, the frequency with which the defendant sold drugs, or defendant’s physical attributes). With respect to whether the information provided was corroborated, the government cites Tomas’s review of confidential intelligence records at the SLANT office that yielded several reports linking Olson to drug trafficking, and her criminal history check on Olson, which was prompted by Joseph’s revelation that Olson was a convicted felon and revealed that Olson had been convicted of numerous felonies involving controlled substance violations. The government also notes that Tomas had already personally received information in November 2002 indicating that Olson was storing large quantities of marijuana in outbuildings and junked vehicles located on his property. This, however, cannot end our analysis of Joseph’s credibility. Joseph was not just an informant, but a newlyarrested informant, and as such merits a greater dose of skepticism when assessing his credibility. See Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, 607-08 (1994) (“A person arrested in incriminating circumstances has a strong incentive to shift blame or downplay his own role in comparison 6 No. 03-3756 with that of others, in hopes of receiving a shorter sentence and leniency in exchange for cooperation.”). Toward that end, Olson cites United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2002). In Koerth, several factors conspired to render the factual offerings of a newly arrested informant insufficient to establish probable cause. There, the self-incriminating nature of the arrestee’s information could best be described as “weak”; the arrestee, despite his undisputed availability, was not presented to the warrant-issuing judge for a demeanor re- view; and police took no steps to corroborate the arrestee’s story. Koerth, 312 F.3d at 867-68. Olson rightly notes that there are similarities between his case and that of Koerth. In both cases, a search warrant was procured based upon assertions by a newly arrested informant who had never been presented to the warrant-issuing officer. There are, however, factual differences as well—differences sufficient to rescue Olson’s warrant from the fate suffered by the Koerth warrant. Joseph’s admission that he intended to steal drugs from the defendant constitutes a statement made against his penal interest, and as such carries with it a presumption of reliability. See, e.g., United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 583 (1971) (“Admissions of crime, like admissions against proprietary interests, carry their own indicia of credibility—sufficient at least to support a finding of probable cause to search.”); United States v. Barnes, 909 F.2d 1059, 1069 (7th Cir. 1990) (finding support for informant’s credibility in the fact that proffered information was made against informant’s penal interest); Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). Joseph’s statements went beyond the non-narcotic impetus for his arrest—the armed robbery and aggravated assault of the defendant (his uncle)—inculpating him further by confessing a motive to steal drugs. This admission exposed Joseph as more culpable than originally suspected—no longer just a violent robber, but also a member, in some No. 03-3756 7 capacity, of the drug trade. Such statements compounding his problems were self-inculpatory, not exculpatory. Olson nonetheless attempts to rebut this presumption of reliability by insisting that Joseph’s admission was nothing more than a naked attempt to mitigate his culpability through currying the favor of the police. A motive to curry favor, however, does not necessarily render an informant unreliable. Indeed, even informants “attempt[ing] to strike a bargain with the police [have] a strong incentive to provide accurate and specific information rather than false information about [a defendant’s] illegal activity.” Koerth, 312 F.3d at 870. Also distinguishing the case at bar from Koerth is the amount of corroboration to the informant’s account—here there is some, while in Koerth there was none. In addition to the information gleaned from Joseph, Tomas’s affidavit disclosed several items tending to corroborate that account. First, the affidavit notes that a “concerned citizen” had reported that Olson sold marijuana and stored it in outbuildings and junked cars on his premises. The corroborative weight of this assertion is, however, compromised by the affidavit’s failure to indicate how Tomas obtained this information, whether she knew the identity of the concerned citizen, or even the basis of that citizen’s knowledge. Similarly, though confidential SLANT reports, serving as the second corroborative tidbit, purported to link Olson to drug trafficking, the affidavit made no mention of what the reports said, the sources from which they were compiled, or the recency of the events memorialized therein. On both accounts, such details could have, and should have, been explained. Because they were not, the corroborative weight of each is slight. Likewise, little weight can be given to the final corroborative piece—the check on Olson’s criminal history that yielded several old drug convictions and one recent drug arrest. Alone, a record check cannot serve to corroborate an 8 No. 03-3756 informant’s account. United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 757 (7th Cir. 2003). Nonetheless, and also like the other items proffered by the affidavit, it does retain some corroborative value. When assessed on an individual basis, each bit here may not provide much, but any one would still be greater than that proffered in support of the Koerth warrant (none). And while the weight of each item when assessed separately may be slight, together they suffice to corroborate Joseph’s story; and, when viewed under the “totality-of-thecircumstances” standard, Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983), altogether provide enough to establish probable cause. See also United States v. Quintanilla, 218 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2000) (holding that doubtful cases should be resolved in favor of upholding the warrant). In any event, the warrant would be saved by the good faith exception. “An officer’s decision to obtain a warrant is prima facie evidence that he or she was acting in good faith.” Koerth, 312 F.3d at 868. A defendant may rebut this prima facie case by presenting evidence establishing either that: (1) the warrant issuing officer “wholly abandoned his judicial role” and failed to “perform his ‘neutral and detached’ function,” serving “merely as a rubber stamp for the police”; or (2) the affidavit submitted in support of the warrant was “so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable.” United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 914, 923 (1984). Olson does not suggest that the issuing officer abandoned his judicial role. Rather, he argues that the affidavit was patently lacking in indicia of probable cause. As we have already found that the warrant was sustained by sufficient probable cause, our response to Olson’s argument here should be clear. But even assuming probable cause was lacking, sufficient indicia of suspicion were present in the affidavit to invoke the good faith exception—namely, what Tomas perceived to be Joseph’s statement against penal interest placing marijuana in Olson’s home, the “concerned No. 03-3756 9 citizen’s” tip, confidential SLANT reports linking Olson to drug trafficking, and the results of a criminal history check on Olson. Equipped with these assertions, the affidavit in support of the warrant to search Olson’s house was not so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render reliance upon it unreasonable, and there is no basis to suppress the evidence seized from Olson’s premises.