Opinion ID: 3001217
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Probable Cause for the Search of Hobbs’s

Text: Residence Hobbs’s next argument is that the officers lacked probable cause to search his residence. Hobbs argues that the officers’ protective sweep of the house, during which they noticed an off-white powdery substance on a bedroom dresser, was improper. Assuming the sweep to be improper, as it was determined by the district court, Hobbs contends that absent the statement in the complaint for the search warrant about the powdery substance in the house, the complaint did not establish probable cause because there was no nexus between the items sought by the warrant and the residence. As a result, Hobbs believes that the evidence obtained from the execution of that warrant ought to be suppressed. Hobbs also asserts that the Leon good faith exception does not apply to the evidence obtained from the house because no reasonable police officer would have thought that the search warrant was supported by probable cause. Whether a warrant affidavit includes sufficient indicia of probable cause is a legal conclusion that we review de novo. United States v. Wiley, 475 F.3d 908, 914 (7th Cir. 2007). A court’s determination of probable cause is entitled to considerable deference and should be overruled only when the supporting affidavit, read in the totality of the circumstances, fails to allege specific 14 No. 06-3371 facts and circumstances that reasonably lead to the belief that the items sought in the search warrant are likely to be located in the place to be searched. Gates, 462 U.S. at 238; Wiley, 475 F.3d at 914-15. It is appropriate to “draw reasonable inferences about where evidence is likely to be kept, based on the nature of the evidence and the type of offense.” United States v. Ellis, 499 F.3d 686, 690 (7th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Mykytiuk, 402 F.3d 773, 778 (7th Cir. 2005)). “In the case of drug dealers evidence is likely to be found where the dealers live.” Id. at 691 (citing Mykytiuk, 402 F.3d at 778-79). The fact that a complaint for a search warrant contains information obtained through an illegal entry does not render the search warrant invalid. United States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309, 1317 (7th Cir. 1993). Rather, if the judge could have found probable cause for the war- rant without the improper information, then the warrant is lawful and the independent source doctrine applies, provided that the officers were not prompted to seek the search warrant as a result of what they ob- served during the initial unlawful entry. Id. The facts make clear that Oberle and VonDerHeide had already begun drafting the complaint for the search warrant before the initial sweep of the house took place. Thus, it is clear that the officers were not prompted to obtain the warrant as a result of information about the powdery substance inside the house. The officers reasonably believed that Hobbs, an alleged drug dealer, would keep his drug supply at his house. This Court has repeatedly recognized that such a belief is reasonable. See, e.g., Ellis, 499 F.3d at 691; Mykytiuk, 402 F.3d at 778-79; United States v. Reddrick, 90 F.3d 1276, 1281 (7th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183, 1188 (7th Cir. 1991). Less than three hours earlier, Hobbs had been seen leaving his residence, and within moments, was No. 06-3371 15 found to possess 24 grams of cocaine. It was this discovery of cocaine, not the powdery substance seen in the house, that led the officers to obtain the search warrant. The untainted evidence provided in the complaint for the search warrant sufficed to establish probable cause. While Hobbs states that VonDerHeide’s assertions that drug dealers tend to keep drugs and related items in their homes are “boilerplate” and insufficient to establish a particular basis for believing more drugs were in the house, he ignores the reasonable inference from the facts and circumstances of this case, that, in addition to the nature of the drug offense charged, more drugs and related items would likely be found in his house. See, e.g., Ellis, 499 F.3d at 691; Mykytiuk, 402 F.3d at 778-79; Reddrick, 90 F.3d at 1281; Lamon, 930 F.2d at 1188. The complaint for the search warrant included statements that Hobbs was known to be a drug dealer in the com- munity, that he was caught carrying a substantial amount of cocaine immediately after leaving his house, and that drug dealers tend to keep drugs in their houses. This alone was sufficient to establish probable cause. Since we find the untainted portions of the complaint for the search warrant sufficient to establish probable cause, we need not address the propriety of the protective sweep or the officers’ good faith belief that the warrant was valid.