United States v. Deandre Cherry
920 F.3d 1126
7th Cir.2019Background
- DEA arrested an informant at O'Hare with 26 kg cocaine; he agreed to cooperate and arranged a controlled delivery to "Mo" (Deandre Cherry). The informant gave Cherry's phone number, physical description, and that Cherry drove a white Mercedes SUV.
- Agents arranged a sting: informant would show sham cocaine concealed in a hidden compartment and signal agents after a pre‑arranged conversation; agents equipped the informant with recording devices and inventoried his vehicle.
- Cherry arrived in a white 2012 Mercedes SUV at the changed rendezvous in Markham, circled the lot, parked next to the informant, entered the informant's car, viewed the concealed narcotics, and the informant gave the prearranged signal.
- As agents approached, Cherry attempted to get back into his SUV; agents arrested him, looked into the open driver door, and observed a satchel containing plastic baggies that later tested as 348.1 g heroin and 13.7 g crack; agents also recovered $19,495 cash and photographed the scene.
- Cherry moved to suppress (arguing no probable cause and no plain‑view search) and later moved to dismiss under Brady/Youngblood, claiming the officer sold his personal camera (metadata lost) and thus destroyed exculpatory evidence; district court denied suppression and dismissal, trial jury convicted, and Cherry appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cherry) | Defendant's Argument (Government/Agents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to arrest Cherry | Informant was not sufficiently reliable; calls not monitored in real time; agents lacked independent corroboration that Cherry agreed to the deal | Informant provided detailed, inculpatory predictions; Cherry matched description, vehicle, time/place, gave signal via informant, and attempted to flee — totality of circumstances supports probable cause | Probable cause existed; arrest upheld |
| Lawful search/seizure of satchel/drugs (plain view) | Drugs were concealed in a closed/locked satchel and not in plain view; agents' testimony inconsistent | Agents credibly testified Cherry opened driver door and items were visible through open door; protective sweep/inventory alternatives available | Search/seizure lawful under plain‑view; alternatively officer safety sweep and inevitable discovery via inventory search justified admission |
| Failure to preserve photographic metadata (Brady/Youngblood) | Lost camera/metadata was potentially exculpatory (could show order photos taken and whether satchel was open or closed); government failed to preserve evidence | Camera was a personal device sold at a yard sale months later; no bad faith shown; content would have been inevitably discovered anyway | No Brady/Youngblood violation; defendant failed to prove bad faith or materiality; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Sufficiency of evidence post‑trial (Rule 29) | Evidence insufficient to support conviction absent suppressed items or lack of probable cause/search | Evidence and inferences (corroboration, plain view, inventory inevitability) supported conviction | Viewing evidence in light most favorable to government, conviction sustained |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (informant‑tip totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (deference framework: factual findings for clear error, legal probable cause review de novo)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (predictive information corroboration increases informant reliability)
- Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable discovery doctrine)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (prosecution's duty to disclose favorable evidence)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (no due process violation absent bad faith destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence)
- United States v. Freeman, 691 F.3d 893 (7th Cir.: corroboration of informant predictions supports probable cause)