United States v. Eric Kelly, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 22409

Police obtained a search warrant for the "upper apartment" at 1522 Clifton Avenue based on Detective Jimenez’s affidavit describing a controlled buy of crack from Eric Kelly (observed leaving the building, entering his car, selling to a CI) and other tips; a state judge issued the warrant.
Officers entered through the building’s rear door, proceeded to the unit accessible from that door, and encountered Kelly inside; they discovered that the building was divided into front/rear multi‑story units (not upper/lower single‑story units as described).
During the search of the unit, officers found a removed vent/duct; they dropped items down the shaft and accessed the basement front area to retrieve items, recovering a 9mm handgun and two bags of crack from the duct and drug evidence in the apartment.
Kelly moved to suppress, arguing the warrant lacked particularity (misdescribed the unit as "upper"), exceeded its scope (searched levels not authorized), and lacked probable cause to link the apartment to drug activity; district court denied suppression and Kelly pled guilty reserving the suppression issue.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit reviewed probable cause preservation issues, concluded Kelly forfeited (and did not show Rule 12(e) good cause) any distinct probable‑cause challenge but also determined the affidavit established probable cause independent of contested tips, and upheld the warrant’s particularity and execution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for warrant	Warrant affidavit did not adequately connect 1522 Clifton apartment to drug activity	Affidavit (CI controlled buy, surveillance, officer experience) established fair probability contraband would be at the apartment	Forfeited below; court also finds affidavit sufficient to establish probable cause
Particularity (place described as "upper apartment")	Misdescription invalidates warrant; search exceeded scope	Description was reasonable based on information available; officers targeted the unit accessible from rear door	Warrant sufficiently particular; mislabeling was a technical error and did not risk searching the wrong premises
Execution after discovering building layout differed	Officers should have halted or limited search once layout error was discovered	Officers were in the intended unit (rear unit accessible from rear door) and could reasonably continue	Execution reasonable; no need to seek a modified warrant because they remained in the targeted apartment
Standing/reasonable expectation of privacy in basement duct where contraband retrieved	Kelly had a privacy interest in the duct attached to his apartment	Basement front area was part of front apartment; Kelly lacked expectation of privacy there; alternatively, search of his apartment (and duct contents) was proper	Court upholds seizures; even assuming a privacy interest, search was permissible; Kelly lacked standing to challenge basement front area seizure

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality‑of‑circumstances probable cause standard)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (warrant description errors that do not risk searching the wrong premises may be upheld; execution reasonableness separate issue)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule for defective warrants)
United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745 (courts may infer evidence likely kept at a dealer’s residence)
United States v. Johnson, 26 F.3d 669 (minor description/address errors do not invalidate warrant absent risk of searching another property)
United States v. Murdock, 491 F.3d 694 (preservation of suppression arguments; need to raise theories below)
United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183 (issuing magistrate may consider officer experience in probable cause determinations)
United States v. Mitchell, 64 F.3d 1105 (factors for reasonable expectation of privacy/standing analysis)
United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097 (factors for evaluating informant reliability)
United States v. Pitts, 322 F.3d 449 (abandonment inquiry: objective test for relinquishing property interests)
United States v. Freeman, 691 F.3d 893 (standard of review for suppression rulings)