United States v. Finas Glenn
966 F.3d 659
7th Cir.2020Background:
- Police arranged a recorded controlled buy of two ounces of cocaine at Finas Glenn’s home using a long-time informant (audio and video recorded).
- About a month later Agent Pat Alblinger testified under oath to a state judge (testimony recorded) and the judge issued a search warrant for Glenn’s home.
- The search recovered cocaine and firearms; Glenn moved to suppress the evidence, and the district court denied suppression.
- Glenn pleaded guilty to one firearms count, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling; he was sentenced to 102 months’ imprisonment.
- Glenn argued the warrant lacked probable cause because Alblinger omitted that the informant was not searched before the buy, had a lengthy criminal record and motives for leniency, and that reliability was attributed to the local police generally rather than Alblinger personally.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed, applying Gates’s totality-of-the-circumstances approach and emphasizing deference to the issuing judge; it held the recorded controlled buy provided strong probable cause and the omissions and one-month delay did not defeat probable cause.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Glenn) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause for warrant based on controlled buy + informant reliability | Omissions (no search of informant, informant's criminal history and incentive, and vague attribution of reliability) fatally undermine probable cause | Audio/video of the controlled buy plus informant's past reliability suffice under the totality of circumstances | Affirmed: controlled-buy recordings were dispositive; omissions unfortunate but not fatal |
| Whether agents’ failure to search informant before buy invalidates the buy | Not searching allowed risk informant could have supplied the drugs, so buy is unreliable | Recording (audio/video) negates realistic spoofing risk; Fourth Amendment doesn’t require perfect procedures | Affirmed: recording provided sufficient assurance of buy’s authenticity |
| Staleness: one-month delay between buy and search | Delay made evidence stale; premises might no longer contain drugs | No evidence of change in use; defendant even admitted selling from home (not presented to judge) and delay aimed to protect informant identity | Affirmed: no staleness shown; delay reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Deference to issuing judge where testimony (not affidavit) supported the warrant | Alleges omissions should reduce deference | Live testimony warrants receive same deference; reviewing court must view facts as a whole | Affirmed: great deference applies and probable cause stands |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause and deference to issuing magistrate)
- United States v. McIntire, 516 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2008) (discusses deference to magistrate probable-cause findings)
- United States v. Patton, 962 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2020) (live testimony to magistrate receives similar deference as affidavits)
- United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir. 1991) (staleness analysis in drug-house investigations)