882 F.3d 662
7th Cir.2018Background
- Confidential informant (CI) told Deputy Jones he had recently purchased crack from "a larger black male" who sold from his house and agreed to a controlled buy.
- Deputies surveilled the residence, observed a man matching the CI's description leave, meet others briefly in a car, and return—conduct consistent with drug sales per deputy's experience.
- During a controlled buy, officers searched the CI (no drugs/money), provided $60 buy money, heard the phone arrangement, watched the suspect meet the CI, and the CI returned with 0.7 grams later tested positive for cocaine.
- Jones’s affidavit recited these facts but gave little detail about the CI (no name, no appearance before the judge, no precise recency of prior purchases).
- Magistrate issued a search warrant; deputies found heroin, crack, paraphernalia, a loaded pistol, and cash. Haynes admitted ownership and intent to distribute.
- Haynes moved to suppress arguing the affidavit failed to establish probable cause; district court denied the motion and Haynes reserved appeal after pleading guilty.
Issues
| Issue | Haynes's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause to search the house based on CI tip and corroboration | CI unreliable: vague description, did not appear before judge, no recency of tip | CI corroborated by surveillance and a properly executed controlled buy; corroboration supplies probable cause; alternatively good-faith exception | Probable cause existed: surveillance plus controlled buy sufficiently corroborated CI; affidavit supported warrant; affirmed |
| Whether a Franks/hearing or additional factual hearing was required to test probable cause | Argued a hearing was necessary to resolve factual disputes about reliability | No material factual dispute was raised; judge may decide on the affidavit alone | No hearing required because Haynes raised no material factual dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality-of-the-circumstances probable-cause standard)
- United States v. Fifer, 863 F.3d 759 (controlled buys described in affidavit can establish probable cause)
- United States v. Johnson, 655 F.3d 594 (factors for assessing informant reliability considered as a whole)
- United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754 (insufficient detail from informant without corroboration undermines probable cause)
- United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097 (properly executed controlled buy is reliable indicator of drug activity)
- United States v. Kelly, 772 F.3d 1072 (inference that dealer’s residence likely contains evidence; controlled-buy corroboration supports warrant)
- United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865 (controlled buy generally reliable for probable cause)
- United States v. McGaughy, 485 F.3d 965 (no suppression hearing required absent material factual dispute)