United States v. John Scott
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 18871
| 7th Cir. | 2013Background
- Police obtained a search warrant after two controlled heroin buys from Reynolds, observed by detectives via surveillance:** the first buy involved a driveway conversation between Scott and Reynolds recorded by a covert device, the second buy occurred with no recording, and the affidavit referenced only a single sentence about the recording.
- The CI purchased heroin from Reynolds; Reynolds then drove to Scott’s house, where conversations occurred in the driveway during the first buy and inside the house during the second buy.
- The CI and Reynolds were under constant surveillance; the CI was pre-screened and monitored for contraband; detectives relied on the undercover operation and observed exchanges.
- A two-page affidavit to obtain the warrant described the controlled buys, surveillance protocol, and the first-transaction recording, including a one-sentence reference to the recording.
- Scott moved to suppress the driveway recording as improper and argued the warrant lacked probable cause without the recording; the district court denied suppression; Scott pled guilty and appeals the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Scott had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the driveway conversation. | Scott had a privacy expectation in the driveway dialogue. | Government contends no reasonable expectation given public exposure. | Not necessary to decide; probable cause supported |
| Whether the firearm/drug evidence was admissible despite illegally obtained information. | Without the driveway recording, probable cause is lacking. | Other evidence in the affidavit establishes probable cause independent of recording. | Affirmed; warrant supported by untainted information |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause is a fluid, totality-of-circumstances inquiry)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) (protects people, not places; private conversations may be protected)
- United States v. McLeod, 493 F.2d 1186 (7th Cir. 1974) (no reasonable privacy in public or openly overheard conversations)
- United States v. Sidwell, 440 F.3d 865 (7th Cir. 2006) (controlled buys as indicators of illegal activity)
- United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097 (7th Cir. 1997) (probable cause can draw inferences from criminal activity patterns)
- United States v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) (use of information from surveillance in assessing probable cause)