12 F.4th 647
7th Cir.2021Background
- A witness (Long) overheard Kyle Matthews discussing pipe bombs and told the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office; Long identified Matthews and said Matthews lived in a camper behind the old Fin & Feather restaurant, owned a modified AR-15 with silencer, worked in a nearby shed, and had “free reign of the property.”
- Detective Sergeant Becherer investigated, learned of social-media posts and neighborhood rumors about explosives, and consulted the State’s Attorney; the complaint/affidavit sought a warrant to search all structures on the Fin & Feather property, stating Matthews was believed to reside in and have access to those structures but giving few specifics tying him to the property.
- A state judge heard testimony (Long and Becherer), reviewed photos (without street numbers), found probable cause, and issued the warrant; the executed search uncovered firearms, silencers, a pipe bomb, and explosive materials.
- Matthews was federally indicted and moved to suppress; the district court held the warrant lacked probable cause tying the crimes to the property but denied suppression under the Leon good-faith exception because Becherer reasonably relied on the warrant and had consulted the State’s Attorney.
- Matthews pleaded guilty (preserving appeal of the suppression denial). The Seventh Circuit reviewed de novo whether the good-faith exception applied and affirmed the denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether officer could reasonably rely on warrant under Leon good-faith exception | Affidavit lacked indicia linking Matthews/criminal activity to the property; therefore reliance was unreasonable | Officer sought and obtained a judge’s warrant after consulting the State’s Attorney; presumption of good faith applies and gov’t meets burden | Affirmed: presumption of good faith not rebutted; reliance was objectively reasonable |
| Whether affidavit was "bare-boned" for linking Matthews to the Fin & Feather property | Affidavit was largely conclusory about Matthews’ residence/access and omitted supporting details | Affidavit referenced witness testimony, photos, and expressly identified the camper as suspect’s residence—providing indicia of probable cause for good-faith review | Not bare-boned for Leon purposes; contained sufficient indicia to permit reasonable reliance |
| Whether warrant could permissibly extend to all structures on the property | Need separate probable-cause showing for each distinct dwelling/structure | Unlike multi-unit apartments, a camper plus adjacent outbuildings may be controlled by one resident; magistrate could authorize search of all structures | Search of all structures was not obviously unreasonable; officer could defer to magistrate’s scope decision |
| Whether courts may consider evidence beyond the warrant application when assessing good faith | Court should not rely on off-record facts the issuing judge never saw | Government did not press extra-record evidence here; district court limited review to materials presented to issuing judge | Seventh Circuit follows Koerth in limiting review to what was presented to the issuing judge; even so, materials presented supported good-faith finding |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (establishes the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir.) (limits good-faith review to materials presented to issuing magistrate)
- United States v. Rees, 957 F.3d 761 (7th Cir.) (articulates four situations that rebut Leon presumption)
- Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (magistrates generally more qualified to assess probable cause; officer not ordinarily required to second-guess judge)
- Messerschmidt v. Millender, 565 U.S. 535 (attorney/magistrate approval is pertinent in assessing reasonableness of officer’s belief)
- United States v. Lickers, 928 F.3d 609 (7th Cir.) (heavy burden to overcome presumption of good faith)
- United States v. Brown, 832 F.2d 991 (7th Cir.) (indicia short of full probable cause can suffice for good-faith reliance)
- United States v. Pappas, 592 F.3d 799 (7th Cir.) (attorney consultation supports finding of good faith)