United States v. Samuel Yarber
915 F.3d 1103
7th Cir.2019Background
- Confidential informant purchased cocaine from Samuel Yarber four times; police observed Yarber before and after each controlled buy.
- Yarber used a white Dodge Charger (registered to his girlfriend) for each buy; police saw that car parked at the girlfriend’s Champaign apartment on multiple surveillances.
- After two controlled buys, Yarber drove directly to the Champaign apartment; on one surveillance he exited the car and entered the apartment.
- Affidavit for a search warrant described these facts but explicitly identified a different Urbana apartment as Yarber’s “residence,” not the Champaign apartment.
- A Champaign County judge issued a warrant to search the Champaign apartment for drugs, paraphernalia, and proceeds; search yielded drugs and firearms.
- Yarber moved to suppress; district court denied suppression, he pleaded guilty to two counts, was convicted at trial on another, and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Yarber) | Defendant's Argument (Government) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether affidavit established probable cause to search the Champaign apartment | Affidavit failed to show Yarber lived or kept evidence at the Champaign apartment, so no nexus to support probable cause | Surveillance tying Yarber and the Charger to the apartment and his trips there after buys support a reasonable inference that proceeds/evidence would be there | Probable cause existed: totality of facts supported inference that proceeds could be at the apartment |
| Whether the Leon good‑faith exception applies if warrant was deficient | Officers should have known the affidavit lacked the necessary nexus; suppression required | Officers reasonably relied on the warrant; presumption of good faith applies | Good‑faith exception applies; evidence admissible |
| Whether evidence of living at the apartment is required to infer presence of drug proceeds | Living there is necessary to infer drug evidence will be kept there | Not required when surveillance shows repeated use of vehicle tied to the apartment and direct trips after buys | Living there not required here; other facts sufficed to establish fair probability |
| Sentencing grouping of counts under Guidelines | Counts (drug and felon‑in‑possession) should be grouped for guideline calculation | Sinclair controls; grouping not permitted when § 924(c) conviction exists | Argument foreclosed by circuit precedent but preserved for further review |
Key Cases Cited
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality‑of‑circumstances test for probable cause)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (creates good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
- United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754 (Seventh Circuit on deference to issuing judge and affidavit strength)
- United States v. Zamudio, 909 F.3d 172 (probable cause need not be direct evidence linking crime to place)
- United States v. Anderson, 450 F.3d 294 (warrant validity rests on strength of affidavit presented)
- United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940 (fair‑probability standard for nexus between place and evidence)
- United States v. Scott, 731 F.3d 659 (discusses inference that dealers keep evidence where they live)
- United States v. Singleton, 125 F.3d 1097 (similar inference on residence and drug evidence)
- United States v. Orozco, 576 F.3d 745 (presumption of good faith when officers obtain a warrant)
- United States v. Sinclair, 770 F.3d 1148 (rule on grouping counts where § 924(c) conviction is present)