United States v. Wayne Hill, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 5073

On Nov. 19, 2011, Hill robbed Illiana Financial Credit Union in Naperville, taking ≈ $134,000; a dye pack exploded staining much of the cash red.
Hill used casinos to launder stained bills by feeding them into slot machines and cashing out vouchers; he successfully laundered some funds in Milwaukee three days earlier.
On Nov. 26, 2011, casino staff at Horseshoe Casino (Hammond, IN) observed Hill feeding large amounts of red‑dyed, bank‑banded bills into slot machines without playing and reported this to security.
Casino security (including a moonlighting Hammond police lieutenant, McKechnie) questioned Hill in the cash‑out area, observed red‑stained bills wrapped in bank bands, and escorted him to an interview room where a search incident to arrest uncovered the remainder of the cash.
Hill was indicted for bank robbery, money laundering, and interstate transportation of stolen funds; he moved to suppress his arrest, the search, and his statements, and moved in limine to exclude expert historical cell‑site analysis; the district court denied all motions and a jury convicted Hill.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the initial encounter in the cash‑out area an arrest?	Hill: the interaction was an arrest lacking probable cause.	Gov't: the encounter was consensual or at most an investigatory stop supported by reasonable suspicion.	Not an arrest; at most an investigatory stop. Interaction lawful.
If not an arrest, was the stop supported by reasonable suspicion?	Hill: insufficient basis for a Terry stop.	Gov't: reports from slot attendant and casino staff plus visible red, bank‑banded bills and Hill’s demeanor gave reasonable suspicion.	Totality of circumstances supplied reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Was escorting Hill to the interview room and arrest supported by probable cause?	Hill: moving him to the room amounted to an arrest without probable cause.	Gov't: by then officers had probable cause based on observations, reports, and Hill’s implausible story.	Probable cause existed; arrest and search incident to arrest were lawful.
Was Agent Raschke’s historical cell‑site analysis admissible under Rule 702/Daubert?	Hill: the technique is unreliable/overbroad and testimony should be excluded.	Gov't: the technique is specialized, generally accepted in practice, and Raschke explained limits; testimony would assist the jury.	Admissible. Court cautioned against overstating precision but found no abuse of discretion in admission.

Abbott v. Sangamon Cnty., 705 F.3d 706 (7th Cir.) (defining when a seizure amounts to an arrest)
California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 (1991) (physical force or submission to assertion of authority required for arrest)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (investigatory stop standard)
Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119 (2000) (reasonable suspicion requires minimal objective justification)
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002) (totality of circumstances for reasonable suspicion)
United States v. Villalpando, 588 F.3d 1124 (7th Cir.) (standard of review for suppression findings)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (probable cause assessed under totality of circumstances)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009) (scope of search incident to arrest; area within immediate control)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (gatekeeping for expert testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)