United States v. Wenzel, 854 F.3d 957

A mother watching her child at David Wenzel’s home found a hidden video camera taped inside a bathroom vent pointing at the toilet and reported it to police the next day.
Police learned Wenzel was on the sex-offender registry with a 1997 first‑degree sexual assault conviction.
On March 26, 2015, a Rock County detective obtained a warrant to search Wenzel’s residence for recording devices, storage media, computers, and related items based on the mother’s firsthand account and the detective’s investigative experience.
Officers executed the March 26 search, gathered evidence, and obtained a follow‑on warrant on April 2 for child‑pornography evidence; evidence from these searches led to federal charges under 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).
Wenzel moved to suppress evidence from the March 26 search as unsupported by probable cause and overbroad; the magistrate and district court denied suppression, and Wenzel reserved appeal rights in a guilty‑plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for March 26 warrant	Wenzel: affidavit relied primarily on a tip and lacked sufficient corroboration to establish probable cause	Government: mother’s detailed, firsthand discovery, quick affidavit submission, and Wenzel’s sex‑offender history gave a reasonable basis to search for recording devices	Warrant was supported by probable cause under the totality of the circumstances; upheld
Overbreadth as to items listed	Wenzel: warrant listed overly broad categories and could have been narrowed by further questioning	Government: listed items were reasonably tailored to devices and media used to capture/store/disseminate clandestine recordings	Warrant was not unconstitutionally overbroad; item descriptions were sufficiently particular
Geographic scope (outbuildings, vehicles)	Wenzel: search of outbuildings/vehicles was overbroad (argued at oral argument)	Government: recording devices/storage could plausibly be in sheds or vehicles; scope matched nature of items sought	Argument forfeited on appeal; court also found scope plausible and not constitutionally excessive
Good‑faith exception	Wenzel: suppression warranted despite good‑faith; argued warrant defects	Government: officers relied on a judicially issued warrant in objective good faith	Court did not need to decide because warrant valid; magistrate and district court also found Leon good‑faith would apply; Wenzel raised no successful challenge to officer/judge conduct

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (establishes totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for probable cause)
United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (good‑faith exception to exclusionary rule)
United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940 (7th Cir.) (deference to issuing judge’s probable‑cause finding)
Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690 (standard for probable‑cause review and use of objective reasonableness)
Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (particularity requirement and geographic scope limits of warrants)
United States v. Vitek Supply Corp., 144 F.3d 476 (7th Cir.) (particularity measured against circumstances of the crime)
United States v. Quintanilla, 218 F.3d 674 (7th Cir.) (reading affidavits with common sense)
United States v. Gregory, 795 F.3d 735 (7th Cir.) (factors for assessing informant tips)