United States v. William Rivera, 817 F.3d 339

Defendants Rivera and Dueñas pled guilty to conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine and were sentenced to 60 and 48 months, respectively.
They reserved appeals from the district court’s denial of suppression motions seeking to exclude drugs seized in searches of Dueñas’s garage and Rivera’s truck, conducted without search warrants.
A confidential informant, with another man, arranged a cocaine sale at Dueñas’s garage; the informant parked outside, entered the garage as it opened, and returned to his car to arrange payment, while federal agents observed from a distance.
The informant signaled that cocaine was present in Rivera’s truck; agents arrested Dueñas and Rivera and seized two kilograms of cocaine after arriving at the scene within about three minutes.
Consent to enter came from Dueñas (garage owner) and Rivera (truck owner); the informant had left prior to the agents’ arrival, creating a dispute about valid consent.
District court relied on ‘consent once removed’ and then-available exigent circumstances to uphold the search and arrests; the government argued inevitable discovery and harmless error defenses, among others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether warrantless entry was valid under consent or exigent circumstances	United States argued consent once removed and exigent circumstances justified entry.	Dueñas and Rivera contended no valid consent or exigent basis existed to justify warrantless entry.	No; the court ultimately affirmed on different grounds, rejecting consent once removed but endorsing other justification for non-suppressible evidence.
Whether inevitable discovery permits admission of evidence despite warrantless searches	United States contends inevitable discovery would have yielded the evidence legally if warrants had been sought.	Dueñas and Rivera challenge reliance on inevitable discovery as a primary justification.	Affirmed on the basis that inevitable discovery could justify admission of evidence, given probable cause and a warrant would have certainly issued.
Whether the exclusionary rule applies given good-faith reliance on binding precedent	United States argued officers reasonably relied on then-binding Seventh Circuit precedent.	Dueñas and Rivera asserted the reliance was misplaced; precedent did not authorize the conduct here.	Affirmed on the good-faith exception, recognizing reliance on binding precedent as a basis not to suppress.

United States v. Pelletier, 700 F.3d 1109 (7th Cir. 2012) (inevitable discovery framework for warrantless searches)
United States v. Marrocco, 578 F.3d 627 (7th Cir. 2009) (inevitable discovery framework governing admissibility)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (U.S. 1984) (inevitable discovery principle in constitutional analysis)
United States v. Witzlib, 796 F.3d 799 (7th Cir. 2015) (parallel issue; alternative justification for initial search)
United States v. Jachimko, 19 F.3d 296 (7th Cir. 1994) (consent-based framework; context for entry by informant)
Are (United States v. Are), 590 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 2009) (reasonableness of searches and consent theories)
United States v. Tejada, 524 F.3d 809 (7th Cir. 2008) (rejected active pursuit requirement for inevitable discovery)
Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (U.S. 2011) (good-faith reliance on controlling precedent)
Kentucky v. King, 563 U.S. 452 (U.S. 2011) (exigent circumstances overview)
Brigham City v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398 (U.S. 2006) (exigent circumstances overview)
United States v. White, 660 F.2d 1178 (7th Cir. 1981) (consent to enter despite uninformed participant identities)