Wilhelm Wade v. Ivan Ramos, 26 F.4th 440

Police obtained a warrant to search the building’s “second-floor” unit based on a confidential informant (John Doe) who purchased heroin and identified detailed layout and drug location; Doe also appeared before the issuing judge.
Doe had a long history as a registered cooperating informant; officers did minimal corroboration of his tip and did not verify the specific apartment number.
Officers executed the warrant and, by mistake, entered the Wades’ upstairs (second-floor) apartment; no drugs were found there but large quantities were found in the downstairs unit the officers intended to search.
The Wades sued, alleging (1) Ramos omitted material information about Doe’s reliability in the warrant application (probable-cause challenge) and (2) officers knew or should have known they were in the wrong apartment and should have abandoned the search.
District court denied discovery into Doe’s identity under the informer’s privilege, granted summary judgment for the officers; the Wades appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Informer’s identity discovery / privilege	Wades: district court wrongly applied informer’s privilege and waiver occurred when an IR number was disclosed.	Officers: privilege applies; disclosure was inadvertent and did not waive privilege.	Privilege appropriately applied; no waiver shown.
Probable cause / material omission in warrant	Wades: Ramos omitted that Doe was a registered informant and allegedly had credibility problems, so the affidavit was misleading.	Officers: Doe’s in-person appearance, detailed firsthand description, and judge’s questioning provided robust probable cause; noting informant status would likely increase reliability.	Omission of informant status was not material given totality of circumstances; probable cause stands.
Failure-to-abandon / continuing search after mistake	Wades: officers knew or should have known almost immediately they had the wrong unit and unreasonably continued the search.	Officers: valid warrant and no obvious ambiguity at entry; cessation obligation arises only once individual officers actually knew of the mistake.	Possible duty to stop if officers realized the mistake, but record lacks evidence about when specific officers knew; summary judgment for officers affirmed.

Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (sets framework for informer’s privilege balancing)
United States v. McDowell, 687 F.3d 904 (7th Cir. 2012) (appellate review of informer-privilege balancing)
Rainsberger v. Benner, 913 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2019) (omission in affidavit can violate Fourth Amendment if intentional/reckless and material)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances standard for probable cause)
Bekter v. Gomez, 692 F.3d 854 (7th Cir. 2012) (methodology: incorporate omitted facts into hypothetical affidavit to test materiality)
United States v. Thomas, 835 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 2016) (factors for assessing confidential informant reliability)
United States v. Glover, 755 F.3d 811 (7th Cir. 2014) (deficiency in one reliability factor may be offset by others)
United States v. Searcy, 664 F.3d 1119 (7th Cir. 2011) (prior reliable tips can enhance informant credibility)
United States v. Koerth, 312 F.3d 862 (7th Cir. 2002) (caution against heavy reliance on previously unknown informant)
Jones v. Wilhelm, 425 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2005) (warrant ambiguity known from surveillance undermines warrant)
Guzman v. City of Chicago, 565 F.3d 393 (7th Cir. 2009) (warrant invalid where premises description plainly inconsistent with reality)
Muhammad v. Pearson, 900 F.3d 898 (7th Cir. 2018) (officers must stop and clear up ambiguity once they discover a warrant may not clearly specify premises to be searched)