Guzman v. City of Chicago
565 F.3d 393
7th Cir.
2009
Check Treatment
Docket

*1 GUZMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, Maira CHICAGO, municipal corpo

CITY OF

ration, Bonnstetter, Chicago Marvin Officers, 1645 and

Police Danilo Star

Rojas, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 08-2172. Appeals,

United States Court

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 2009. May

Decided 2009. July

Rehearing Denied *2 Bonnstetter Sergeant Marvin

In was inves- Chicago Department Police In the course of activity. tigating gang investigation went met with an inmate. where he County jail inmate, Doe, to as John referred Another he had and said approached Bonnstetter that he activity gang about information Bonnstet- police. wished to share aspiring not know the ter did call after he was released told him to did, six months jail. And call from police met at a sta- Then the two later. from the tion, special agent along with James Investigation, Federal Bureau Doe, gang himself was McDonald. who felon, discussed and a convicted member informa- gangs. It was knowledge of his knowledge coincided with other tion which and McDonald and convinced addition, Doe that Doe was reliable. 10 to 20 pictures of positively identified he was shown. photos members from gang bits of information specific One of the (argued), Chica- gang V. Jackowiak Lawrence that he saw a Doe IL, Plaintiff-Appellant. for go, felon named Ruben member and convicted Estrada, years, for at he had known whom Office of (argued), J. Wichern Nadine residence at West single-family IL, Counsel, for Chicago, Corporation Estrada Chicago. Doe said Walton Defendants-Appellees. family. Doe the house with his lived in Estrada enter said that he saw ROVNER, KANNE, Before door on dwelling through one two-story EVANS, Judges. Circuit handgun floor and exit with the first EVANS, Judge. Doe Circuit on the first floor. from another door handgun protection had a said Estrada brought under U.S.C. In this was at war. gang because his that her alleges Guzman Maira by the and Doe drove Agent McDonald when rights were violated constitutional Doe confirmed an un- house on West Walton performed Chicago police As he saw Estrada. home, it was where placed her search of her reasonable house, McDonald driving by the force arrest, used excessive under “a small real estate in the front sign” out various saw She also sets against her. him, looked like To The district court window. state law violations. he assumed residence and dismissing her summary judgment granted running a real estate that someone claims; appeals only the dismissal Guzman con- home. McDonald out of the alleged business relating to the unlawful of those Bonnstetter, veyed this information arrest. and her claim of false a police then searched database which It is unclear whether there were real es- gave that Estrada showed 1536 West Wal- flyers tate in the front window of the office his ton as address to the five times and whether a mailbox on the door to the *3 from 1997 to 2001. The database also upstairs was labeled Guzman family. showed that after 2001 he used as his On that morning, Guzman, who lived in Walton, address 1538 1636 West apartment the second-floor with her hus- Cortez, West and 2943 North Ridgeway. band, home, undressed, was at lying on Apparently having regular run-ins with the her bed talking phone, on her when she police, Estrada used the latter address knocking heard at her door. She put on a eight times from 2002 to other long, loose-fitting T-shirt and walked to- words, it had been years almost four since ward the door. Suddenly, the door was Estrada used the 1536 West ad- Walton forced open with a crowbar and officers in many police. dress his contacts with entered the guns with drawn. Nevertheless, armed informa- Guzman did not speak English but she tion that Estrada was connected with 1536 a gesture understood made by one of the Walton, West signed Bonnstetter an affi- officers to mean that she should lie down requesting davit warrant to search Es- on the floor. Realizing that Guzman did trada —a felon who then on bond was for not speak English, Rojas Officer Danilo unauthorized use of a weapon to—and began to serve as an interpreter. Guz- Walton, search 1536 West which was de- man, who pregnant was seven months at a single-family scribed as residence. A time, floor, remained on the in what County judge circuit court found that she said was an position, uncomfortable for provided probable the affidavit cause and about 10 minutes. After the officers com- issued a authorizing warrant the search of pleted security check apartment, Walton, person Estrada’s and of 1536West permitted she was to get up, put pants, on residence,” “single family and the seizure and sit on a chair. proceeded The officers any handgun proof as well as that Es- to search her Guzman told the trada lived in the house. Estrada, officers that she did not know warrant, Bonnstetter, Armed with the that he did not live in apartment, her McDonald, Chicago and some seven other handgun. there was no After 30 min- police officers as agents well as seven FBI searching, utes of finding nothing of inter- descended on 1536 West Walton. When est in the apartment, the officers left. As arrived, he Bonnstetter saw the real estate a result of the episode, entire all that was sign; McDonald, like thought it looked inoperable, rusty was an handgun in saw, like a home business. What he also backyard. the search of the The officers though, was that the front of the building observing also admitted that the first-floor doors, leading had two one to the business under renovation and unoc- and the other to a stairway up to the cupied. floor. second The back of the building had two doors. As the officers leaving, Guzman’s Guzman, husband arrived home. What became clear at some who was is that feeling pain abdomen, then in her was not a want- resi- dence, but rather it a real ed to see her doctor. her housed estate Because doctor office, unavailable, apartment (though unoccupied nearby Guzman went to out) floor, it turned on the hospital kept overnight first and a where she was separate apartment on the second floor. observation. basis of “information of the incorrect information assessed

As a result disclosed, duty had a application, in the warrant disclose, issuing discover and to not to second search execute decided obtained, Magistrate.” in- at also based on warrant emerges Doe. Bonnstetter 107 S.Ct. 1013. Information that formation bearing in his that about a deposition after the warrant is issued has no testified he had a after the conversa- this analysis. week he told him “the with Doe in which tion *4 case, and Mc I In this he me wasn’t and gave

information Doe to relia Donald talked with assess his upset said he “was upset.” He also activi bility. gang The information about if he told me that it was to the that ty and coincided with own. go on the first floor I a residence of and building, pictures gang it’s I showed him members and an office identify McDonald was able to them. about that.” upset took to West Walton to look at Doe lawsuit, seeking this brought Guzman house. McDonald observed what damages alleged for the search as a thought single-family a house with was- The as other claims. district court well Despite precautions, home business. these summary defen- granted judgment the. they Guzman that have done argues novo. dants. Our review is de Bell v. they more—that should have told the (7th Cir.2004). F.3d 703 Duperrault, 367 judge that this was first time Doe evaluating alleged an violation of so limited provided they information were the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amend reliability. in their of his We assessment ment, aspects look we at two distinct have doubt that would made a difference. and its issuance execution. warrant —its At the of his beginning work with Maryland v. necessarily pro police, every 1013, 94 L.Ed.2d 72 We will vides information for the first time. We turn first to the issuance of the warrant. are that the to veri steps convinced taken fy provided the information Doe were suf requires

The Fourth Amendment probable ficient. There was cause to issue a warrant supported probable that the warrant. describe, particulari cause and that it with place to ty, be searched the items prior Our is conclusion line with persons Absent’exigent be seized. cases. to be In Jones we a warrant circumstances, magistrate a neutral must finding despite valid when it was issued a probable-cause determination make that not in ensur police diligent were and issue warrant. Chambers v. Ma ing name of the and the that the tenant roney, 399 apartment number were the warrant. (1970); Wilhelm, Jones Also, in a similar to the one be situation (7th Cir.2005). F.3d 455 now, upheld fore us we a search warrant police investigation

Obviously, this the infor basis suggest did not that the house involved judge i.e., mation single-family single-family but rath 1536 West Walton was a was-not a residence multiunit, multipurpose building, er a house and Estrada lived there —was However, shop. accurate. we do view which also housed barber (7th White, 416 cause with hind States v. F.3d 634 Cir. probable determinations 2005). Rather, sight. validity warrant properly Jacobs,

That the warrant be is that someone named ill, who was what, sued, however, only upstairs is half of lived apartment. Unde- terred, requires. Amendment Fourth The war officers went to the side entrance # 2 properly rant must also be executed. A and broke down the door by persons knocking cannot be executed without or announcing warrant Garrison; ambiguous. approached know it to be officers. Officers Jacobs, Jones; 60-year-old man, City Chicago, sickly Jacobs (7th Cir.2000). pointed gun at his head. F.3d It While the is not uncom kept gun officer to Jacobs’ head for mon problems arise —as minutes, they performed a preliminary multiple case—because the existence of of his The entire living units in thought what is to be a hours, search continued for three residence, during or when it is clear which time the officers called in drug- multiple units exist warrant sniffing dog. Still no drugs were found. identify precision fails to unit which *5 We determined that reasonable to be searched. officers should have known before entering Jacobs’ Garrison, In officers had a warrant to apartment was not a apartment search the third-floor of some single-family residence and thus the war- one named Lawrence McWebb. On their rant was overly broad. they Once discov- way to perform they the search encoun mistake, ered the the officers should have tered in apartment McWebb front of the discontinued the search. building. in they pro He let them presents Jones an interesting, but not ceeded to a vestibule on the third floor difficult, problem of interpretation. The opening two doors off it. Garrison warrant allowed a search of upstairs “the standing hallway. in the Court The. apartment right” on the at a certain ad- only found that they after searched Garri dress. An conducting officer the search apartment son’s did the realize officers. knew from earlier surveillance that that it was not McWebb’s and that in fact building contained two staircases. He apartments, one, two were on the knew that if he took the back staircase the third floor. they As soon as discovered “upstairs apartment on right” would mistake, they their were required to dis lead him to the apartment, Joneses’ and if continue the search of apart Garrison’s he took the front staircase the Unfortunately ment. ..for Mr. would be a different unit. In heroin, cash, that happened drug after .d response hand, to sleight this we said paraphernalia were foun open “[w]here warrant is to more Jacobs, In police obtained a warrant for than one interpretation, the warrant is “single family residence” and a per- ambiguous and and, invalid on its face Troy. son named The information oh which therefore, cannot legally be by executed the warrant was based was obtained person who knows the warrant am- be large who said a of co- amount biguous.” 425 F.3d at 463. being caine was out building. sold In fact there apartments were three in the Our today relatively building, as the were by straightforward. informed Although the officers the building immediately upon owner thought the building looked' like a single- owner, house, arrival. The family lived on the first they should have known floor, also told pretty the officers there was no quickly that their belief was mistak Troy one named in building. They She said en. learned that the front of the Interestingly, as is a case for dam office. That a real estate building housed distract from small does not ages may the office was it illustrate our under also it was an office. Officers the fact that ways it is recent observation that get to the rest they could not learned that protect Fourth Amendment easier they That from that office. house actions, rights though civil rather than to access the second- go outside evidence through informed should have floor Sims, States v. criminal cases. single-family resi- this was not a them that (7th Cir.2009), 553 F.3d 580 we wondered sepa- there was a dence. knew Supreme at some Court whether So rate for the first-floor door differently from approach will civil cases informed, they have called off to find a violation criminal cases because Jacobs, “searching said search. As we raises- “no concern that civil case in the apartments or same build- two more the Fourth Amend violating sanction for searching ing is than two no different disproportionate ment would separate more houses.” completely harm caused the violation.” Id. at 585. Furthermore, Sergeant F.3d at 767. Herring ago Just a few months v. Unit acknowledged -, States, ed time pressure not under execute were (2009), Court warrant, easily disposed drugs no reiterated distinction between the exis Rather, looking were involved. Fourth Amendment tence of a violation handgun. for a *6 subsequent and a invocation of the exclu Admittedly, the before us are not facts rule, “has sionary noting exclusion as in But egregious so Jacobs Jones. resort, been our not our first always last cases, as was true in those ” impulse .... Hudson Michi (quoting v. early known on that the should have war- 586, 591, 2159, gan, 126 S.Ct. 165 547 U.S. the accurately prem- rant not describe did (2006)). Exclusion L.Ed.2d 56 is not to ises searched. Once knew be necessary of a Fourth consequence a single-family dwelling, the house was violation, Amendment and the of benefits called the search. Not should have off the outweigh exclusion must costs.1 Her doing violated Guzman’s constitutional so ring, rights. 129 at 700. S.Ct. authority,” "apparent are the of

1. Those "costs” often on minds based on United States Matlock, 164, 988, judges evaluating suppression motions. v. 415 94 39 U.S. S.Ct. myriad Furthermore, course, account for the of doctrines em- (1974). 242 L.Ed.2d of ployed suppression the of to avoid evidence. given the probable- there is the deference to standing-related These include the doctrine findings magistrate issuing the cause the persons the who have a reason- which limits warrant, Gates, 213, v. 462 Illinois U.S. 103 expectation privacy able in area the 2317, (1983), and, S.Ct. 76 L.Ed.2d 527 in the Illinois, 128, Rakas v. 439 U.S. 99 searched. searches, case of the "due warrantless 421, (1978). S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 58 387 Then given by weight” to the inferences law drawn doctrine, discovery is the inevitable Nix Ornelas enforcement officers. v. United Williams, 431, 2501, 467 U.S. S.Ct. States, 690, 1657, 116 S.Ct. 517 U.S. (1984), good-faith ex- L.Ed.2d 377 as well as (1996). Additionally, there is the Leon, 897, ceptions. United States v. Heiring holding exclusionary in rule 82 L.Ed.2d 677 And involving apply should not in a situation exigent many of course others —the circum- arrest search incident made on requirement, exception to the warrant stances outstanding was an mistaken belief that there Stuart, Brigham City v. person searched. arrest warrant (2006), 164 L.Ed.2d 650 and such things finding like a "consent” to search have a These “costs” to law enforcement are officers did not to enter clearly a concern in cases. For that Guzman’s was not civil estab- reason, less civil cases are far troublesome. lished. So civil case vindicates Guzman’s Sims, we said in civil cases—like our As rights. Fourth Amendment There nowas concerns today not raise contraband and therefore no crimi- —do illegally might seized essential to con- nal case. But evidence one wonder whether victing grave of a the defendant crime Ms. Guzman’s Amendment rights Fourth might suppressed, have to be and the would have been if the vindicated criminal let his career go to continue of had body found the dead of a child in the harm criminality, even if the inflicted apartment and the case was referred to search to the interests intend- County prosecution. court for circuit ed to be the Fourth protected exclusionary Would the rule have been slight comparison Amendment was to invoked? Or would officers have been society letting the harm to the defen- good-faith found to acting be reliance dant off scot free. temptation warrant? Or would great to exceptions find that some other say F.3d at is not to 584. This be invoked? necessarily exclusionary rule is on life support. days ago, the Just a few Court Finding that execution of the search prior precedent regarding overruled war- illegal, we will also searches of automobiles incident rantless reinstate Ms. Guzman’s false arrest claim. an arrest. The held that once an Court Accordingly, judgment of the district (he safely custody arrestee is was under court is Affirmed and Reversed Part car) arrest, handcuffed, squad in a Part for proceedings con- Remanded vehicle, gain to his unable access sistent opinion. with this “incident to arrest” vehicle is no Arizona longer doctrine available. *7 ROVNER, Judge, Circuit concurring.

Gant, 1710, U.S.-, 129 S.Ct. (2009). holding I concur in the and the reason- may always Civil suits under ing of majority’s thorough opinion, adequate remedy Fourth Amend- I cannot concur in the substantial dicta violation, ment is of concern to which exclusionary devoted to attacking rule. many, including Herring. the dissenters case; This is nothing incriminating a civil Officers, they say, will often be “sheltered search, during illegal was discovered by qualified immunity.” That is true in charges and no criminal ensued. There is just many cases it true that the nothing thus to exclude. The continued exceptions exclusionary rule often vitality exclusionary rule is a matter prevent vindication of Fourth Amendment solely Supreme for the Court to consider. rights. It is a far-reaching issue that would bene- case, In the think fit from full present argument, we there is no and should not be blithely that question presen- that the search was dismissed absent full immunity— province is no tation. is not our qualified issue of Because it is, court, no the fact comment on I issue that somehow issues before the grant interesting It is also to note that the are immune vast motions from review majority motions based on al- lower federal courts habeas cases. See Powell, 465, 3037, leged Fourth Amendment violations are heard Stone v. judges, 49 L.Ed.2d state court decisions not part majority’s join do not Ill., Chicago, City v. See Idris

opinion. Cir.2009). (“federal (7th F.3d advisory opinions on issue do not

courts litigants”). do not affect the

situations America, STATES of

UNITED

Plaintiff-Appellee, SANNER, Defendant-Appellant.

Ray America,

United States of

Plaintiff-Appellee, Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.

Adolfo 07-3738,

Nos. 08-1344. Appeals, States Court of

Seventh Circuit.

Argued April 2009. May

Decided