NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To cited only accordance Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 United States Court of Appeals
For Seventh Circuit
Chicago,
Argued November
Decided December
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge
JOHN Z. LEE, District Judge [*]
No. ‐
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appeal District
Plaintiff Appellee Court Central District Illinois. v . 2:16 cr
KEVIN PETTIS, Colin S. Bruce, Judge .
Defendant Appellant .
O R D E R
Kevin convicted being felon possession firearm. appeals denial discovered obtaining We based cause, that, wasn’t, relied issuance faith. Either way, suppression appropriate, affirm judgment below.
I. Background
In the early morning hours of July police responded a call from the Oakwood Trace apartment complex in Champaign, Illinois. The caller, Shaleke Russell, told police she had been in an argument with Kevin Pettis in the parking lot of apartment complex. Russell said when she pulled out her phone call police, Pettis jumped in his tan Chevy Tahoe and drove away, firing one gunshot out window as he left. From Russell’s description of where shot fired, police were able discover a single shell casing in area parking lot. Russell also reported Tahoe’s P686094, although she said she unsure about final two numbers.
While one officer meeting with Russell in parking lot Oakwood Trace, another went last known address, an apartment complex about two miles away at Street. officer observed a black male common grassy area middle U shaped apartment building. The officer pulled into complex’s parking lot noticed a tan Tahoe bearing Illinois tag P686056, matched all but last digits Russell’s report. felt hood noticed warm, indicating had just been driven. Then other officers notified they had tracked down a block away from apartments. The officer who first located identified man custody same person he had seen common area. Pettis, however, did a gun when arrested.
Police contacted landlord apartments. landlord said had moved #1 #5 after first apartment damaged fire. police observed lights #5, nobody answered they knocked door. Given timing events, officers believed may had time enter order store fired Oakwood So they decided seek both Tahoe
In morning (only four hours police been called), brought affidavits (one each apartment) home order seek warrants. relevant part, stated that: (1) received report shot Trace; (2) Russell told an officer she saw Pettis, whom she knew sight, fire air drove off tag P686056; single shell casing near spot where Russell told them been fired; officer located common area 16 3919 3 apartments minutes later; (5) landlord confirmed that Pettis currently leases apartment #5; Tahoe apartment complex and was hot to touch; and Pettis keys to his possession he arrested. On these representations, issued warrants. Police subsequently found apartment #5 is subject of this appeal.
A grand jury indicted on felon possession charge. Pettis then moved to suppress on ground lacked probable cause to obtain He first submitted an affidavit which he declared he no longer lived and #5 used storage and open to anyone who wished to enter. The government then argued Pettis’s affidavit established he lacked reasonable expectation of privacy apartment. response, he submitted second affidavit swore he paying rent for nobody permitted enter without permission. The court affidavits were contradictory disregarded second affidavit. As result, court concluded lacked reasonable expectation of privacy apartment. court further held even if reasonable expectation privacy, cause existed for search Therefore, denied motion suppress. A jury convicted single count sentenced ten years’ imprisonment. appeals denial suppression motion.
II. Discussion denied on independent grounds, assume deciding reasonable expectation privacy #5. That’s because even if did expectation privacy,
issued #5 lot issued upon cause. Moreover, were slightly lacking, supporting warrants (one each apartment) not so deficient not rely issued warrants. We take these issues turn.
While court’s judgment question entitled deference, do give “‘great deference’ conclusion who initially warrant.” United States v. Garcia , F.3d 481, (7th Cir. 2008) (quoting v. McIntire , F.3d (7th Cir. 2008)). We defer long “there ‘substantial evidence record’ supports [the judge’s] decision.” v. Curry F.3d (7th Cir. 16 3919 4 2008) (quoting United States v. Koerth , 312 F.3d 862, 865 (7th Cir. 2002)). substantial evidence must support the conclusion “there is fair probability contraband or evidence crime be in particular place.” Koerth , 312 F.3d at 866 (quoting v. Gates , U.S. 213, 238 (1983)). state judge “‘is entitled to draw reasonable inferences where evidence likely to be kept,’ ‘need only it would be reasonable to seek the evidence the place indicated the affidavit.’” Curry , F.3d at (quoting v. Sleet , F.3d (7th Cir. 1995)).
Here, the the submitted to the state judge included more than enough evidence for judge to infer would be inside either the or #5. According to affidavits, fired shot Oakwood Trace then was spotted minutes later common area South State apartments, with still warm was apprehended one block from South State building. admits there was cause to believe gun. From this, reasonable judge could infer (since it was not with was arrested) was probably either or Tahoe.
That’s true even though there small mistake affidavits—the represented state judge Tahoe’s true number Russell reported, even though she gotten final digits wrong. Like court, we think this seemingly inadvertent error “significant enough negate finding cause.” Nor are we troubled by fact seen just few minutes shot fired, though Google maps indicates normally takes seven minutes drive between buildings. As explained, events question happened around three morning, certainly plausible driven less than seven minutes. sum, we agree judge issue
Even doubt judge’s finding, good faith exception exclusionary rule would save evidence this case. v. Leon U.S. 920–23 (1984). Under exception, presume relied defendant may overcome this presumption showing issuing misled by information application affiant knew false or would known false reckless disregard truth, wholly ‐ abandoned neutral detached role issuing warrant, or warrant so deficient on its face that officers executing warrant could reasonably presume warrant be valid. Id. 923. argues affidavits’ inclusion incorrect license plate their failure account normal seven ‐ minute driving time between render them misleading. But as we have already said, mistake trivial (and probably simple typo), timing Pettis’s trip could have plausibly been much quicker than seven minutes. So we agree court nothing included warrant application would misled judge induced otherwise shouldn’t been issued.
Nor can show lack ‐ reliance based on other Leon prongs. There has been no serious argument judge abandoned role neutral arbiter warrant. Speculation judge acting “rubber stamp” more insufficient overcome presumption judges are neutral makers. Finally, given federal has already supported cause, we cannot say so deficient its face no officer presume valid. Even if are ultimately wrong merits finding, federal has upheld it. generally cannot required know law better than federal judges, most cases well reasoned opinion supporting determination indicate justified relying issuance case here. Thus, exclusionary rule wouldn’t bar admission lacked cause.
III. Conclusion
For reasons stated above, properly denied air AFFIRMED
[*] Honorable John Z. Lee District Court Northern District Illinois, sitting designation.