Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ware

United States District Court, C.D. Illinois, Peoria Division

July 30, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
ADAM LEE WARE, Defendant.

          ORDER & OPINION

          JOE BILLY MCDADE UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Adam Lee Ware's Motion to Quash Search Warrant and Suppress Evidence (Doc. 21) and Motion to Suppress Evidence (Doc. 22). The Prosecution has responded (Docs. 25, 26), and a hearing was held on July 17, 2019. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motions (Docs. 21, 22) are DENIED.

         Background

         According to the application for the search warrant at issue, Defendant was known to the police for having dealt narcotics in the past; indeed, he was on parole for manufacture/delivery of cocaine. (Doc. 21-1 at 2, 4). In July of 2018, an anonymous tip was provided to Peoria Police Sergeant Erin Barisch stating Defendant was dealing narcotics; the initial tip did not mention the residence subject to the search warrant at issue. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). The same anonymous source followed up twice and informed the police Defendant was still dealing narcotics and storing them at a residence located on 1103 South Warren Street. (Doc. 21-2 at 2). The application for a search warrant provided no further detail about the informant or how the information was acquired, the timeline of the calls, any other information provided by the anonymous tip, or steps taken to corroborate the tip before February 2019.

         On February 6, 2019, Peoria Police Sergeant Matthew Lane was surveilling the residence at 1103 S. Warren. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). He saw Defendant leave the building and get into a silver car. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). Lane followed the car and saw it park outside of a different house on the 2300 block of Millman Street. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). Lane then observed a man exit the house and get into Defendant's car. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). The man sat in the front seat of Defendant's car for about five minutes before exiting the car and reentering the house on Millman. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). In the affidavit supporting his application for a search warrant, Lane reported he believed, based on his training and experience, a drug transaction had occurred. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). Lane was unable to follow the car when it drove away. (Doc. 21-1 at 2). However, he and other officers returned to 1103 S. Warren and saw the same silver car parked in front of the residence, at first with someone inside and the lights on, then empty with the lights off. (Doc. 21-1 at 2).

         Shortly thereafter, Barisch noticed someone leave 1103 S. Warren, go back to the car, and begin driving. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). Barisch followed it as it drove away until it reached the intersection of Shelley Street and Lincoln Street. (Suppression Hrg. on 7/17/2019). At that intersection, the driver failed to signal a right turn for the last continuous 100 feet before turning onto Lincoln; Lane's affidavit stated the vehicle stopped at the stop sign controlling the intersection before the turn signal was activated. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). Barisch informed another pair of officers who had begun following the car and instructed them to stop it. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). Those officers reported seeing the car cross the road centerline on Moss Avenue and pulled it over. (Doc. 22 at 4). The officers determined Defendant had an open container of alcohol in the vehicle. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). They asked Defendant to step out of the car and told him they would search him and the vehicle; Defendant responded that was fine. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). The officers searched Defendant and the vehicle, discovering a plastic bag in his jacket pocket that contained a white powder, later determined to be cocaine. (Doc. 21-1 at 3). Although no other contraband was located in the search of Defendant and his car, the officers did find $1, 140 in his pockets. (Doc. 21-1 at 3).

         Lane and one of the officers who stopped Defendant proceeded to a Hardee's. (Suppression Hrg. on 7/17/2019). There, they met a judge of the Circuit Court of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Illinois to present an application for a warrant to search 1103 S. Warren. In addition to the above information, Lane's application for a search warrant included information that Defendant had previously been stopped for speeding in May 2018. (Doc. 21-1 at 4). During that stop, a drug dog alerted, leading to a search of Defendant's vehicle. (Doc. 21-1 at 4). The search did not yield contraband, but officers did discover $18, 000 in cash, wrapped in a way Lane states in the February 6, 2019 application for a warrant is consistent with how narcotics traffickers bundle money. (Doc. 21-1 at 4).

         Based on Lane's application, the judge issued a warrant to search 1103 S. Warren. (Doc. 21-1 at 1). The warrant was served the same evening. (Doc. 26 at 1-2). The subsequent search uncovered over five kilograms of cocaine, 86 grams of cocaine base, $200, 000 in cash, evidence of drug manufacturing, and firearms. (Doc. 26 at 3-4). Defendant was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine, possession with intent to distribute cocaine base, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, and possession of a firearm by a felon. (Doc. 11 at 1-3).

         His instant motions argue the stop of his vehicle was an unlawful seizure of his person, so the fruits thereof should be suppressed, and there was not probable cause to search 1103 S. Warren, so the evidence uncovered there should be suppressed.

         Legal Standard

          Police may stop a vehicle where they have probable cause to believe a traffic violation occurred. United States v. Lewis, 920 F.3d 483, 489 (7th Cir. 2019). This standard is met when “the circumstances confronting a police officer support the reasonable belief that a driver has committed even a minor traffic offense.” United States v. Muriel, 418 F.3d 720, 724 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Cashman, 216 F.3d 582, 586 (7th Cir. 2000)). “But when a police officer mistakenly believes that the law prohibits an act that is, in fact, perfectly legal, even a good faith belief that the law has been violated will not support the stop.” United States v. Garcia-Garcia, 633 F.3d 608, 612 (7th Cir. 2011).

         The review of a search warrant is deferential. “[I]n reviewing the issuing judge's probable cause determination, the district court need only evaluate whether the judge had a ‘substantial basis' for concluding that probable cause existed.” United States v. Kelly, 772 F.3d 1072, 1080 (7th Cir. 2014) (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238-39 (1983)). “Probable cause exists when the supporting affidavit presents a total set of circumstances which create a ‘fair probability' that a search will uncover evidence of a crime.” United States v. Haynes, 882 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2018) (quoting Gates, 462 U.S. at 238). “Those circumstances need only indicate a reasonable probability that evidence of crime will be found in a particular location; neither an absolute certainty nor even a preponderance of the evidence is necessary.” United States v. Aljabari, 626 F.3d 940, 944 (7th Cir. 2010). When a judge is presented with only an affidavit to support the search warrant, “the validity of the warrant rests solely on the strength of the affidavit.” United States v. McMillian, 786 F.3d 630, 639 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 755 (7th Cir. 2003)).

         Even if a reviewing court determines a warrant was issued without the requisite probable cause, “the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by police officers who acted in objectively reasonable reliance upon a search warrant issued by a neutral magistrate.” Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 342 (1987) (explaining the holding of United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984)). The good-faith inquiry “is confined to the objectively ascertainable question whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal” given “all of the circumstances.” Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135, 145 (2009) (quoting Leon, 468 U.S. at 922 n. 23). The issuance of a search warrant is prima facie evidence of good faith. United States v. Reichling, 781 F.3d 883, 889 (7th Cir. 2015). Thus, when a search warrant has issued, a defendant seeking exclusion must demonstrate

(1) the issuing judge wholly abandoned his judicial role and failed to perform his neutral and detached function, serving merely as a rubber stamp for the police; (2) the affidavit supporting the warrant was so lacking in indicia of probable cause as to render official belief in its existence entirely unreasonable; or (3) the issuing judge was misled by information in an affidavit that the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.