January 24, 2018
from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Western Division. No. 15CR50022-1 -
Philip G. Reinhard, Judge.
Bauer, Kanne, and Barrett, Circuit Judges.
Haynes was indicted after sheriff's deputies in Winnebago
County executed a search warrant and found drugs and a loaded
handgun in his house. Haynes pleaded guilty to possessing
heroin and cocaine base with intent to distribute and to
possessing a firearm in furtherance of a drug-trafficking
crime; he was sentenced to 108 months' imprisonment.
Haynes argues that the items found during the search should
have been suppressed because, he says, the affidavit
supporting the warrant did not establish probable cause. We
affirm the judgment.
confidential informant ("CI") contacted Deputy Fred
Jones in early April 2015 and told him that he had recently
purchased crack cocaine from "a larger black male"
who was selling drugs from his house and that the CI had
spoken with the suspect about purchasing more drugs in the
future. The CI agreed to participate in a controlled buy. He
advised Jones that the suspect would drive from his house and
meet the CI in the car to make the sale.
days following the CI's tip, Jones periodically
sur-veilled the house at the address the CI had reported.
Several times he saw a man fitting the CI's description
leave the house, get into a car, drive away, and meet with
different individuals in the car for about four to ten
minutes. Based on his training and 10 years' experience,
Jones believed that these episodes were drug sales.
of the County Narcotics Team then set up a controlled
purchase of crack cocaine from the suspect. The deputies
positioned surveillance on the house and in the surrounding
neighborhood. One of them searched the CI and found that he
had neither drugs nor money on his person. Deputy Jones then
gave the CI $60 for buy money. The CI called the suspect and
arranged the purchase; Jones could hear both sides of the
conversation. The suspect left the house, got into a car,
drove approximately four blocks, and met the CI at an
intersection. The CI entered the vehicle, sat in the
passenger seat, and exited minutes later. The suspect drove
back to the house and went inside. The deputies observed the
suspect with an unobstructed view from the time he left the
house to the time he reentered.
returned and told Jones that he purchased crack cocaine from
the man in the car. He then handed over a bag with 0.7 grams
of a white, rocklike substance that later tested positive for
cocaine. Police again searched the CI and found him free of
cash and drugs.
applied for a warrant to search the house and submitted an
affidavit that recounted the facts as we have summarized
them. In the affidavit Jones described the CI's
participation but said almost nothing about the CI himself.
The CI also did not appear before the circuit judge. Based on
Jones's affidavit, the judge issued a warrant that gave
the sheriff's deputies four days to search the house and
seize drugs, drug paraphernalia, cash, and firearms, among
sheriff's deputies timely executed the warrant. They
found approximately 16 grams of mixtures containing heroin;
8.4 grams of mixtures containing crack cocaine; 1.6 grams of
marijuana; a loaded pistol; drug paraphernalia including
digital scales, plastic baggies, Dormin (a sleep aid used to
cut or dilute heroin), and fake soda cans used to conceal
drugs; and $1, 174 in cash. Haynes was arrested. At the
sheriff's department, Haynes admitted that everything
seized was his, that he intended to distribute the drugs, and
that he kept the gun for protection.
relevant here, Haynes was charged with one count of
possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base,
21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and one count of possessing a
firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(a). Haynes moved to suppress the evidence found
during the search, arguing that the warrant was not based on
probable cause. The district judge denied the motion. The
judge reasoned that the CI's tip, corroborated by
surveillance and the controlled buy, provided probable cause;
alternatively, he determined that the good-faith exception to
the exclusionary rule applied.
pleaded guilty. As part of the plea agreement, Haynes
reserved his right to appeal the ...