United States v. Haynes

by
A confidential informant told Winnebago County Deputy Jones that he had purchased crack cocaine from “a larger black male” who was selling drugs from his house and agreed to participate in a controlled buy, stating that the suspect would drive to meet the CI to make the sale. Jones surveilled the address the CI had reported and, several times, saw a man fitting the description drive to meet different individuals in the car. Deputies positioned surveillance on the house and neighborhood and set up the controlled buy. Under continuous observation, the suspect drove and met the CI, then returned to the house. The CI returned with 0.7 grams of a white, rock-like substance that later tested positive for cocaine. In a warrant affidavit, Jones described the CI’s participation in the buy but said little about the CI himself, who did not appear. Executing the warrant, deputies found heroin, crack cocaine, marijuana, a loaded pistol, drug paraphernalia, and cash. Haynes admitted that everything seized was his, that he intended to distribute the drugs, and that he kept the gun for protection. Haynes was charged with possession with intent to distribute heroin and cocaine base, 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(a). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of a motion to suppress the evidence. The relevant factors support the CI’s reliability. Even without the CI’s tip, the controlled buy provided probable cause. View "United States v. Haynes" on Justia Law