CA7: PC existed because officer recognized HGH on sight and an anonymous tip corroborated his belief

“Agent Cagnoni’s affidavit gave the magistrate judge a robust factual foundation to authorize a search of Dessart’s Reedsville residence.” While the HGH would take a while to test, the officer pretty much knew it when he saw it because that was his field. An anonymous tip corroborated the officer’s suspicions, and the tipster led the officer to defendant’s website about distribution of HGH. Posner concurs, complaining about the court’s use of jargon. First sentence: “I agree with the decision but have reservations about some of the verbal formulas in the majority opinion. I do not criticize the majority for reciting them, because they are common, orthodox, even canonical. But they are also inessential and in some respects erroneous, and on both grounds ripe for reexamination.” Last sentence: “To repeat what I said at the outset, I don’t disagree with the decision to affirm the district court. I disagree merely with the rhetorical envelope in which so many judicial decisions are delivered to the reader. Judicial opinions are littered with stale, opaque, confusing jargon. There is no need for jargon, stale or fresh. Everything judges do can be explained in straightforward language—and should be.” United States v. Dessart, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 9031 (7th Cir. May 17, 2016).