IL: Drug sale on the street alone did not support search warrant for defendant’s house

Defendant’s drug deal on the street alone did not justify a search warrant for his home. And, this is “bare bones” for Leon’s purposes. People v. Lenyoun, 402 Ill. App. 3d 787, 932 N.E.2d 63, 342 Ill. Dec. 172 (2010):

The unusual facts of the instant case fall far below the bar set by this court in Beck [which was a “close case”]. To uphold the second warrant in this case would undermine the sanctity of a citizen’s home “upon the mere commission of a crime and an affidavit of a law enforcement officer” warned against by the Beck court. Beck, 306 Ill. App. 3d at 181. More than the commission of a crime on the street while in a vehicle is required to justify opening up the defendant’s home to a search. Where the clear intent of the second warrant was to recover contraband, the sworn complaint for the search warrant must give rise to a reasonable inference that criminal activity was ongoing in the home itself. See People v. Cooke, 299 Ill. App. 3d 273, 279, 701 N.E.2d 526, 233 Ill. Dec. 676 (1998) (circuit court’s judgment suppressing evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant that resulted in charges of weapons possession by a felon and misdemeanor drug possession was reversed where confidential source observed a “‘long gun (shotgun or rifle)’” in the defendant’s residence and a handgun carried by the defendant, which made the search warrant at least partially valid). Here, as confirmed by the examination of Detective Viscioni at the good-faith hearing, nothing was ever observed connecting the defendant’s drug activity on the street to the defendant’s apartment. Nor does the State point us to any facts or circumstances set forth in the second complaint for a search warrant from which the issuing judge could independently determine probable cause that evidence of the defendant’s criminal activity was present in his apartment.

I suggest something more blunt than this court: The state’s argument makes a mockery of the good faith exception because this is, to me, a complete abdication of responsibility by the issuing magistrate and the officer who drafted the affidavit for the house. This isn’t even close. Other cases have found a sufficient nexus to the house from the addition of information in the affidavit that the house had the stash. Here, nothing.

“Close only applies in horseshoes, nuclear war, and the good faith exception.” The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule is judicial recognition of “close enough for government work.”