United States v. Glenn, No. 19-2802 (7th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Police investigating Vermilion County drug trafficking sent an informant to buy cocaine at Glenn’s home. The transaction was recorded on audio and video. About a month later a state judge put agent Alblinger under oath, took his testimony, and issued a warrant to search Glenn’s home. A search turned up cocaine and guns. Glenn unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The warrant rested on the “controlled buy” plus Alblinger’s testimony that the informant had for more than a decade provided reliable information. Although Alblinger did not reveal whether agents had searched the informant before the transaction, that the informant had a long criminal record and was cooperating to earn lenience, and that the informant’s record of providing accurate information was with the local police rather than with Alblinger personally, the omissions do not negate probable cause. Given the audio and video evidence of the controlled buy, the informant’s reliability and motivations are not material to the existence of probable cause. The passage of time did not render the information stale. In an interview shortly before Alblinger applied for the warrant, Glenn conceded that he sold cocaine from his house, negating any possibility that Alblinger knew that information obtained after the controlled buy implied that Glenn’s house no longer contained cocaine. The delay was intended to prevent Glenn from inferring the informant’s identity.

Download PDF

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-2802 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FINAS J. GLENN, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois. No. 18-cr-20061— James E. Shadid, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED JULY 7, 2020 — DECIDED JULY 20, 2020 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and KANNE, Circuit Judges. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge. Police investigating drug tra cking in Vermilion County, Illinois, sent an informant to buy two ounces of cocaine at the home of Finas Glenn. The transaction was recorded on audio and video. About a month later the police asked for a warrant to search Glenn’s home. A state judge put agent Pat Alblinger under oath, took 2 No. 19-2802 his testimony (which was recorded), and issued a warrant. A search turned up cocaine and guns. Indicted on drug and weapons charges, Glenn moved to suppress the evidence seized in the search. A district judge held a hearing and concluded that the warrant was supported by probable cause. 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89507 (C.D. Ill. May 29, 2019). Glenn then pleaded guilty to one rearms charge, see 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), and the prosecutor dismissed the remaining counts. The plea reserved Glenn’s right to contest on appeal the denial of his motion to suppress. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). The judge sentenced Glenn to 102 months’ imprisonment. A judge in a criminal prosecution must a ord “great deference” to the probable-cause nding by the judge who issued a warrant. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 236 (1983); United States v. McIntire, 516 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 2008). That norm is as applicable to warrants based on live testimony as it is to warrants based on a davits. See United States v. Pa?on, 962 F.3d 972 (7th Cir. 2020). This warrant rests on the “controlled buy” plus Alblinger’s testimony that the informant had for more than a decade provided reliable information. Glenn contends that this is not enough to show probable cause, because Alblinger did not tell the state judge whether agents had searched the informant before the transaction, that the informant had a long criminal record and was cooperating to earn lenience, and that the informant’s record of providing accurate information was with the local police as a whole rather than with Alblinger personally. Like the district judge, we think these omissions unfortunate. But they do not negate probable cause, when, as Gates requires, the evidence is viewed as a No. 19-2802 3 whole and the federal court gives the state judge great deference. The principal reason to search an informant before a controlled buy is to make sure that he does not try to trick the investigators by providing the drugs himself and then asserting that he bought them from the target. It is possible that some sleight of hand might be practiced even when a transaction is recorded, but the audio and visual record of this transaction would have allowed a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. Probable cause is a lower standard. The Fourth Amendment does not require best practices in criminal investigations. That the agents could have managed this controlled buy to provide an even higher level of con dence does not imply that probable cause is missing. Given the audio and video evidence of the controlled buy, the informant’s reliability and motivations are not material to the existence of probable cause. Gates observed that these considerations can be important to the total mix of information, which is why police do well to provide details to the judge asked to issue a warrant, but the omissions do not detract from the powerful audio and video evidence. Glenn contends that the evidence provided by the controlled buy was stale by the time the agents searched his house. Yet the passage of time does not necessarily imply that a retail site for drug sales has ceased to be so. See United States v. Lamon, 930 F.2d 1183, 1187–88 (7th Cir. 1991). If the house had been sold in the interim, or if there were some reason to think that Glenn had changed his line of business, then the passage of time would provide reason to doubt the inference that a place used to distribute drugs in the recent past is still used for that purpose. But there is no such evi- 4 No. 19-2802 dence. To the contrary, in an interview shortly before agent Alblinger applied for the warrant, Glenn conceded that he sold cocaine from his home—and although Glenn said that he sold only “small quantities,” retail drug sales are retail drug sales. Alblinger did not present this confession to the state judge, so it does not factor into the nding of probable cause, but it negates any possibility that Alblinger knew that the information after the controlled buy implied that Glenn’s house no longer contained cocaine. Alblinger told the federal court that the delay was designed to prevent Glenn from inferring the informant’s identity. That’s a good reason to wait, and Glenn was not injured by the delay. AFFIRMED

Primary Holding

Despite omissions of information concerning an informant, a warrant to search a drug dealer's house was supported by probable cause.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.