Background
In December 2022, Milwaukee police received information from a confidential informant about a drug dealer known as “Blessed” who was armed and operating near North 43rd Street and West Good Hope Road. Through license plate records and utility documentation, police connected the informant’s description to Fernando Bolden and identified his girlfriend’s residence at 7169 North 42nd Street as a location he frequented.
On March 21, 2023, Detective Ticcioni conducted surveillance at that address and observed Bolden enter the residence in broad daylight while carrying a loaded gun. Three days later, Officer Brooks prepared an affidavit for a search warrant based primarily on this observation and the circumstantial evidence of Bolden’s connection to the residence. A state circuit court commissioner authorized the search for firearms and related items. The March 27 search recovered a gun found on Bolden’s person, a second gun inside the residence, ammunition, loaded magazines, $50,259 in cash, a money-counting machine, and multiple controlled substances.
Bolden pleaded guilty to two firearms offenses—possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and in furtherance of drug trafficking—while reserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress the search evidence.
The Court’s Holding
The Seventh Circuit affirmed Bolden’s convictions, explicitly declining to decide whether Officer Brooks’ affidavit actually established probable cause. The court acknowledged the “close call” on this point, noting that while the affidavit showed Bolden had substantial and regular access to the residence, it lacked precise details about how police connected him to the girlfriend’s address and provided little explanation for the basis of the informant’s initial tip.
However, the court held that the search was valid under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule established in United States v. Leon. When an officer obtains a warrant from a judge or magistrate, a presumption of good faith attaches. To overcome this presumption, a defendant must show the officer acted with deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth. Bolden failed to satisfy this burden. The court found that the affidavit’s description of Bolden walking toward the rear door with keys in his hand and entering unassisted was corroborated by Detective Ticcioni’s video recording, even though the video did not show him inserting the key into the lock. The court rejected Bolden’s claim that Officer Brooks omitted a reference to an old paternity case address, finding no indication the officer had reviewed that docket and noting that an address used three months earlier would not contradict the affidavit’s allegations about Bolden’s March 2023 access to the residence.
The court also affirmed the denial of Bolden’s Franks motion for a hearing on alleged misrepresentations or omissions, finding he had not made the requisite substantial preliminary showing of reckless or deliberate falsehood.
Key Takeaways
- Officers who obtain a search warrant receive a strong presumption of good faith, even if the underlying probable cause is questionable.
- Defendants must show deliberate or reckless disregard for the truth to rebut the good-faith presumption—negligence or imprecision in the affidavit is insufficient.
- Minor discrepancies between what an affidavit describes and what video evidence actually shows do not defeat good faith if the general facts are corroborated.
- Omitted information does not undermine good faith unless the officer knew about it and had obvious reasons to doubt the affidavit’s accuracy based on that information.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the strength of the good-faith exception in Fourth Amendment litigation. It significantly raises the bar for suppressing evidence based on inadequate probable cause when a warrant has been obtained—defendants must affirmatively prove the officer acted with reckless or deliberate dishonesty, not merely that the probable cause showing was weak. The court’s finding that an old address from a paternity case would not have undermined good faith even if known is particularly significant, as it suggests omitted information must directly contradict the affidavit’s claims to matter.
For defense practitioners, the opinion underscores the difficulty of challenging searches conducted pursuant to judicial warrants. The Seventh Circuit’s endorsement of a robust good-faith presumption means that even when probable cause arguments are colorable, the evidence will likely be admissible if any warrant issued. This places a premium on identifying egregious misstatements or showing the officer’s recklessness at the affidavit stage itself.