# United States v. Otero

> Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · July 19, 2007 · 495 F.3d 393

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618865

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William OTERO and James Woods, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- **Decided:** July 19, 2007
- **Citations:** 495 F.3d 393; 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17139; 2007 WL 2050403
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rovner
- **Judges:** Bauer, Flaum, Rovner
- **Cited by:** 46 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618865

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a sentence within a properly calculated guidelines range is presumptively reasonable

## Opinion text

ROVNER, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
After receiving information about Otero from the recently arrested Woods and Cabrera, the officers did literally nothing to corroborate any of that information. They did not check into Otero’s criminal record. They did not check to see whether someone naméd Otero lived at the address given by Woods. Woods told the officers that Otero hid the drugs in his bedroom or in the detached garage. The garage was not detached, but the officers failed to verify even this detail, which would have been readily discernable. There were obvious credibility problems with Woods, an unproven informant who had just been arrested and had previously told the officers he refused to travel to Wisconsin, now claiming that he procured the drugs from Otero in Wisconsin that same day. There is nothing in the affidavit that compensates for the lack of independent police corroboration. The level of detail Woods provided is irrelevant if the officers did nothing to verify the accuracy of any of those details. I would find that there was insüfficient evidence to support a finding of probable cause. See United States v. Peck, 317 F.3d 754, 756-57 (7th Cir.2003). However, because I agree with my colleagues that the Lem good faith exception applies, I concur in the majority’s judgment affirming the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress. Excepting the discussion of *403 probable cause, I concur in the majority’s opinion in every other respect.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9618865. Public record. Not legal advice.