Good Faith Saves the Search: When a Close Probable Cause Call Isn't Enough to Suppress the Evidence

United States v. Bolden, No. 25-1734 (7th Cir. June 12, 2026)

TL;DR

The Seventh Circuit upheld a search warrant even though the court acknowledged probable cause was a "close" question. Officers saw a convicted felon carrying a handgun into a residence, obtained a warrant, and recovered guns, drugs, ammunition, and over $50,000 in cash. The defendant argued the warrant lacked probable cause and contained misleading statements. The court sidestepped the probable cause issue and held that the officers reasonably relied on the warrant under the Leon good-faith exception, making suppression inappropriate.

Why it matters: Even when a warrant affidavit is imperfect and probable cause is debatable, suppression remains unlikely if officers obtained judicial approval and acted in objective good faith.

Limits of the ruling: The decision does not lower the probable cause standard. Instead, it reinforces that suppression is reserved for situations involving intentional or reckless misconduct, not close judgment calls or minor inaccuracies.

Facts

The investigation began in late 2022 when a confidential informant told Milwaukee police about a drug dealer known as "Blessed." The informant described the suspect, identified the vehicle he drove, and later advised officers that the suspect was armed and lived near a specific Milwaukee intersection.

Police investigated further. A registration check connected the red BMW described by the informant to Latia Johnson. Utility records showed Johnson living at 7169 North 42nd Street, and police records indicated she was Bolden's girlfriend. After reviewing a booking photo, the informant identified Fernando Bolden as "Blessed." Officers also confirmed that Bolden was a convicted felon.

On March 21, 2023, Detective Richard Ticcioni was conducting unrelated surveillance near the residence when he observed Bolden arrive in a silver sedan. The detective watched Bolden exit the vehicle carrying a handgun, place the firearm in his pants, walk toward the residence with keys in hand, and enter the home. The encounter was captured on video.

Three days later, Officer Matthew Brooks used those observations to obtain a warrant to search the residence for firearms and related evidence. A Wisconsin court commissioner found probable cause and issued the warrant.

When officers executed the warrant on March 27, they observed Bolden leave the residence with a gun. He was arrested shortly afterward and found carrying a loaded firearm. The search of the residence uncovered:

• Another firearm

• Three loaded magazines

• Ammunition

• $50,259 in cash

• A money-counting machine

• Fentanyl

• Crack cocaine

• Powder cocaine

Federal prosecutors eventually charged Bolden with multiple drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the warrant lacked probable cause and that the affidavit contained false statements and omissions requiring a hearing under Franks v. Delaware.

Issues

1. Did the search warrant affidavit establish probable cause to search the residence?

2. Did alleged inaccuracies or omissions in the affidavit defeat the officers' good-faith reliance on the warrant?

3. Was Bolden entitled to a Franks hearing based on alleged misrepresentations or omissions?

Court's Decision (Holding)

Yes, the search was valid.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the suppression motion. Even assuming probable cause was lacking, the officers acted in objective good-faith reliance on the warrant, bringing the search within the protection of the Leon good-faith exception. The court also found no basis for a Franks hearing.

Reasoning

1. Probable Cause Was a Close Question

The court openly acknowledged that the probable cause issue was not easy. Officers had evidence suggesting Bolden had significant access to the residence:

• He entered the home unassisted.

• He possessed keys.

• His girlfriend paid utilities there.

• An informant connected him to the nearby area.

Those facts supported an inference that Bolden could store firearms or related evidence inside the residence.

But the court also recognized weaknesses in the affidavit. The police had not clearly established that Bolden actually lived there, and additional investigation could have strengthened the connection between him and the residence.

Rather than deciding whether probable cause truly existed, the court moved directly to the good-faith analysis.

2. Leon Creates a Strong Presumption of Good Faith

The court emphasized a foundational principle of Fourth Amendment law: when officers obtain a warrant from a neutral judicial officer and execute it within its scope, suppression is generally inappropriate unless one of the recognized exceptions applies.

Because Officer Brooks sought and obtained a warrant, the law presumed he acted in good faith. To overcome that presumption, Bolden had to show deliberate or reckless misconduct.

3. The Alleged Misrepresentation Was Not Reckless

Bolden argued that the affidavit falsely suggested officers saw him use keys to unlock and enter the residence.

The video did not actually show a key entering a lock because a parked vehicle blocked part of the view. However, the video did show:

• Bolden holding keys.

• Walking toward the residence.

• Entering the residence without assistance.

Given those facts, the court concluded the affidavit was not materially false. At worst, it was somewhat imprecise. The discrepancy was insufficient to demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth.

The court stressed that negligence is not enough to defeat good-faith reliance. There must be evidence that the officer seriously doubted the truth of the information presented.

4. The Alleged Omission Did Not Matter

Bolden also argued that Officer Brooks omitted information from a paternity case showing that Bolden had listed a different Milwaukee address a few months earlier. According to Bolden, this omission improperly strengthened the affidavit's connection between him and the searched residence.

The Seventh Circuit rejected the argument for two reasons.

First, there was no indication that Officer Brooks had ever reviewed the paternity case docket. Second, even if he had, the information would not have contradicted the affidavit because the affidavit never claimed Bolden actually lived at the residence. Instead, it focused on his access to the property. A prior address from several months earlier did little to undermine that theory.

Accordingly, the omission did not show deliberate or reckless misconduct.

5. No Franks Hearing Was Required

The court also concluded that Bolden failed to make the substantial preliminary showing necessary for a Franks hearing.

Because he could not demonstrate that any misstatement or omission was intentional or reckless, he failed to satisfy the threshold required to challenge the affidavit through a Franks proceeding.

Street Takeaways

• Seeing a suspect enter a residence with a firearm can be powerful evidence supporting a warrant application.

• Document observations thoroughly, especially when they connect a suspect to a location.

• Video evidence can help defend warrant affidavits when later challenged in court.

• Build as many independent connections to the target location as possible before seeking a warrant.

• Even when probable cause appears strong, expect courts to scrutinize the nexus between the suspect and the place to be searched.

• Minor inaccuracies are not automatically fatal, but precise drafting reduces litigation risk.

Disclaimer

This case brief is provided for law-enforcement training and informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Officers should consult agency policy, legal advisors, prosecutors, and current controlling case law in their jurisdiction before relying on any legal principle discussed herein.