UNITED STATES v. MEJIA ZAYAS (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-06-17No. No. 19-30265

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that law enforcement agents possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant based on the cooperating informant's detailed account of the drug trafficking operation, real-time monitoring of text messages between the informant and trafficker, and the defendant's conduct matching the predicted pattern of a female drug courier.

Cristabel Lee Mejia-Zayas appealed her conviction for drug possession with intent to distribute, challenging the district court's denial of her motion to suppress statements and physical evidence. She argued that law enforcement lacked probable cause to arrest her. The appellate court reviewed the suppression denial without deference to the lower court and concluded that the agents did have sufficient probable cause, based on information from a cooperating informant who described the drug trafficker's operations, coordinated a heroin purchase while agents monitored text communications, and identified that a female associate would handle the delivery. When a woman called the informant using a phone number registered to Mejia-Zayas and arranged to meet at a parking lot, agents identified her and made the arrest, subsequently finding heroin in her fanny pack.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether law enforcement had probable cause to arrest defendant for drug trafficking
Whether statements and physical evidence should be suppressed as fruit of an unlawful arrest
Role of confidential informants and monitored communications in establishing probable cause

Procedural posture

The defendant appealed her conviction from the district court, which had denied her motion to suppress evidence based on an alleged lack of probable cause for arrest.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant-Appellant Cristabel Lee Mejia-Zayas appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Defendant contends that the district court wrongly denied her motion to suppress all statements made by Defendant and all physical evidence seized by law enforcement agents subsequent to her arrest because the agents lacked probable cause to arrest her. “Reviewing de novo the denial of the motion to suppress,” we affirm the conviction. United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d 1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).

The district court did not err when denying the motion to suppress because law enforcement agents had probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. A cooperating informant admitted to past dealings with a drug trafficker and described in detail how the drug trafficker operated. The agents confirmed the informants statements by having the informant arrange a meeting place to purchase a large quantity of heroin, while viewing the text messages between the informant and the drug trafficker in real time. The text messages indicated that the drug traffickers “lil sis” would meet the informant at a store, which corroborated the informants statement that the drug trafficker used women to deliver the drugs to store parking lots. Shortly thereafter, a female called the informant using a phone number registered to Defendant, and arranged a meeting with the informant in the store parking lot. The agents identified Defendant as the sister of the drug trafficker.

Using a photograph of Defendant and the vehicle description provided by Defendant to the informant, the agents identified Defendant as she pulled into the parking lot. As instructed in the text message, Defendant parked near a blue Jeep Liberty vehicle. After her arrest, Defendants fanny pack was searched with her consent, and agents discovered approximately 510 grams of heroin.

Our precedent supports the district courts determination that the agents had probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. See, e.g., United States v. Tarazon, 989 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that probable cause to arrest existed when an informant described prior drug dealings with a defendant, arranged a drug deal while permitting law enforcement to monitor communications between the informant and the defendant, and those communications and other actions by the defendant confirmed the informants statements).

AFFIRMED.