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.