United States v. Batista, 31 F.4th 820

DEA agents recruited a cooperating witness (CW) who had sold >150g fentanyl and recorded calls with his supplier, known to the CW as "Jonathan."
On the evening of the planned sale the CW made recorded calls arranging delivery at a low-traffic residential meeting point; the CW said the supplier would expect to see a white van belonging to the CW's partner.
Officers placed the white van in position and surveilled the meeting place; a black Jeep Cherokee passed the van, the supplier called the CW and then abruptly said the van was being followed; the Jeep made a U-turn and sped away.
Officers stopped the Jeep, ordered the driver (Batista) out at gunpoint, searched the vehicle, and found ~200 grams of fentanyl under the driver’s seat.
Batista moved to suppress, arguing (1) the district court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing and (2) the stop was a de facto arrest without probable cause; the district court denied suppression and Batista was convicted; on appeal the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying an evidentiary hearing on the suppression motion	Batista: he lacked personal knowledge of material facts (e.g., timing of CW ID vs. search) and therefore was entitled to a hearing to resolve disputed facts	Government: the record supplied sufficient facts to show probable cause; no material dispute required an evidentiary hearing	No abuse of discretion; hearing not required because the record established probable cause
Whether the stop/search were an unlawful de facto arrest lacking probable cause	Batista: being ordered out at gunpoint was a de facto arrest and needed probable cause, which he says was lacking	Government: totality of circumstances (CW’s recorded calls, history of dealings, presence at meeting place, Jeep’s movements) provided probable cause for the stop and search	Court held officers had probable cause; even if de facto arrest, it was lawful; suppression properly denied

United States v. Brown, 621 F.3d 48 (1st Cir. 2010) (standard of review for suppression denials)
United States v. Cintron, 724 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2013) (threshold for evidentiary hearing on suppression motion)
United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719 (1st Cir. 1995) (probable cause as a totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (framework for assessing probable cause)
United States v. Vongkaysone, 434 F.3d 68 (1st Cir. 2006) (credibility of arrested informant who incriminates himself)
United States v. Garcia, 982 F.3d 844 (1st Cir. 2020) (probable cause supported by informant saying suspect was minutes away and suspect appearing on time)
United States v. Raspberry, 882 F.3d 241 (1st Cir. 2018) (probable cause required for de facto arrests)