United States v. Bregu, 948 F.3d 408

From July 2012–July 2015 FBI investigated an oxycodone-distribution conspiracy centered on New York-based supplier Ilir Bregu and Massachusetts distributors Mario and Manuele Scata.
Investigative tools included confidential informants (three CIs), controlled buys from Mario’s apartment, a pen register on Mario’s phone, and pole-camera surveillance of the Scata residence; these showed repeated short visits by Bregu’s Lincoln Town Car to the Scatas preceded by calls from Bregu’s number.
On March 20, 2015 a magistrate issued a warrant under the Stored Communications Act for precise location data (including E-911/CSLI) for Bregu’s phone (ending 5912); the affidavit combined CI tips with corroborating surveillance and phone records.
Three additional cell-location warrants followed (different numbers) relying on the same investigative narrative; those data showed continued suspicious travel patterns and meetings.
On July 14, 2015 the FBI obtained a warrant to search Bregu’s Lincoln Town Car (affidavit incorporated the cell-location facts and added video of a plastic-bag handoff and recent contacts), executed July 16, and recovered $37,800 from a hidden compartment.
Bregu moved to suppress the evidence; the district court denied suppression, a jury convicted him of conspiracy to distribute oxycodone (21 U.S.C. § 846), and the First Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause for first warrant for precise cell-location data	Warrant relied mainly on stale/unreliable CI-1 and focused on the Scatas, not Bregu; Tiem Trinh informant-factors were not properly applied	Affidavit contained corroborating pen-register, pole-camera surveillance, controlled buys, and known informants, creating a totality-of-the-circumstances showing of probable cause	Probable cause existed: surveillance and phone records corroborated CI information; Tiem Trinh factors were effectively addressed and not dispositive when affidavit contained independent corroboration
Probable cause / nexus for vehicle warrant (and anticipatory-warrant contention)	Warrant should be limited/anticipatory (execution conditioned on a meeting) and lacked a fair probability that evidence would be in the car at the time of execution	Affidavit established ongoing pattern of deliveries in Bregu’s Town Car, recent handoffs, video of an item removed from the car, and imminent contacts—supporting nexus to the vehicle	Warrant valid: Grubbs permits anticipatory warrants without facially stating triggering conditions; common-sense nexus existed that contraband/evidence would be in the Town Car, so search and seizure were proper

Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (established the totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
United States v. Grubbs, 547 U.S. 90 (held anticipatory warrants need not spell out triggering conditions on their face)
United States v. Tiem Trinh, 665 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (articulated four-factor test for affidavits relying mainly on confidential informants)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (Sup. Ct. 2018) (addressed probable-cause requirement for acquisition of historical CSLI)
United States v. Ribeiro, 397 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2005) (standard of review and two-pronged probable cause requirement: commission and nexus)
United States v. Monell, 801 F.3d 34 (1st Cir. 2015) (confidential informants can corroborate one another)
United States v. Zayas-Diaz, 95 F.3d 105 (1st Cir. 1996) (stronger evidence on some informant-factors can compensate for weaker showings on others)
United States v. Ricciardelli, 998 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1993) (pre-Grubbs antecedent on anticipatory-warrant conditioning)