3 F.4th 32
1st Cir.2021Background
- Probation officers performed an unannounced compliance visit to Bernard Lindsey’s apartment and discovered a black case containing packaged cocaine, fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, scales, and drug‑packaging materials. Officers arrested Lindsey and another man, Bryson London.
- Officers seized approximately $3,643 from Lindsey and two LG cellphones (one on Lindsey, one on a nearby table). Law enforcement later obtained and executed a search warrant for the apartment and "any and all electronic devices."
- Attachment A to the warrant referenced an addendum to govern cellphone searches, but the mistakenly attached addendum described procedures for child‑pornography investigations rather than drug investigations.
- The government searched the phones and introduced text messages and selfies that linked Lindsey to ongoing drug sales (including messages arranging prices and asking Lindsey to bring “the whites”).
- Lindsey was indicted for possession with intent to distribute cocaine/fentanyl and methamphetamine, moved to suppress cellphone evidence (arguing lack of nexus and particularity), was convicted after a jury trial, and appealed raising suppression, sufficiency, and evidentiary objections.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Lindsey's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause / nexus to search cellphones | Warrant showed Lindsey engaged in drug trafficking, multiple phones were present, and drug dealers commonly use multiple phones, creating a fair probability that the phones contained evidence | Affidavit had no direct evidence linking these phones to drug transactions; generalized statements about dealers insufficient | Affirmed: totality (multiple phones + other evidence) supported a fair‑probability nexus to search phones |
| Particularity / overbroad cellphone search | Warrant described items to seize and referenced an addendum; no timely particularity objection preserved | Warrant failed to specify what files on phones could be searched; addendum was wrong, so any phone evidence should be suppressed | Not reviewed on appeal (waived). Lindsey failed to preserve the particularity challenge and showed no good cause for plain‑error review |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession with intent to distribute | Texts, cash, matching packaging materials, masks/gloves/inositol, and messages arranging sales supported constructive possession and intent | The black case could have belonged to London; evidence did not prove Lindsey knowingly possessed all drugs in the case | Affirmed: viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the jury could conclude Lindsey possessed and intended to distribute the seized drugs |
| Admission of prior text messages and other evidence (404(b), 403) | Texts showed ongoing drug trafficking and were admissible to prove intent/knowledge; other evidence was probative and limiting instructions were given | Prior texts were impermissible propensity evidence; testimony about probation visit and girlfriend’s text were unduly prejudicial | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion—texts had non‑propensity relevance to intent, limiting instructions minimized prejudice; other items admissible and any error harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dixon, 787 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2015) (nexus requires a fair‑probability showing that evidence will be found at the place searched)
- United States v. Rodrigue, 560 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (nexus may be inferred from crime type and where criminals hide evidence)
- United States v. Adams, 971 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2020) (multiple phones + other trafficking evidence can support probable cause to search phones)
- United States v. Roman, 942 F.3d 43 (1st Cir. 2019) (generalized statement that dealers store evidence at home insufficient without additional indicia)
- United States v. Kuc, 737 F.3d 129 (1st Cir. 2013) (particularity requires guidance to executing agents and limits on what may be seized)
- United States v. Centeno‑González, 989 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2021) (preservation/waiver rules for suppression arguments)
- United States v. Henry, 848 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (Rule 404(b) framework: non‑propensity relevance and 403 balancing)
- United States v. Manning, 79 F.3d 212 (1st Cir. 1996) (prior narcotics involvement often admissible to prove knowledge/intent)