United States v. Maximo Gondres-Medrano
3f4th708
4th Cir.2021Background
- A longtime, previously reliable confidential informant told law enforcement that Maximo Humberto Gondres‑Medrano was trafficking heroin and cocaine between Maryland and New York.
- Officers surveilled Gondres‑Medrano after corroborating parts of the tip (recorded call, cell‑tower tracking, identity/residence, prior conviction); the informant entered Gondres‑Medrano’s house, returned with him, and Gondres‑Medrano put a shoebox in the informant’s car.
- Police stopped the car, opened the shoebox, and recovered a white powder later tested as heroin and fentanyl. Gondres‑Medrano waived Miranda and consented to searches of his phone and apartment.
- Gondres‑Medrano’s phone contained a video showing him at home opening an envelope, removing a concealed pouch with a white substance, giving a thumbs‑up, and displaying a digital scale; he had circulated the video and later showed it to police.
- At trial Gondres‑Medrano testified he acted under duress, disputed some facts in the video, and claimed he intended to show police the video as evidence; jury convicted him of possession with intent to distribute, and the district court applied a two‑level obstruction enhancement for perjury, sentencing him to 121 months.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Probable cause to search shoebox/automobile exception | Informant was known and reliable; officers corroborated predictive and identifying details making it probable the shoebox contained drugs | No probable cause; search lacked a warrant and independent corroboration was insufficient | Probable cause existed based on informant’s track record plus corroboration; automobile exception justified search; suppression denied |
| Admissibility of phone video (Fed. R. Evid. 403) | Video was highly probative of possession, knowledge, and intent and undermined duress defense; any limiting instruction was optional | Video was unfairly prejudicial and might confuse jury because drugs in video differed from shoebox drugs | District court did not abuse discretion admitting the video; probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; no plain‑error in not giving a limiting instruction |
| Sentencing enhancement for obstruction (perjury, U.S.S.G. §3C1.1) | Gondres‑Medrano gave perjured testimony about the package and video; enhancement appropriate | Testimony was not material falsehood or not proven false; enhancement improper | Even if enhancement were erroneous, any error was harmless: court would have imposed same 121‑month sentence and statutory minimum constrained sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565 (automobile/container search rule)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (totality‑of‑the‑circumstances test for informant tips and probable cause)
- Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U.S. 108 (two‑pronged informant test discussed historically)
- Spinelli v. United States, 393 U.S. 410 (two‑pronged informant test discussed historically)
- Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 (reliability of informant corroborated by predictive detail)
- Husty v. United States, 282 U.S. 694 (reliance on a previously reliable informant to justify search)
- Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325 (corroboration of anonymous tip establishes reliability)
- Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (practical, nontechnical conception of probable cause)
- McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (weight of informant’s track record in assessing reliability)
- United States v. Miller, 925 F.2d 695 (4th Cir.) (probable cause based on corroborated tip from recent source)
- United States v. Wilhelm, 80 F.3d 116 (4th Cir.) (insufficient corroboration defeats probable cause)
- Maryland v. Dyson, 527 U.S. 465 (automobile exception principles)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir.) (deferential review of Rule 403 rulings)
- United States v. Hill, 322 F.3d 301 (4th Cir.) (Rule 403 exclusion where evidence would cause confusing "case within a case")
- United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 258 (standard for plain‑error review)
- United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640 (4th Cir.) (harmless‑error standards for sentencing guideline issues)