United States v. Polanco
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2411
| 1st Cir. | 2011Background
- Fall 2008: task force tailed Contreras; Godek bought heroin in four transactions from him; December 3 deal at Providence Place Mall involved Polanco’s Camry; surveillance captured the scene and phone records show multiple calls among participants.
- December 10 deal was moved to a Warwick parking lot for safety; Contreras and Polanco were arrested, heroin and a gun were later found in a hidden car compartment during a warrantless search at a DEA office.
- Polanco provided address 422 Plainfield Street; officers obtained a warrant and found heroin, packaging gear, scales, ammunition, and marked money.
- Grand jury returned a four-count indictment: conspiracy to distribute 100+ grams, aiding and abetting the December 3 distribution, possession with intent to distribute 100+ grams, and possessing a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking.
- Polanco moved to suppress the car search as unconstitutional; court denied suppression of the car search under the auto exception; apartment search followed and yielded more evidence; Polanco was convicted on all counts and sentenced to 120 months.
- On appeal, issues include legality of searches, admissibility of a DEA agent’s dosing testimony, and sufficiency of evidence for aiding and abetting.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the car search violated the Fourth Amendment | Polanco argues auto-exception failed post-Gant | Polanco contends Gant curtailed auto searches | Auto exception valid; probable cause supported search of the car |
| Whether the DEA testimony on heroin doses was admissible | Naylor’s dosing testimony was unduly prejudicial | Testimony was probative on distribution intent | Testimony admissible; probative and not unfairly prejudicial |
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict on aiding and abetting | Presence at deal not enough for conviction | Evidence showed intentional participation and coordination | Sufficient evidence; reasonable jury could find aiding and abetting |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Dickerson, 514 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2008) (auto exception framework guiding warrantless car searches)
- United States v. Ross, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (scope of warrantless vehicle searches under auto exception)
- New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) (automobile passenger-compartment search rule prior to Gant)
- United States v. McCoy, 977 F.2d 706 (1st Cir. 1992) (probable cause suffices for auto searches regardless of stop location)
- United States v. Panitz, 907 F.2d 1267 (1st Cir. 1990) (auto-search reasonableness; location and timing considerations)
- Ross v. United States, 456 U.S. 798 (1982) (foundational auto-exception case on search of vehicle)
- Gant v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1710 (Supreme Court 2009) (limits on search-incident-to-arrest; retention of auto exception)
- United States v. Woodbury, 511 F.3d 93 (1st Cir. 2007) (probable cause standard for evidence location in searches)