United States v. Rivera, 23 Cr. 236

Oct. 10–11, 2022: undercover arranged a kilogram-level fentanyl sale with a Target Cellphone; magistrate authorized pen-and-ping and, later, a cell-site simulator warrant.
Strike Force tracked the Target Cellphone to the Bronx; officers located a white Ford van with an Illinois plate whose driver resembled the subscriber photo.
Officers stopped the van for a broken taillight, observed a cracked windshield, handcuffed Rivera, and learned he could not produce a valid driver’s license.
A cellphone on the driver’s seat visibly “activated” when an agent called the Target number; the agent then picked up the phone.
Officers impounded the van as a community-caretaking measure and, pursuant to NYPD inventory procedure, searched it at the precinct, uncovering a black bag containing 10 bricks later confirmed as ~10 kg fentanyl.
Rivera moved to suppress, arguing the impoundment and inventory search violated the Fourth Amendment; the Government defended impoundment, the inventory exception, and alternatively the automobile exception.

Issue	Rivera's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Lawfulness of traffic stop	(conceded) stop was justified but argued later actions unlawful	Stop was lawful; observed traffic violation (broken taillight)	Stop lawful (probable cause for traffic violation)
Decision to impound the van	Impoundment was pretextual and unnecessary; alternatives existed	Impoundment objectively required (no third party, illegal/no parking, theft/vandalism risk, playoff traffic)	Impoundment reasonable and not solely investigatory; lawful
Inventory search compliance	Inventory was not shown to follow standardized procedure	Officers followed NYPD Patrol Guide Procedure No. 218-13 and invoiced property	Inventory search lawful (performed in good faith under standardized criteria)
Cellphone seizure & automobile-exception probable cause	Agent’s seizure of the phone was unlawful and its fruits should be excluded; remaining facts insufficient for probable cause	Even without the phone seizure, objective facts (pen-and-ping, subscriber info, photo match, phone activation, travel to arranged deal, van capacity) gave probable cause to search	Agent’s physical seizure of the phone could not be relied on, but probable cause nonetheless existed; automobile exception independently justified the search

Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (traffic-stop objective-reasonableness rule)
South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364 (inventory-search community-caretaking rationale)
Illinois v. Lafayette, 462 U.S. 640 (inventory searches permissible without warrant)
Colorado v. Bertine, 479 U.S. 367 (inventory searches must not be a subterfuge)
Florida v. Wells, 495 U.S. 1 (inventory searches require standardized criteria/routine)
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (limits on vehicle searches incident to arrest)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (plain-view observation not a search)
United States v. Johns, 469 U.S. 478 (automobile exception and timing of vehicle searches)
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (inevitable-discovery doctrine)
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (probable cause is a practical, common-sense test)
United States v. Lopez, 547 F.3d 364 (2d Cir.: inventory searches valid even with investigative expectation when standardized)
United States v. Lyle, 919 F.3d 716 (2d Cir.: factors for impoundment reasonableness)
United States v. Williams, 930 F.3d 44 (2d Cir.: officer motive generally does not invalidate an otherwise-reasonable inventory search)
United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438 (2d Cir.: automobile-exception probable-cause standard)
United States v. Eng, 997 F.2d 987 (2d Cir.: inevitable-discovery application)