United States v. Symonevich, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 15804

Symonevich indicted for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine and heroin.
DEA wiretapped TT-2, a customer line used by Symonevich; he arranged multiple heroin/cocaine purchases.
Massachusetts State Police stopped the Subaru; Sweeney observed suspicious behavior and odor of marijuana.
Police searched the car; under the passenger seat they found heroin in a tire-sealant can.
Symonevich challenged suppression; district court denied; trial convicted him after four days.
On appeal, Symonevich argues standing, evidentiary errors, insufficient conspiracy evidence, and flawed jury instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to suppress evidence	Symonevich had no standing as passenger	He had a privacy interest under Rakas and Rawlings	Standing not satisfied; denial affirmed
Admission of Archambault distributor testimony	Distributor label should have been excluded	Even if error, harmless given evidence	Harmless error; admission not reversible
Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence	Evidence shows knowledge and participation	Buyer-seller alone not enough for conspiracy	Sufficient evidence to prove conspiracy
Jury instruction on intent to resell	Instruction misstates law	Instruction substantially correct	No reversible error; instruction adequate

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978) (standing requires personal privacy interest)
Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249 (2007) (passenger seizure affects Fourth Amendment rights)
Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323 (2009) (passenger rights during traffic stop not extended to suppression standing)
Lochan, United States v., 674 F.2d 960 (1st Cir. 1982) (long trip privacy expectations in vehicle are limited)
United States v. Boidi, 568 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009) (redistribution knowledge can imply conspiracy)
United States v. Pardue, 385 F.3d 101 (1st Cir. 2004) (inevitable discovery doctrine)