USA v. Mendez-Rodriguez

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
JEREMY ARIS MÉNDEZ-RODRÍGUEZ (1),
Defendant.
Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court are Defendant Jeremy Aris Méndez-
Rodríguez’s (“Méndez” or “Defendant”) Motion to Suppress and
Magistrate Judge Héctor L. Ramos-Vega’s Report and Recommendation.
(Docket Nos. 50, 75). Having conducted the appropriate review and
with the benefit of a complete evidentiary record, the Court ADOPTS
the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN
PART Méndez’s Motion to Suppress.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 16, 2024, a grand jury returned an Indictment
against Méndez, charging him with possession of a machinegun, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (Count One); possession of a
firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Count Two); possession of a machinegun
in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii) (Count Three); and possession with
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 7

2 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
intent to distribute cocaine, cocaine base, and marijuana, in
violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii), and (b)(1)(D)
(Counts Four, Five, and Six). (Docket No. 11).
The charges arise from Méndez’s arrest on October 8, 2024,
during a police intervention at La Perla in San Juan. (Docket No.
1-1). According to the Affidavit in Support of Criminal Complaint,
Puerto Rico Police Bureau agents (“PRPB agents”) initiated a work
plan targeting a known high-crime area and drug point. Upon
entering the area, agents observed Méndez, who began running. One
agent testified that Méndez was holding a clear plastic bag
containing smaller baggies with a white substance.
Méndez fled through several alleys before being detained. A
search of his person yielded suspected controlled substances,
money, and an Apple iPhone. Approximately five minutes later, a
different PRPB agent, while inspecting the surrounding area,
discovered a black and red backpack inside what was described as
a dilapidated and abandoned structure located along one of the
alleys through which Méndez had fled. Inside the backpack, the
agent found a loaded Glock pistol equipped with a machinegun
conversion device, three cellular phones, identification documents
bearing Méndez’s name, $650 in cash, ammunition, a digital scale,
and controlled substances.
On June 25, 2025, Méndez filed a Motion to Suppress arguing
that all evidence should be suppressed due to lack of probable
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 7

3 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
cause. (Docket No. 50). Therein, Méndez argued that he “left his
backpack on top of his motorcycle in an alley of La Perla.” (Id.
at 2). To support this version of facts, Méndez submitted an Unsworn
Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury. (Docket No. 50-1).
After an evidentiary hearing on August 15, 2025, Magistrate
Judge Ramos-Vega issued a Report and Recommendation recommending
suppression of the evidence seized from Méndez’s person but denying
suppression of the contents of the backpack. (Docket No. 75).
Méndez objects only to the finding that the backpack was
abandoned. (Docket No. 76). The Government responds that
abandonment was established by a preponderance of the evidence.
(Docket No. 83).
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 59(b), the Court conducts de novo review of those
portions of a report and recommendation to which specific objection
is made.
Portions not objected to may be adopted so long as there is
no clear error on the face of the record. López-Mulero v. Vélez-
Colón, 490 F. Supp. 2d 214, 218 (D.P.R. 2007).
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 7

4 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
III. APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
A. Unlawful Arrest and Suppression of Evidence Seized from
Méndez’s Person
Neither party objects to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that
the arrest was unlawful and that the evidence seized from Méndez’s
person must be suppressed.
Having independently reviewed the record, the Court finds no
clear error in that determination. The Court adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s credibility findings. See United States v. Hernández-
Rodríguez, 443 F.3d 138, 147–48 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v.
Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 680–81 (1980).
B. The Backpack and the Doctrine of Abandonment
The sole remaining issue is whether Méndez retained a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack.
1. Independence from the Unlawful Arrest
As a threshold matter, abandonment must be voluntary and not
the product of unlawful police conduct. If property is discarded
prior to a Fourth Amendment “seizure,” it is not the fruit of
unlawful police action. California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621, 629
(1991).
The record reflects that the backpack was not in Méndez’s
possession at the time of arrest. It was located by a different
officer in a separate area minutes later. There is no evidence
that the backpack was seized incident to arrest or as a direct
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 7

5 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
product of the unlawful detention. The abandonment analysis
therefore proceeds independently.
Méndez’s objection on this ground is OVERRULED.
2. Credibility of Testimony Regarding Location
The Magistrate Judge credited Agent Cardé-Rosado’s testimony
that he located the backpack inside a dilapidated structure
surrounded by trash and debris.
After reviewing the transcript and exhibits, this Court finds
no basis to disturb that credibility determination. The testimony
was internally consistent and corroborated by photographic
evidence admitted at the hearing. Alleged inconsistencies with
another officer’s testimony do not render Agent Cardé-Rosado’s
account implausible; the Magistrate Judge reasonably concluded
that both accounts could be true.
Because no serious credibility concerns arise, the Court
declines to conduct a new evidentiary hearing. See Raddatz, 447
U.S. at 681 n.7.
This objection is OVERRULED.
3. Abandonment
The Fourth Amendment protects only those privacy expectations
that society recognizes as reasonable. A person who voluntarily
abandons property forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy
in it. When abandonment occurs prior to seizure, the Fourth
Amendment is not implicated. Hodari D., 499 U.S. at 629.
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 7

6 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
The Government bears the burden of establishing abandonment
by a preponderance of the evidence. Courts examine the totality of
the circumstances, focusing on objective manifestations of intent,
including physical relinquishment and disclaimers of ownership.
Here, no witness observed Méndez physically discard the
backpack. However, the undisputed evidence shows that: (a) the
backpack was found in a dilapidated, open structure accessible to
the public; (b) it was surrounded by garbage and debris; (c) no
motorcycle was present nearby; (d) Méndez was not in possession of
the backpack at the time of arrest; and (e) he took no steps to
safeguard the bag or assert control over it. See California v.
Greenwood, 486 U.S. 35, 39-42 (1988).
Although identification documents were inside the backpack,
ownership alone does not establish a continuing reasonable
expectation of privacy. Also, whether the defendant harbored a
desire to reclaim the property later, but was unable to, is
irrelevant. The finding of abandonment is about the objective
relinquishment of privacy interests, not formal property rights.
“The test for determining legitimacy of an expectation of privacy
‘is not whether the individual chooses to conceal assertedly
private activity, but instead whether the government’s intrusion
infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the
Fourth Amendment.’” United States v. Scott, 975 F.2d 927, 930 (1st
Cir. 1992) (quoting California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S. 207, 212
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 7

7 | Crim. No. 24-00402 (GMM)
(1986)). Thus, the relevant inquiry is an objective one: if Méndez
retained a reasonable expectation of privacy of the items alleged
to be abandoned.
By leaving the backpack unattended in an exposed and publicly
accessible location that was surrounded by debris and garbage,
Méndez ran the risk that strangers would discover it. Under the
totality of the circumstances, the Government has established by
a preponderance of the evidence that Méndez voluntarily
relinquished any objectively reasonable expectation of privacy in
the backpack.
Accordingly, the warrantless search of the backpack did not
violate the Fourth Amendment.
Méndez’s Motion to Suppress is DENIED as to the backpack.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate
Judge Ramos-Vega’s Report and Recommendation and GRANTS IN PART
AND DENIES IN PART the Motion to Suppress. Accordingly, only the
evidence seized by the police from the Méndez’s person at the time
of his arrest should be suppressed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
In San Juan, Puerto Rico, on February 20, 2026.
/s/Gina R. Méndez-Miró
GINA R. MÉNDEZ-MIRÓ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:24-cr-00402-GMM-HRV Document 86 Filed 02/20/26 Page 7 of 7