USA v. Tejeda et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

‘ Case 1:24-cr-10334-NMG Document161_ Filed 04/02/26 Pagelof5

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts

United States of America,

Criminal Action No.
24-10334-NMG

v.
Carlos Manuel Rodriguez,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER
GORTON, J.

Defendant Carlos Manuel Rodriguez (“Rodriguez” or
“defendant”) has been charged with drug offenses under 21 U.S.C
§846, §841(a) (1) and 18 U.S.C. §2 and firearm offenses under
§924(c) (1) (A) (i) and §922(k). Pending before the Court is
defendant's motion to suppress evidence found on his cell phone
(Docket No. 142). For the following reasons, that motion will be
denied.

I. Background

The charges in this case arise from an alleged drug
trafficking operation perpetrated by Rodriguez and his co-
defendants Ronald Odelyn Tejeda and Erick Pimentel-Cabre in 2023
and 2024. The Cross Border Initiative Task Force (“CBI”) of the
Drug Enforcement Agency investigated defendants for several

months, monitoring a house at 46 Melrose Street, Lawrence,

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT.
INFORMATION

GPO

Case 1:24-cr-10334-NMG Document161_ Filed 04/02/26 Page2of5

Massachusetts (“Target Location 2”) and organizing controlled
purchases of drugs by a confidential source.

During the course of the investigation, CBI agents observed
Tejeda selling fentanyl pills to the confidential source and
counting money behind Target Location 2. They observed all
defendants, including Rodriguez, frequently entering and leaving
Target Location 2 and saw Rodriguez in conversation with
Pimentel-Cabrera immediately before the latter appeared to
deliver drugs to Tejeda.

Based upon these observations, Special Agent Alexander P.
Afonso (“S.A. Afonso”) submitted an affidavit to Magistrate
Judge Donald Cabell requesting a search warrant for Target
Location 2 and all cellular phones belonging to the defendants.
The affidavit stated that: 1) Rodriguez lived at Target Location
2 despite listing a different address on his Massachusetts
Driver’s License, 2) drug purchases had taken place at that
location and 3) drug dealers frequently use cell phones to
conduct their sales and store information related to their
conduct. In August, 2024, Magistrate Judge Cabell issued a
search warrant for, and agents conducted a search of, Target
Location 2, resulting in the arrest of Rodriguez and the seizure
of two cell phones found in his bedroom.

Defendant now moves to suppress evidence of his cell phones

and their contents. He claims that there was no probable cause

-2-

Case 1:24-cr-10334-NMG Document161_ Filed 04/02/26 Page3of5

to believe that he had cell phones in his residence or that he
or his cell phones were connected to the drug activity. The
government rejoins that the affidavit afforded Magistrate Judge
Cabell with facts and opinions sufficient to establish probable
cause.

II. Motion to Suppress

A. Legal Standard

The finding of probable cause by a magistrate judge is
entitled to great deference. Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213,
236 (1983). The issuance of a search warrant should be reversed
only if the court finds no substantial basis for concluding that

probable cause existed. United States v. Dixon, 787 F.3d 55, 58-

59 (lst Cir. 2015).

Probable cause exists when, based upon common sense and the
totality of the circumstances, there is a fair probability that
evidence of a crime will be found at a particular location.
Gates, 462 U.S. at 238 (1983). The application for a warrant
must demonstrate probable cause to believe that 1) a crime was
committed (the “commission” element) and 2) enumerated evidence
of such crime will be found at the location searched (the

“nexus” element). United States v. Gonzalez, 113 F.4th 140, 148

(lst Cir. 2024). Courts may consider the training and
experience of law enforcement officers in determining probable

cause. United States v. Floyd, 740 F.3d 22, 35 (1st Cir. 2014)

-3-

Case 1:24-cr-10334-NMG Document161_ Filed 04/02/26 Page4of5

B. Application

Here, defendant challenges only the nexus element. He
contends that the affidavit of S.A. Afonso contained
insufficient facts linking Rodriguez, or his cell phones, to the
commission of the offenses being investigated. He therefore
asserts that there was no substantial basis upon which to find
probable cause or to issue the warrant.

Defendant is mistaken. The totality of the circumstances
described in the affidavit of S.A. Afonso demonstrates probable
cause to believe that evidence of the drug trafficking operation
would be found on defendant’s cell phone. First, the affidavit
states that Rodriguez was often observed at the location and
that a car registered in his name was often parked in the
driveway, supporting the conclusion that he resided at the
subject property. Second, agents observed multiple controlled
drug transactions at or around Target Location 2, providing the
agents with probable cause to believe that evidence of such
transactions would be found within the residence. Finally, the
affidavit states that Rodriguez was observed conversing with
Pimentel-Cabrera shortly before one of the controlled buys. All
together, such observations support a finding of probable cause
to believe that Rodriguez participated in drug trafficking at

Target Location 2 and often lived at the house.

Case 1:24-cr-10334-NMG Document161_ Filed 04/02/26 Page5of5

Moreover, it is common sense to assume that Rodriguez owned
at least one cell phone. S.A. Afonso also stated that, in his
experience, drug traffickers often use their cell phones in
connection with drug transactions. That conclusion supports the
finding of probable cause to believe that Rodriguez had a cell
phone containing evidence of the alleged drug trafficking. The
issuance of the warrant was justified.

ORDER
For the forgoing reasons, defendant’s motion to suppress

(Docket No. 142) is DENIED

So ordered.

DV Mtl Writer
Nathaniel M. Gorton
Senior United States District Judge

Dated: April 2 , 2026