United States v. Cristabel Mejia-Zayas ( 2021 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
JUN 17 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 19-30265
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
3:18-cr-00093-SLG-1
v.
CRISTABEL LEE MEJIA-ZAYAS, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2021**
Anchorage, Alaska
Before: RAWLINSON, CHRISTEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Cristabel Lee Mejia-Zayas appeals her conviction for
possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B). Defendant contends that the district court wrongly
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
denied her motion to suppress all statements made by Defendant and all physical
evidence seized by law enforcement agents subsequent to her arrest because the
agents lacked probable cause to arrest her. “Reviewing de novo the denial of the
motion to suppress,” we affirm the conviction. United States v. Brooks, 610 F.3d
1186, 1193 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
The district court did not err when denying the motion to suppress because
law enforcement agents had probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug
trafficking. A cooperating informant admitted to past dealings with a drug
trafficker and described in detail how the drug trafficker operated. The agents
confirmed the informant’s statements by having the informant arrange a meeting
place to purchase a large quantity of heroin, while viewing the text messages
between the informant and the drug trafficker in real time. The text messages
indicated that the drug trafficker’s “lil sis” would meet the informant at a store,
which corroborated the informant’s statement that the drug trafficker used women
to deliver the drugs to store parking lots. Shortly thereafter, a female called the
informant using a phone number registered to Defendant, and arranged a meeting
with the informant in the store parking lot. The agents identified Defendant as the
sister of the drug trafficker.
2
Using a photograph of Defendant and the vehicle description provided by
Defendant to the informant, the agents identified Defendant as she pulled into the
parking lot. As instructed in the text message, Defendant parked near a blue Jeep
Liberty vehicle. After her arrest, Defendant’s fanny pack was searched with her
consent, and agents discovered approximately 510 grams of heroin.
Our precedent supports the district court’s determination that the agents had
probable cause to arrest Defendant for drug trafficking. See, e.g., United States v.
Tarazon, 989 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that probable cause to
arrest existed when an informant described prior drug dealings with a defendant,
arranged a drug deal while permitting law enforcement to monitor communications
between the informant and the defendant, and those communications and other
actions by the defendant confirmed the informant’s statements).
AFFIRMED.
3