Search and seizure – Traffic stop

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of a police stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, the motion should be denied because (1) the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and (2) the defendant lacks standing to challenge the search of the vehicle.

“A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Joan Avalo-Quezada and seven others with one count of conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute fentanyl, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §846. … Defendant now moves to ‘suppress . . . all fruits of the unlawful searches and seizures, including, but not limited to, a quantity of controlled substances, and two cellular phones taken from him’ on December 14, 2021. … Defendant contends that the stop of the vehicle in which he was a passenger, the warrantless search of the vehicle and a closed container within it, and the arrest and cell phone seizures resulting therefrom violated his Fourth Amendment rights. …

“On December 14, 2021, at approximately 1:00 p.m., investigators viewed a Snapchat live video posted by the user ‘eyungclout3,’ with a display name of ‘E Glizzy.’ …

“Investigators determined that the Snapchat account belonged to Edilson Pinto, who they knew as an associate of the D Street Projects Gang and an affiliate of the ‘Heath Street Gang’ active in Boston’s Jamaica Plain neighborhood and other areas. …

“Investigators also reviewed a Facebook account with the username ‘Official Eglizzy.’ Id. The Facebook account’s profile image, which investigators compared to booking and Registry of Motor Vehicles (‘RMV’) photos of Pinto, was that of Pinto wearing a diamond-studded chain and pendant that ‘appeared identical’ to the chain and pendant observed in the Snapchat video. … Investigators further determined that Pinto was not authorized to possess a firearm in Massachusetts and had previously been arrested and charged with ‘various firearms offenses’ in Dorchester District Court, in connection with a March 2021 ‘shots fired investigation … during which a loaded 9mm firearm was recovered from Pinto’s jacket pocket.’ …

“Around 2:40 p.m., four officers with the Boston Police Youth Violence Strike Force observed Pinto driving a silver Mitsubishi Outlander on Flaherty Way. …

“Although Defendant was not the driver or owner of the vehicle, he may nonetheless challenge the legality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment. …

“The court finds that, based on the totality of the circumstances, officers had the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle in which Defendant was travelling. … At the time of the stop, officers had viewed a timestamped image of a gun posted to Pinto’s Snapchat account hours earlier and could further validate Pinto’s identity by cross-referencing information on the Snapchat account, Pinto’s Facebook account, booking and RMV photos, and officers’ personal knowledge of Pinto. …

“As described above, the officers confirmed Pinto’s age, which was below the minimum age required for a firearm license in Massachusetts; were aware that he was a defendant in an open state case involving firearm possession; knew of his affiliation with two gangs active in the area; and observed what they believed to be gang identifiers in Pinto’s Snapchat profile. … Thus, even if the officers observed no traffic infraction, they reasonably suspected Pinto of being ‘illegally armed with a firearm,’ such that their observation of him as the vehicle’s operator was a sufficient basis for the officers to stop the vehicle.

“… To the extent Defendant challenges the length of time that passed between the initial stop of the vehicle and the initiation of the vehicle search, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the officers acted in a dilatory or otherwise unreasonable manner in stopping the vehicle, removing and detaining an individual they reasonably suspected of illegal firearm possession, and subsequently removing Defendant and the front passenger from the vehicle while investigating a potential crime. …

“Defendant next asserts that the warrantless searches of the vehicle and the Gorilla Box in the back pocket of the driver’s seat were unreasonable. … The government contends that the Defendant cannot challenge the search of the vehicle and the Gorilla Box where Defendant was merely a passenger and had no possessory interest. …

“Although passengers with no possessory or property interest in a vehicle in which they are travelling may raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the stop of that vehicle, as discussed above, such passengers may not raise a Fourth Amendment challenge to the search of that vehicle. … Instead, such passengers lack ‘standing’ to challenge the search of the vehicle, as they ‘ha[ve] made no showing that [they have] a legitimate expectation of privacy’ in the vehicle and are therefore not subject to an infringement upon their Fourth Amendment rights should the vehicle be searched. …

“Here, Defendant has not asserted a possessory or property interest in the Mitsubishi Outlander in which he was traveling. … Where Defendant does not suggest that he owned or otherwise possessed the vehicle, and where he in fact disclaimed ownership of the vehicle, Defendant’s subjective belief that ‘[Pinto’s] car was a space where we would have privacy from others, and where we would be free from unconsented to searches and seizures,’ … does not amount to a reasonable expectation of privacy in the vehicle or unclaimed containers therein. …

“Defendant also has asserted no possessory or property interest in the Gorilla Box, … and therefore may not assert any claim as to the search of that container. …

“Accordingly, Defendant lacks the requisite standing to challenge the search of the vehicle or the Gorilla Box, or the seizure of drugs from the latter. …

“Finally, Defendant argues that ‘in addition to being fruit of the poisonous tree,’ evidence taken from Defendant’s person, including the two cell phones, ‘must also be suppressed because the arrest was unlawful and not based on probable cause.’ …

“Defendant’s ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’ argument is moot in light of the court’s findings, supra, that the stop of the Mitsubishi Outlander did not violate Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights, and that Defendant does not have standing to challenge the search of the vehicle and the Gorilla Box. Accordingly, the court turns to the lawfulness of Defendant’s arrest. …

“… Defendant does not dispute that the Gorilla Box containing drugs was found in the back pocket of the driver’s seat, directly in front of Defendant and accessible to him. … Like the trio in [Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366 (2003)], neither Defendant nor Pinto claimed knowledge or ownership of the Gorilla Box. … Based on this information, officers could reasonably impute ownership of the purported drugs to Defendant, either independently or in concert with Pinto, and could therefore arrest Defendant without a warrant on the basis of probable cause. …

“Where the arrest of Defendant was thus lawful, the searches of Defendant incident to that arrest were also lawful. … Accordingly, neither the arrest of Defendant nor the subsequent searches of Defendant incident to his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment rights.”

United States v. Avalo-Quezada (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-658-25) (14 pages) (Talwani, J.) (Criminal Action No. 1:24-cr-10281-IT-2) (Dec. 10, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.