United States v. Francisco A. Collado
957 F.2d 38, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 2375, 35 Fed. R. Serv. 69 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence may be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) by demonstrating a reasonable probability that it is what the proponent claims, which can be established through a combination of witness testimony, distinctive characteristics of the evidence, and a presumption of official regularity in the chain of custody.
Facts:
- Providence Police Officer Michael Wheeler observed Francisco A. Collado drop a plastic bag in a parking lot in the early morning of May 24, 1990.
- Officer Wheeler directed Officer Venditto to seize the bag.
- Officer Venditto retrieved the bag, which contained thirty plastic baggies of cocaine and sixteen glassine packets of heroin bound by an elastic band and labeled 'Fly High.'
- Because the Special Investigations Bureau (SIB) office was closed, Officer Venditto deposited the evidence into a 'mail slot' that led into a locked safe, per standard procedure.
- Officer Venditto completed a seizure report and placed it on top of the SIB safe.
- The following morning, Detective Purro found Venditto's report, opened the safe, and retrieved a plastic bag whose contents precisely matched the description from the report and Venditto's testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- Francisco A. Collado was prosecuted by the government in the U.S. District Court.
- At trial, the government sought to introduce into evidence a plastic bag containing narcotics.
- Collado objected to the admission of the bag, arguing the government had failed to properly authenticate it due to a break in the chain of custody.
- The district court overruled the objection and admitted the evidence.
- Collado was convicted of possessing drugs with intent to distribute and a related firearm offense.
- Collado, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, challenging the district court's evidentiary ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the government properly authenticate a piece of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) by establishing a chain of custody that relies in part on standard police procedures and a presumption of official regularity, even if a custodian does not directly hand the evidence to the next person in the chain?
Opinions:
Majority - Cyr, Circuit Judge
Yes. The government properly authenticates evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) by establishing a chain of custody that relies on standard procedures and a presumption of official regularity. To be admissible, the proponent of the evidence must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the evidence is what it is claimed to be and has not been materially altered. The court found that this standard was met through multiple means. First, Officer Venditto's testimony provided authentication under Rule 901(b)(1) by a witness with knowledge. Second, the distinctive characteristics of the evidence—specifically, the number of packets and the 'Fly High' label—provided strong corroboration under Rule 901(b)(4). Finally, the court was entitled to rely on a 'presumption of official regularity,' assuming the police followed their standard, secure procedure for handling evidence deposited after hours, especially since the appellant offered no evidence of tampering or alteration.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that a perfect, person-to-person chain of custody is not an absolute requirement for authenticating evidence. It solidifies the principle that courts may rely on a 'presumption of official regularity' when law enforcement follows established, secure procedures for handling evidence. This provides prosecutors with a viable path to admission for evidence that has been temporarily stored in secure, unmonitored locations like evidence lockers or safes. The ruling emphasizes that the standard is 'reasonable probability,' not absolute certainty, and shifts the burden to the defendant to present some evidence of tampering to overcome the presumption of regularity.
