United States of America v. Jafet Centeno

2022 DNH 056

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: April 20, 2022
• Docket: 21-cr-56-1-SM
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 21-cr-56-1-SM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 056 Jafet Centeno

O R D E R

Defendant moves to suppress evidence seized during a search

of his room in his mother's house, conducted pursuant to a

search warrant issued by a New Hampshire Superior Court Judge.

The warrant appears valid in all respects and seems to be fully

supported by the underlying affidavit.

Defendant's motion essentially challenges only the

information presented to the issuing magistrate related to the

identity of his residence — the place to be searched. He says

it was insufficient, as there were no observations of him

entering or leaving the residence, and only general references

to the police having "confirmed" his mother's home as his

residence based upon information gleaned from the Manchester

Police Department Database, and the TLO National Information

Database. That would probably have been sufficient to establish

the likelihood that defendant resided at his mother's home, but

1 even that information was strengthened when it was confirmed by

the defendant himself. After he was briefly stopped on February

22, 2021, while driving a car registered to his mother's

address, defendant's name, date of birth and apparent address

were given or determined in some manner during the encounter —

his address was the same as his mother's.

Police officers were investigating reports of thefts from

cars in the neighborhood in which defendant had been seen

cruising during the early morning hours. Defendant's car fit

the description of one that had been driven by the theft

suspects. The warrant's supporting affidavit notes that

defendant was identified at the time as "Centeno, Jafet DOB:

[REDACTED], 1997, Address: 70 West River Drive" [his mothers'

address]. It is not clear whether that information was obtained

from defendant's driver's license, or whether he provided it, or

it was simply the address of registration. But any ambiguity

was largely resolved by defendant's own statements: "Centeno

stated that he was locked out of his mother's house and was

attempting to stay at his cousin's girlfriend's who lived at 15

Court Side Way."

The issuing magistrate certainly could have reasonably

concluded that defendant probably resided at the address

2 indicated by the police databases, and where the car he was

driving was registered, and where he said he had been locked out

of, necessitating his seeking to stay at his cousin's

girlfriend's supposed residence that evening.

Nothing in the record suggests that defendant did not

reside at his mother's home, or that he (credibly) resided

exclusively elsewhere, or that the stolen firearms at issue were

not likely to be found at his residence. The supporting

affidavit adequately established defendant's residence, and the

police were entitled to rely upon the issued warrant to conduct

the search. See e.g. United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897

(1984).

Conclusion

The motion to suppress evidence (doc. no. 23) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________ Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

April 20, 2022

cc: Anna Z. Krasinski, AUSA Donald A. Kennedy, Esq. U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal