United States v. Collado

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1992 · Evidence

957 F.2d 38 (1st Cir. 1992)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceAuthenticationChain of CustodyFed. R. Evid. 901(a)Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1)Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(4)official regularitydrug evidence

Facts

Officer Wheeler saw Collado drop a plastic bag in a Providence parking lot and directed Officer Venditto to seize it. Venditto took the evidence to the police station, completed a seizure report, and followed the standard after-hours procedure for depositing drug evidence in a mail slot leading into a locked SIB safe. The next morning Detective Purro found Venditto's report on top of the safe, opened it, and retrieved a clear plastic bag containing thirty baggies of cocaine and sixteen glassine packets of heroin bound by an elastic band and labeled "Fly High," matching Venditto's description. Additional testimony established an uninterrupted chain of custody from Purro's retrieval of the bag to its introduction at trial, with no indication of alteration.

Issue

Did the district court abuse its discretion by admitting the plastic bag and its contents into evidence where the government relied on officer testimony, distinctive characteristics of the drugs, standard police handling procedures, and chain-of-custody evidence to authenticate the exhibit under Rule 901(a)?

Rule

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a), evidence is authenticated when the proponent shows a reasonable probability that the item is what the proponent claims. The court must be able to determine that it is reasonably probable there was no material alteration after the item came into the proponent's custody, and this showing may be made through witness testimony under Rule 901(b)(1), distinctive characteristics under Rule 901(b)(4), chain-of-custody evidence, and in appropriate circumstances a presumption of official regularity based on normal police procedures where no evidence of alteration is offered.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At 1:30 a.m. in Newark, Officer Lena Ortiz saw Devin Marsh toss a small canvas pouch while running. Officer Omar Bell recovered it, wrote a report describing 12 blue wax folds stamped "North Star" and 8 red capsules, and deposited it through the narcotics unit's after-hours evidence slot into a locked safe; the next morning Detective Carla Mendez retrieved a pouch from that safe matching Bell's description exactly, and no one offered evidence of tampering.

Is the pouch most likely sufficiently authenticated for admission?

Explanation. Rule 901(a) requires only a reasonable probability that the exhibit is what the proponent claims and that there was no material alteration after it came into the proponent's custody. Testimony from a witness with knowledge, distinctive characteristics of the contents, evidence of normal police handling procedures, and no evidence of tampering are sufficient. Absolute certainty is not required.