United States v. Rosario — Third Circuit affirms drug trafficking convictions, vacates sentence

Case
United States v. Miguel Eduardo Rosario
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date Decided
July 1, 2026
Docket No.
23-1242
Topics
Fourth Amendment, Drug Trafficking, Firearms Offense, Good Faith Exception

Background

Miguel Rosario, a parolee with prior convictions for heroin and cocaine distribution, sold fentanyl-laced cocaine to Nicholas Correa at a Wawa gas station in March 2019. Correa died from a drug overdose hours later. In June 2019, Rosario traded 1.5 ounces of methamphetamine for an assault-style rifle and shotgun from another customer. Law enforcement obtained a state court warrant to search Rosario’s Facebook records based on the death investigation.

A federal grand jury indicted Rosario on five counts: conspiracy to distribute narcotics resulting in death and serious bodily injury, possession with intent to distribute heroin and methamphetamine, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and conspiracy to possess a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. A jury convicted him on all counts. The district court imposed a mandatory life sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C), which requires life imprisonment for defendants with prior felony drug convictions whose distributions result in death.

The Court’s Holding

The Third Circuit affirmed all of Rosario’s convictions but vacated his sentence for resentencing. The court rejected Rosario’s Fourth Amendment challenge to the Facebook search warrant, finding the good faith exception applied even though the warrant may have contained minor defects. A reasonable officer would have relied on a warrant approved by a district attorney and judge, and the record showed no deliberate, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct by law enforcement.

On the firearms offense, the Third Circuit answered an open question: a defendant who accepts a firearm in exchange for drugs both “possesses” the firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) and does so “in furtherance of” drug trafficking. The court distinguished the Supreme Court’s holding in Watson v. United States, which addressed “use” of a firearm, emphasizing that “possess” has a distinct meaning. The firearm possession was integral to the drug transaction and occurred in immediate proximity to drugs and drug proceeds at the defendant’s home.

The court upheld the trial court’s admission of hearsay statements from Correa’s girlfriend, mother, and friend regarding Correa’s purchase and use of Rosario’s drugs. These statements qualified as declarations against Correa’s penal interest under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) because they were genuinely self-inculpatory—made to close family members—and not merely self-serving attempts to shift blame.

Key Takeaways

  • The good faith exception shields evidence from suppression when a reasonable officer would rely on a warrant approved by a district attorney and neutral magistrate judge, even if minor defects exist.
  • Accepting a firearm as payment for drugs constitutes both “possession” and “in furtherance of” drug trafficking under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), resolving a previously open question in the Third Circuit.
  • Hearsay statements that are genuinely self-incriminating—such as admissions to family members about drug purchases—are admissible as declarations against penal interest even when they also implicate the defendant.

Why It Matters

This decision clarifies the Third Circuit’s approach to digital evidence warrants, establishing that law enforcement has substantial protection under the good faith exception when warrants are reviewed and approved by judicial and prosecutorial authorities. The ruling provides a roadmap for prosecutors seeking Facebook evidence in drug investigations without risk of suppression for minor technical defects.

More significantly, the court’s affirmative answer on gun-for-drugs trades resolves a circuit split and aligns the Third Circuit with other circuits that have assumed or held that such exchanges constitute § 924(c) violations. This creates a per se framework for prosecutors: accepting any firearm in exchange for any quantity of drugs satisfies both the possession and “in furtherance” elements. The court’s vacatur of the sentence suggests unresolved issues regarding the mandatory life sentence that will affect sentencing outcomes on remand.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top