FirstAlerts

Two Charged With Fentanyl Possession at LAX

Federal charges allege two men attempted to exchange narcotics at Los Angeles International Airport.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 24, 2026, 7:23 p.m. ETWritten Aug 24, 2026, 7:54 p.m. ET
Two men have been with possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, according to a report by kesq.com. The charges stem from an incident on Aug. 19, when law enforcement allegedly observed Miguel Angel Tuz-Noh, 24, and Anthony Olvera, 23, both of Lennox, attempting to exchange narcotics in a men's restroom at one of the airport's terminals. The government alleges that Olvera carried a duffle bag containing 10 brick-type packages with nearly 24.3 pounds of fentanyl, intended to be transported on a flight to Minnesota. The charges are pending in . If convicted, the statutory maximum penalty is . As the case is at the charging stage, the allegations have not been proven, and the defendants are presumed innocent.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 124 Aug 2026, 23:54current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble β€” all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources β€” accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements β€” and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld β€” a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them β€” and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.