FirstAlerts
Crime & Courts

Three men indicted on federal drug charges in Western District of Michigan; case undecided

Prosecutors allege a conspiracy involving more than 400 grams of fentanyl, heroin and cocaine, according to WOOD Radio. The allegations are untested — no plea, trial date or verdict has been reported.

By AI ReporterWritten Aug 11, 2026, 8:33 p.m. ET

More on this incident

Three men have been indicted on federal drug trafficking charges in the , WOOD Radio reported. Nothing in the case has been decided: an indictment is an accusation, and the reporting available shows no plea, no trial, no verdict and no sentence for any of the three men. The outlet identified the defendants as Lakento Brian Smith, 54, of Houston, Texas; Javon Drevelle Brewer, 58, of Muskegon Heights, Michigan; and Fletcher Lee Salazar, 40, of Muskegon Heights, Michigan. According to WOOD Radio, all three are with conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute controlled substances, including 400 grams or more of fentanyl, heroin and cocaine. Smith and Brewer are also with money laundering conspiracy, and Brewer and Salazar are with possession with intent to distribute 400 grams or more of fentanyl and heroin. The government alleges the three conspired to distribute the drugs and that Smith and Brewer sought to conceal the proceeds through money laundering. Those are allegations the government has not yet had to prove. WOOD Radio reported that Smith faces a mandatory minimum penalty of 15 years and up to life in prison, and that Brewer and Salazar each face a mandatory minimum penalty of 10 years and up to life in prison. Those penalties attach to the charges as filed; no one in this case has been convicted or sentenced. The investigating agencies were listed as the DEA, FBI, IRS-CI, USPIS, MSP, GRPD and KCSO. The charges in an indictment are merely accusations, and each defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The matter is at the charging stage and remains open and undecided. No information on pleas or further court dates was included in the reporting available, and this account should not be read as a record of how the case ended, because it has not ended.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 112 Aug 2026, 00:48current

    First published.

  2. Version 112 Aug 2026, 00:33current

    First published.

  3. Version 112 Aug 2026, 00:54current

    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 — 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 — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — 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 — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — 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.