People v. Alimurong

Opinion

'§2,§LED

l:DEDlDQ CUURT

G? sum

2022 DEE 22

i n 5 : 01

QLERI-§ huRT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0653-21 GPD RCPOI't Nos. 21 -31977 / 21 -32074 v.

DECISION AND ORDER

GAVIN DOMINGO ALIMURONG, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION DOB: 05/24/1998 TO SUPPRESS

Defendant.

INTRODUCTION

This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on October 12, 2022 for 15 hearing on Defendant Gavin Domingo Alimurong's ("Defendant's") Motion to Suppress 16 1 ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General Katherine Nepton represents The People of Guam ("the 17 I People"), and Attorney William Brennan represents Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' 18 briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and 19 Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.

BACKGROUND

Defendant stands indicted on Charge One (Two Counts): Family Violence (as a wIld Degree 22 I Felony) with Special Allegation: Possession or Use of a Deadly Weapon in the Commission of a 23 s Felony, Charge Two: Possession of an Unregistered Firearm (as a 3rd Degree Felony), Charge 24 | Three: Possession of a Firearm Without a Firearms Identification Card (as a 3 I'd Degree Felony), 25 5 Charge Four: Family Violence (as a Misdemeanor), and Charge Five: Assault on an Unborn Child l (as a Misdemeanor). See Indictment (Dec. 30, 2021).

T he s e c ha rg e s s te m f rom the e v e ni ng of De c e mbe r 2 1 , 2 0 2 1 w he n the Gu a m P ol i c e

2 8 Department ("GPD") responded to an assau l t compl ai nt by Au bree Amman ("Vi cti m"). S ee

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21, People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong 1 Magistrate's Complaint (Dec. 23, 2021). The Superior Court then authorized a warrant and GPD 2 searched for the Defendant at his home the following morning. See Memorandum of Points & 3 Authorities in Support of Motion at 2 (Sep. 16, 2022). GPD was not able to find or arrest 4 Defendant at that time. at 2. 5 Later on in the early-evening of December 22, 2021, GPD returned to Defendant's residence 6 1 to conduct a welfare check following a report that the door to Defendant's residence had been left 7 open for most of the day. Q at 2. At this time, GPD encountered Defendant and arrested him in 8 response to the assault complaint. at 2. GPD Officer Pangelinan then read Defendant his 9 Miranda rights, after which Defendant made incriminating statements. Q at 2. Defendant also 10 | voluntarily offered GPD to search his vehicle, where GPD subsequently found a firearm. See ll Magistrate's Complaint (Dec. 23, 2021). 12 Defendant now moves to suppress such statements and evidence as having been procured in 13 violation of his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. See Motion (Sep. 16, 2022). Defendant 14 I claims his Fourth Amendment rights were violated because the People failed to provide a valid 15 warrant or applicable warrant exception justifying either GPD's return to Defendant's home in the 16 early-evening of December 22, 2021, or GPD's arrest of Defendant. See Memorandum of Points & 17 Authorities in Support of Motion at 3 (Sep. 16, 2022). Defendant claims his Fifth Amendment 18 rights were violated because GPD subjected him to a custodial interrogation despite Defendant's 19 refusal to waive his Miranda rights. Q at 4-6. 20 In their Response to Defendant's Motion ("Response"), The People argued GPD officers 21 were justified when returning to Defendant's home and confronting him in the early-evening of 22 December 22, 2021 because they reasonably believed he was connected to criminal activity. See 23 Response at 1-3 (Oct. 3, 2022). The People further argued that Defendant's arrest was justified 24 under a "probable cause" standard and that Defendant voluntarily waived his Fourth and Fifth 25 Amendment rights. at 3-4. 26 The Court held a hearing on October 12, 2022. After hearing the arguments of the parties, 27 the Court took the matter under advisement. 28

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21, People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong |

1 DISCUSSION 2 1. The Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because neither his 3 person nor his -property was subject to unreasonable searches/seizures. 4 a. Legal Standard: 5 The Fourth Amendment protects individuals from unreasonable Searches and 6 seizures. See U.S. Const. Amend. W. This includes protection from unreasonable 7 searches/seizures of one's own person. See Terry v. Ohio, 293 U.S. l, 9 (1968). Any 8 evidence obtained in violation of a defendant's Fourth Amendment rights shall be 9 excluded. Id. at 12-13. 10 The touchstone of Fourth Amendment analysis is "the reasonableness in all 11 the circumstances of the particular government invasion of a citizen's personal 12 security." . See People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 11 14 (citing Pennsylvania v. 13 Minims, 434 U.S. 106, 108-109 (l977)). 14 b. GPD's return to Defendant's house in the early-evening of December 22, 2021 15 and their initial confrontation with Defendant did not violate Defendant's 16 Fourth Amendment rights because GPD had reason to believe Defendant was 17 connected to criminal activity. 18 The brief seizure of a person is deemed reasonable "upon suspicion that. the 19 person may be connected with criminal activity." See Terry at 10 (1968). 20 O ffic e r P a nge lina n's r e p o r t ind ic a t e s t ha t G P D o ffic e r s r e t u r ne d t o 21 Defendant's house to conduct a welfare check after receiving news that Defendant's 22 front door had been left open for several hours. Having reason to believe that a crime 23 or medical emergency had occurred, GPD did not violate Defendant's Fourth 24 Amendment rights when they briefly confronted Defendant after finding him on 25 scene at the house. 26 c. Defendant's arrest did not violate his Fourth Amendment rights because 27 arresting officers had probable cause to believe Defendant committed a crime. 28

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21, People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong 1 Formal arrests and full searches of a person are deemed reasonable upon 2 "probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime." at 10. 3 Officer Pangelinan's report indicates that he recognized Defendant's name as 4 a suspect in the assault/family violence case. Officer Pangelinan therefore had 5 probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a crime, and did not violate 6 Defendant's Fourth Amendment rights when he arrested Defendant. 7 d. GPD's search of Defendant's vehicle did not violate Defendant's Fourth 8 Amendment Rights because Defendant consented to the search. 9 Searches are reasonable if conducted pursuant to valid warrants or under an 10 exception to the warrant requirement. See Ch argualaf at1114. "Voluntary consent is 11 a recognized exception to the warrant requirement." at'll 14 (2001). 12 Here, GPD Report No. 21-31977 reveals that Defendant voluntarily offered 13 for GPD to search his vehicle. See Magistrate's Complaint (Dec. 23, 2021). The 14 search was therefore reasonable and did not violate Defendant's Fourth Amendment 15 Rights. Evidence obtained from the Vehicle search, including evidence of the firearm 16 is therefore admissible into trial. 17 11. The Defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated because Defendant 18 allegedly waived his right against self-inerimination. 19 a. Legal Standard: 20 The Fifth Amendment provides for the right against self-incrimination in 21 criminal cases. See U.S. Const. Amend. IV. One's Fifth Amendment right applies 22 both inside and "outside of criminal court proceedings and serves to protect persons 23 in all settings in which their freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way 24 from being compelled to incriminate themselves." See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 25 436, 467 (1966). 26 In order to combat pressures to speak and potentially incriminate oneself 27 during custodial interrogations, individuals "must be adequately and effectively 28 apprised" of their right against self-incrimination. at 467. This is done via the

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21,People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong 1 issuing of Miranda rights, where an individual is informed of their "right to remain 2 silent", that "anything said can and will reused against the individual in court", and 3 of their "right to have counsel present at the interrogation." at 467-471 . 4 If an individual is subject to a custodial interrogation without having been 5 informed of and waiving their Miranda rights, any statements made during the 6 interrogation are not admissible during trial. See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 7 318, 322 (1994). 8 b. Defendant was subject to a custodial interrogation, but his statements are 9 admissible because they supposedly follow a waiver of his Fifth Amendment 10 rights. 11 Defendant found himself in a custodial interrogation once GPD arrested him 12 and started asking him questions. See Miranda at 444 (1966). Defendant's 13 statements must therefore follow a reading of and waiver of his Miranda rights 14 before their admission into a trial. 15 However, Officer Pangelinan's report indicates that Defendant was advised of 16 and waived his Fifth Amendment rights before making the incriminating statements. 17 Defendant thus waived his Miranda rights and the incriminating statements are 18 admissible into a trial. 19 Defendant claims he refused to waive his Miranda rights and that Officer 20 Pangelinan created false statements attributable to the Defendant. See _Memorandum 21 of Points & Authorities in Support of Motion at 5-6 (Sep. 16, 2022). However, this 22 creates a factual issue for a jury (rather than a judge) to decide. A jury can decide 23 whether to believe Officer Pangelinan's story or that of the Defendant's. The 24 Defendant's request for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether he actually 25 waived these rights is therefore denied. 26 CONCLUSION 27 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion and his request for an 28 Evidentiary Hearing. Defendant's Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights were not violated.

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21,People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong 1 Therefore, evidence obtained following GPD's initial interaction with Defendant, GPD's arrest of 2 Defendant, and GPD's search of Defendant's vehicle are admissible into a trial.

3 DEE 2 22022

4 IT IS SO ORDERED this

5 6 7

8 HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 9

l0 ll 12 13 14 l5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0653-21,People of Guam v. Gavin Domingo Alimurong