, r"- a l;1+¢ e~. I I1.-.
1
_ ,- _ »*\ . t'
SU K, s '\ L10 U r~2T =::.=" C *g . . J I L_.: f
1 O F LE LJ :'\§
2 Jfi.N 31I EH
2024J!8.?3 mu M:1 §:
9: 1+
466
3 CLERl, OF CLERK OF COURT
COURT
4 \__I
i ;. i <,.._,_
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7
8 PEOPLE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0713-23 9 vs.
10 10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 II TROY TROYASKAS ASK.ASaka
akaRolando
RolandoAfkas
Atkas Jackson
Jackson
12 12 aka Raul Jones aka Randy Jones aka Randy Frank
Frank aka
Roland Roland Jackson, Jackson,
13 1
14 14 Defendant.
Defendant.
15 15 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon Vemon P. Perez on January 16, 16, 2024, for hearing
17 17 on Defendant TROY ASK.AS ASKAS aka
akaRolando
Rolando Afkas
Atkas Jackson
Jackson aka
aka Raul
Raul Jones aka Randy Frank 18 18 Roland Jackson's ("Defendant")
aka Roland Motion to ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress Suppress Evidence.
Evidence. Present
Present were
were Assistant
Assistant
19 Attorney General Attorney General Sean E.
E. Brown on
on behalf
behalf of
of the
the People
People of
of Guam
Guam ("the
("the Government")
Government") and
20 Defendant with Defendant with counsel counsel Assistant
Assistant Public
Public Defender
Defender Alisha
Alisha Molyneux.
Molyneux. Having
Having reviewed the
the
21 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now now issues the
the following
following Decision
22 22 and Order.
23 23 BACK GR O U ND BACKGROUND
24 24 On November
November 13, 2023, Defendant Defendant was indicted
indicted with one count
count of
of Possession of a
25 25 Schedule II Controlled Substance (As aa Third Third Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) and
and one
one count
count of
of Operation
Operation of a
26 26 Motor Vehicle without without aa Driver's
Dover's License
License (As a Violation).
Violation). (Indictment, Nov. 13, (Indictment, Nov. 13, 2023).
2023). These
27 27 charges stem from the the discovery
discovery of suspected
suspected methamphetamines methamphetamines in Defendant's vehicle vehicle after
after the
28
People People v.
v. Askas
Askas
Case No.
No. CF0713-23
cF0713-23
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 1 10
I ofl0
1 effectuation of effectuation of a traffic traffic stop
stop on
on or
or about
aboutNovember
November2,2,2023.
2023. (Deel.
(Decl. of Gloria
Gloria A.L.
A.L. Rudolph,
Rudolph,
2 Magistrate's Con Magistrate's Compl., Nov. 4, pl., Nov. 4, 2023).
2023). Defendant
Defendantdid
didnot
not have
have aa valid driver's license, registration, driver's license,
3 insurance on or insurance onhim.
him. Id.
Id
4 On November 21, 2023, November 21, 2023, at Arraignment, Defendant Defendant asserted
asserted his right to a speedy trial.
5 On December ll, 11,2023,
2023,Defendant
Defendant filed
filedthe
the instant
instant Motion. On
OnDecember
December22,
22, 2023,
2023, the
6 Government filed its Opposition.
7 January 16, On January 16,2024,
2024,the
theCourt
Courtheard
heardsworn
swamtestimony
testimonyfrom
fromPort
PortPolice
PoliceOfficer
Officer Alex
Alex
8 Tithingrad Tithingrad ("Officer ("Officer Tithingrad"),
Tithingrad"), Port
Port Police
Police Officer Kylie
Kylie Maurer
Maurer ("Officer
("Officer Maurer"),
Maurer"), and
and
9 Defendant. At Defendant. Atthe the hearing,
hearing, the
the Court
Court ascertained
ascertained the
thefollowing facts:·
following facts:'
10 10 1. On l. Onororabout
aboutNovember
November2,2,2023,
2023,around
around 7:00
7:00 p.m.,
p.m., Officer
Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad effectuated
effectuated a
11 traffic stop after observing traffic observing a beige beige Nissan
Nissan Sentra
Sentra on the
the road
road with
with an
an expired
expired
12 12 registration tag.
tag.
13 1 2. Officer OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradmet
metwith
withthe
thedriver,
driver,aamale
maleindividual,
individual, who
who identified
identified himself
himself as
as
14 14 Randy Frank.
Frank. Officer
OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradidentified
identifiedDefendant
Defendantininthe
thecourtroom
courtroom as
as the
the same
same
15 15 individual he pulled over over on November 2.
16 3. Officer OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradasked
askedDefendant
Defendant for
for his
his identification,
identification, proof
proofofofinsurance,
insurance, and
and
17 17 vehicle registration.
vehicle registration. Defendant Defendantwas
wasunable
unable to
to provide
provideany
any of
ofthe
the documents
documents requested.
requested.
18 18 Defendant did not not have
have any
anyform
formof
of identification.
19 4. The Thevehicle
vehiclealso
alsohad
hada apassenger.
passenger. The
Thepassenger
passenger identified
identifiedherself
herselfas
as Dorissa
Dorissa Frank,
Frank,
20 which Officer Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad confirmed
confirmed through
through her FSM passport.
passport. Mrs.
Mrs. Frank
Frank did
did not
not
21 have a driver's license.
22 5. Officer OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradcalled
calledGuam
GuamPolice
PoliceDepartment
Departmentdispatch
dispatch to
to inquire
inquire about
about the
the
23 vehicle. GPD GPDgave
gaveOfficer
OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradthe
thename
name ofofthe
theregistered
registered owner
owner which
which was
was
24 not "Randy Frank."
Frank."
25 6.
6. When
WhenOfficer
OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradwent
wenttotohis
his vehicle,
vehicle, Officer
OfficerMaurer
Maurer an°ived to assist.
arrived to assist. Officer Officer
26 26 Maurer heard over over the
theradio
radiothat
thatOfficer
Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad was conducting conducting a vehicle
vehicle pull
pull over
over
27 and proceeded proceededto
tohis
hislocation
locationto
toassist.
assist. Officer
Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad told
told Officer
OfficerMaurer
Maurerthat
that the
28
People v.
v. Askers
Askas
Case No. CF0713-23 Decision and Order
Page 2 of
of 10
I 5
1 operator did operator did not
not have
have any
any form
form of identification, so Officer Officer Maurer
Maurer said
said she
she would
2 2 speak to to him.
him.
3 OfficerMaurer 7. Officer Maurertestified testifiedthat
thatshe
shewent
wentto
to speak
speak to the
the operator
operatorwhile
whileOfficer
Officer Tithingrad
4 was at at his
hisvehicle
vehicle for
for officer safety as
officer safety as the area areawas
wasdark.
dark. Officer Maurer testified Officer Maurer testified that that
5 she assumed assumedOfficer
Officer Tithingrad was going to try try to
to issue
issue a citation.
6 8.
8. The driver of
ofthe
the vehicle
vehicle also
also identified
identified himself
himselfto
to Officer
OfficerMaurer
Maureras
as Randy
Randy Frank.
Frank.
7 9.
9. Officer Maurer
Officer Maurer asked
asked Defendant why he didn't didn't have
have any
any identification
identification on
on him
him and
and
8 Defendant responded that Defendant responded that he he actually
actually didn't
didn't possess any identification possess any at all.
identification at all.
9 Defendant indicated he was coming from from the
the cemetery
cemeteryand
and that
that the
the passenger
passenger in the
10 vehicle was his his wife.
wife.
11 II 10. Officer Maurer 10. During her conversation with Defendant, Officer Maurer noticed noticed that
that he
he was not able
12 12 to make eye contact with her and andobserved
observed him
him to
to be
befidgeting
fidgeting with
with something
something in
in both
13 1 hands. Officer hands. OfficerMaurer
Maurer testified
testifiedthat
that she
she believed
believed Defendant
Defendant was
was handling
handling a cigarette.
14 OfficerMaurer Officer Maurer asked
asked Defendant
Defendant ififhe
he was
was okay,
okay, to
towhich
whichhe
heresponded
responded that
that he
he was
was
15 15 just tired.
tired.
16 16 11. OfficerMaurer ll. Officer Defendantififthere askedDefendant
Maurerasked therewas wasanything
anythingin
inthe
the vehicle
vehiclethat
that she
she should
should
17 17 know about, and Defendant about, and Defendant responded responded that
thatthere
theremight
mightbe
be an
anairsoft
airsoft gun
gun or
or a pellet
18 18 gun. At this time, gun. time, Officer Maurer instructed instnlcted Defendant
Defendanttotoexit
exitthe
thevehicle.
vehicle. Officer
19 told Defendant Maurer told Defendant to
to put
put both
both hands on the
the steering
steering wheel and open the the door with
20 his left left hand slowly and then step slowly and stepout
outand
andproceed
proceedtotothe rearof
therear ofthe
thevehicle.
vehicle. Defendant
21 complied.
22 12. Officer Maurer 12. Officer Maurerasked
asked Defendant ififhe consented patdown consented to a pat downof of his
hisbody.
body. Defendant
23 agreed.
agreed. Officer
OfficerMaurer
Maurerdid
did not
not find
find anything
anything on
on him.
24 24 13. Officer 13. Maurer asked
Officer Maurer asked Defendant Defendant if he had a firearms firearms identification card. Defendant card. Defendant
25 25 responded that he he did not.
not.
26 14. Officer 14. Maurer then
Officer Maurer then asked asked Defendant
Defendant to search the
to search to include the vehicle, to include the the trunk.
trunk.
27 Officer OfficerMaurer
Maurer testified
testifiedthat
that Defendant
Defendant agreed.
28
Peoplev.v. Askers People Askas Case No. CF0713-23 Decision and Decision and Order
Page 3 of 10 Page 10 1 15. Officer Maurer also asked Defendant if there was was anything else that she should know
2 about and he said that there was a pipe and a syringe and then there was also ice that
3 was in his wallet.
4 16. Officer Maurer testified that she asked Defendant ifthere there was anything else in the car
5 besides the airsoft besides the airsoft or pellet pellet gun because Defendant was because Defendant was still still unable
unable to
to make eye
6 contact with her.
contact with her. Officer Officer Maurer
Maurer testified
testified that while she was talking to him in the 7 vehicle, she also vehicle, she also noticed that his eyes noticed that eyes were were red
red and
and pupils
pupils were
were dilated,
dilated, which
which
8 indicated to her that he may be under the influence.
9 17. Officer Maurer Maurer testified
testified that
that she
she told
told Defendant
Defendant that
that if
if at
at any
any time he wanted her to
10 stop searching the vehicle he could just let her know.
11 Tithingrad testified 18. Officer Tithingrad testified that that he was going
going to issue Defendant
Defendant a citation but stopped 12 told him that Defendant mentioned he had something in the because Officer Maurer told 13 1 vehicle ("a pellet gun or something"). Officer OfficerTithingrad
Tithingradstopped
stopped to
to observe
observe them for
14 14 officer safety.
15 15 19. Officer 19. Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad testified
testified that
that when
when Officer
Officer Maurer
Maurer asked
asked Defendant
Defendant to exit the
16 16 vehicle, everyone went to the rear of the vehicle.
17 17 20. Officer Tithingrad testified testified that he heard Officer Maurer ask Defendant for consent to 18 18 search the vehicle and that he he said
said "yes."
"yes."
19 19 21. Defendant only 21. Defendant only provided provided verbal
verbal consent
consent to
to the
the search
search and
and did
did not sign aa written
written
20 consent form.
form.
21 22. Officer 22. Officer Maurer
Maurer found
found the
the pipe
pipe and
and the
the syringe
syringe between
between the
the driver's door and the
22 22 steering wheel in a small compartment compartment and a bag with suspected methamphetamine in 23 23 a brown Fendi wallet. 24 24 23. Officer Maurer did not find any identification or credit cards in the wallet. 25 25 24. Officer Maurer testified she asked Defendant if the wallet was his and he said it was.
26 Officer Maurer testified she also asked Defendant for permission to actually open up
27 27 the wallet and he said that it was okay. 28
People People v.v. Askers Askas
Case No.
No. CF0713-23
Decision Decision andand Order
Page Page 44oflO
ofl0
1 25. .Officer Officer Maurer testified that Defendant never withdrew consent of the search of the withdrew consent
2 2 vehicle while she vehicle while she was
was searching.
searching.
3 26. Officer 26. Maurer testified Officer Maurer testified that that Defendant
Defendant was polite
polite when
when talking
talking to
to her
her and
and that
that he
4 truthful.
seemed truthful.
5 27. When Defendant 27. Defendant was brought to was brought the Central to the Central Precinct,
Precinct, he was
was identified
identified through
through
6 fingerprint processing processing under
underaadifferent
different name
name-- Rolando
Rolando Afkas Jackson.
Jackson. Defendant
Defendant
7 had outstanding outstanding bench
benchwarrants
warrantsfor
for his
his arrest
arrestfor
for four cases.
8 28. Both Officer 28. Officer Tithingrad Tithingrad and
and Officer
OfficerMaurer
Maurertestified
testifiedthat
that Defendant
Defendant was
was compliant
compliant
9 with their directions.
with directions.
10 29. Defendant testified that he testified that he was
was returning
returninghome
homewith
withhis wifeto
hiswife toKaiser
Kaiser from
from the
theNimitz
Nimitz
iII t HillCemetery Hill Cemeterywhere
where his
his son
son is
is buried
buried when he was pulled over.
12 30. Defendant 30. Defendant admitted
admittedthat
thathe
hedid
didnot
nothave
have aa driver's license, car driver's license, car registration, registration, or car
car
13 msurance.
insurance.
14 14 31.
l. Defendant admitted that thathe
hetold
told Officer that he Maurer that
Officer Maurer he might have an airsoft airsoft or pellet
15 15 gun in the car. Defendant testified that that he thought
thought he
he might have had
had an
an airsoft or
16 pellet gun pellet gun in
in the vehicle because he remembered playing with vehicle because with one one at
at his house
house before
before
17 to Nimitz Hill.
going to
18 18 32. Defendant admitted that that Officer Maurer first Officer Maurer firstasked asked to
to pat
pat him
him down
down prior
prior to
to the
the search
search
19 19 of of the
the vehicle.
20 20 33. Defendant Defendant admitted
admitted that
thathe
he consented
consentedtotoaa pat
patdown
down but
but denied
denied giving consent to aa giving consent
21 search of the search of the vehicle.
vehicle.
22 34. Defendant testified that 34. that Officer Maurer did Officer Maurer did not
not ask
ask for'
for consent to search the the vehicle.
vehicle.
23 testified that Defendant testified that Officer OfficerMaurer
Maurersearched
searched the
the car
car on
on her
her own
own and
and told him not
24 lie to to lie to her
her because
because she
she saw what was in
in the
the car. Defendant testified testified that
that he told her
her
25 that he he had
had aasyringe
syringe and
and a pipe in the car.
26 26 35. Defendant testified that he he thought
thoughtOfficer
Officer Maurer was searching searching the
the vehicle for three
vehicle for three
27 five minutes to five minutes but was not not really sure. Defendant testified sure. Defendant testified that that it was a long time.
28 36. Defendant denied denied he
hewas trying to
wastrying to deceive
deceive the
the officers givinganother officers by giving another name.
name.
People People v.v. Askers Askas
Case No.
No. CF0713-23
Decision Decision andand Order
Page 5 oflO
of10
1 37. Defendant admitted that he uses other names than Rolando Jackson.
2 38. Defendant 38. Defendant testified
testifiedthat
thathe
he does
does go
go by both Troy
by both Troy Askas
Askas and
and Rolando
Rolando Jackson.
Jackson.
3 Defendant testified that the correct spelling is Afkas, not Askas, and that Askas was
4 spelled wrong by whoever was recording his name. s 5 When Defendant 39. When Defendantwas asked ififhe was asked he knew
knew he
he had
had aa warrant
warrant out
out for his arrest, he responded
6 that he knew he had not been checking in for his cases.
7 DISCUSSION
8 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protects against unreasonable searches
9 and seizures and is made applicable to Guam via section 142 l(b)(c)
l(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam."
Guam."
10 People v. Ch People v. Chargualaf, argualaf, 2001 Guam l1'H,r 14 2001 Guam 14 (internal (internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted). Brief
Brief investigative
investigative
11 detentions are permitted detentions are permitted under under the
the Fourth
Fourth Amendment
Amendment "when aa police police officer
officer has
has reasonable
reasonable
12 suspicion that an individual was engaged in or is about to be engaged in illegal conduct." People
13 1 v. Johnson, ,r (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
Johnson, 1997 Guam 9114 U.S. 1 (1968)). "As aa general (1968)) "As general matter, matter, the
14 warrant is reasonable decision to stop an automobile without a warrant reasonable where the police police have probable
probable
15 15 cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Further, Further, itit is
is reasonable
reasonable to
to stop
stop aa car where
16 16 the police merely merely have aa reasonable reasonable suspicion
suspicion to believe
believe the
the driver
driver has
has committed
committed aa traffic
traffic
17 17 violation." Chargualaf, ,r 17 Chargualaf, 2001 Guam l111 17 ((citations omitted). "In order to determine whether citations omitted).
18 18 an officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient sufficient to
to warrant
warrant aa traffic stop, the court must look at the 19 19 totality of the circumstances, taking into account the facts known to the the officers
officers from
from personal
personal
20 20 Johnson, 1997 observation." Johnson, 1997Guam ,r (citation and quotation Guam99116 quotation marks marks omitted).
omitted). Furthermore,
Furthermore,
21 the reasonable reasonable suspicion suspicion must
must exist
exist at
at the
thetime
timethe
thestop
stopwas
wasinitiated.
initiated.Id.
Id (citation
( citation omitted).
22 Defendant acknowledges acknowledges that
that the
the stop
stop itself
itself was presumably reasonable reasonable but
but sets forth that
23 any expansion expansion of of the stop was unreasonable and and that he did not give consent to search the vehicle.
24 generally, Mot. Suppress, See generally, Dec. 11, Suppress, Dec. ll, 2023.
2023. The
TheGovernment
Governmentopposes,
opposes, arguing
arguing that
that the
the stop
stop in
25 25 Defendant's consent was voluntary made. See generally, its entirety was reasonable and Defendant's generally, Opp'n, 26 Dec. 22, 2023.
2023. As
As the
the basis
basis for
for the
the effectuation
effectuation of
ofthe
the traffic stop
stop is not being disputed, the Court 27 first turns turns to
to Defendant's argument that the expansion of the traffic stop stop was
was unreasonable. See
unreasonable. See
28 28 Mot.
Mot. Suppress Suppress at 2-4.
2-4. Defendant sets forth Defendant sets forth that that "the issue
issue contested
contested is not
not whether
whether law
law
People v.
v. Askers
Askas
Case No. CF0713-23 Decision and Order
Page 66 oflO
o fl 0
1 enforcement exceeded the enforcement exceeded fifteen-minute rule"
the fifteen-minute but "whether law enforcement's rule" but actions were enforcement's actions
2 duringthe reasonable during reasonable timeneeded thetime investigateexpired neededtotoinvestigate tags."Id.
expiredtags." at3.3. "[T]he Id at duration tolerable duration
"[T]he tolerable
3 3 of police inquiries of police the traffic-stop inquiries in the context isisdetermined traffic-stop context bythe determinedby seizure's'mission'-to theseizure's address 'mission'-to address
4 the traffic violation the that warranted violation that the stop warranted the and attend stop and related safety attend to related concerns. Because safety concerns.
5 addressing the infraction addressing the the purpose infraction isis the of the purposeof stop, it may the stop, no longer may 'last no than is longer than necessary to is necessary
6 that purpose."'
effectuate that Rodriguez v.
purpose."' Rodriguez United States, v. United 348, 354 States, 575 U.S. 348, (2015) (internal citations 354(2015)
7 "Authorityfor omitted). "Authority theseizure forthe thus ends seizurethus when tasks ends when tied to
tasks tied the traffic to the are-- or traffic infraction are
8 reasonably should reasonably havebeenshouldhave completed."Id.
been -completed." Id (citation omitted).
9 Beyond determining whether to issue Beyond issue a traffic ticket, an officer's includes mission includes
officer's mission
ordinary inquiries incident ordinary inquiries the traffic incidenttoto the stop. Typically such traffic stop. inquiries involve such inquiries
10 10 checking the driver's license, determining driver's license, whetherthere dete1miningwhether areoutstanding thereare warrants outstanding warrants
11 against the driver, against the driver, and
and inspecting registration and automobile's registration inspecting the automobile's proof of and proof
insurance. checksserve These checks
insurance. These thesame servethe objective as sameobjective enforcementof asenforcement ofthe traffic code:
thetraffic code:
12 12 ensuring that vehicles on the road are that vehicles safely and responsibly.
are operated safely
113 Id. at at355
355 (internal
(internal citations, marks and quotation marks
citations, quotation alterationsomitted").
and alterations omitted").
14 In this
this case,
case, Officer
Officer Maurer
Maurer testified she approached that she
testified that the vehicle approached the the speak to the
vehicle to speak
15 15 operator while Officer Officer Tithingrad was at his own Tithingrad was vehicle, presumably own vehicle, towrite presumablyto citation. Officer writeaacitation. Officer 16 16 Maurer testified testified that she went
that she went to speakwith to speak theoperator withthe while Officer operatorwhile Tithingrad was Officer Tithingrad at his own was at
17 17 vehicle for for officer
officersafety.
safety. Officer
OfficerMaurer initiallyasked Maurerinitially Defendantsimilar askedDefendant questions to similarquestions those to those
18 18 asked by Officer asked by Officer Tithingrad his name what his
Tithingrad - what didn't have name was, why he didn't any identification, where have any
19 19 he was coming from, and and who was
was in the passenger
in the seat. The passenger seat. Courtfinds TheCourt that these findsthat questions these questions
20 were related to the the traffic During her stop. During
traffic stop. Defendant, Officer her conversation with Defendant, Maurer noticed Officer Maurer
21 that he was that he was not not able
able to make
make eye
eye contact and observed her and
contact with her him to observed him with fidgeting with
to be fidgeting
22 hands. Officer
something, possibly a cigarette, in both hands. noticed that Defendant's eyes Maurer also noticed
Officer Maurer
23 were red and his pupils pupils were
were dilated, which to her indicated to
which indicated that he may her that underthe may be under influence of theinfluence of
24 24 something. Officer OfficerMaurer Defendantififhe askedDefendant
Maurerasked wasokay he was andDefendant okayand respondedthat Defendantresponded he was that he
25 25 tired. The
just tired. TheCourt Courtdoes
does not
notfind
findthat questions unreasonably these questions
thatthese the traffic stop.
unreasonably prolonged the 26 26 Officer OfficerMaurer Maurerthen
then asked
asked Defendant
Defendant ififthere
there was anything in
was anything the vehicle in the that she
vehiclethat should know she should
27 27 about, to which Defendant responded about, to respondedthat thatthere mightbe
theremight anairsoft
bean gunororaapellet airsoftgun gun. At pelletgun. this
At this
28 28
People v. Askas v. Askers
Case No. CF0713-23 cF0713-23
Decision and Order
Page 7 of IO
of 10
1 point, Officer Maurer point, instructedDefendant Maurer instructed Defendant exitthe to toexit vehicle
the officersafety.
forforofficer
vehicle "[I]t is well safety."[I]t
2 established that anofficer thatan effecting aa lawful officer effecting trafficstop lawfultraffic mayorder stopmay thedriver
orderthe andthe
driverand passengers thepassengers
3 out of aa vehicle." United States vehicle." United Williams, 419 F.3d 1029, States v. Williams, 1030 (9th Cir. 2005)
1029, 1030 (citation 2005) (citation
4 4 See also Pennsylvania omitted). See omitted). Mimms, 434 U.S.
Pennsylvania v. Minims, 106,111 U.S. 106, (1977) ("We fn. 66 (1977)
Ill fn. holdonly ("Wehold that
only that
5 has been once a motor vehicle has lawfully detained been lawfully for a traffic detained for violation, the traffic violation, may the police officers may
6 order the ofthe the driver to get out of vehicle without the vehicle violatingthe without violating Fourth Amendment's theFourth proscription Amendment's proscription
7 of ofunreasonable searchesand unreasonable searches andseizures.");
seizures."),Rodriguez,
Rodriguez, 575 U.S. at
575 U.S. at356
356("Traffic
("Traffic stops
stops are especially
are especially
8 fraught with fraught dangerto with danger police officers.").
to police the Court Therefore, the
officers."). Therefore, also does Court also that Officer does not find that
9 unreasonably prolonged Maurer unreasonably stopwhen prolonged the stop sheasked whenshe Defendanttotoexit askedDefendant thevehicle.
exitthe vehicle. Defendant
10 10 complied with Officer Maurer's instructions Officer Maurer's and headed instructions and to the headedto rearof
the rear the vehicle.
of the Defendant vehicle. Defendant
II 11 testified that he then consented testified that to Officer consented to Maurer conducting Officer Maurer pat down search conducting aa pat of his search of person.
his person.
12 12 After Officer After Maurerconducted OfficerMaurer conducted the down, she pat down,
the pat asked Defendant she asked for consent Defendant for to search consent to the
search the
13 13 vehicle, which she and both she
which both Officer Tithingrad testified and Officer Defendant agreed to.
testified Defendant
14 "In the "In absence of
the absence warrant, the of aa warrant, police may the police conduct a search may lawfully conduct or seizure search or only if seizure only if
15 15 the warrant an exception to the requirementapplies.
warrantrequirement consent is applies. Voluntary consent recognized exception to is a recognized
16 the warrant warrantrequirement."
requirement." Cnargualaf Guam 1l ,i1]14 2001 Guam
Chargualaf, 2001 omitted).Therefore, citationsomitted).
(internalcitations 14(internal Therefore,
17 17 the Court must examine, based must examine, basedon
onthe
thetotality whether Defendant's consent circumstances, whether
totality of the circumstances,
18 was voluntary.
voluntary. See id. at ,i 25. The at 1[25. TheCourt factors::
followingfactors
the following
examines the
Courtexamines
19 1)
1) whether andthe detained and
whether the defendant was detained lengthof thelength timeof
oftime of the questioning, 2)
the questioning; 2)
the defendant
whether the defendant was threatenedor was threatened orintimidated bythe intimidatedby police, 3) whether the thepolice;
20 defendant relied on misrepresentations or on misrepresentations madeby or promises made by the police, 4)
thepolice; 4) whether
21 21 the the defendant under an-est custody or under
was in custody
defendant was when the arrest when consentwas the consent given, 5)
was given; 5)
whether the defendant whether the defendant was was in
in a public
public or secluded
secluded place,
place; andand 6) whether the whether the
22 defendant objected to the the search.
search.
23 23 Ill Id.(citation (citationomitted).
omitted).The Government
The theburden hasthe has
Government proveby burdentotoprove preponderance of evidence byaapreponderance
24 whether Defendant's Defendant's consent
consentwas voluntary.Id
wasvoluntary. Id "[I]t
"[I]tisisonly analyzingallallthe onlybybyanalyzing circumstances thecircumstances
25 25 of ofan an individual individual consent
consent that it can be ascertainedwhether be ascertained infact whetherin was voluntary fact itit was or coerced."
voluntary or coerced."
26 26 Sc/fmeckloth Schneckloth v.v. Bustamante, 233 (1973).
Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218,233 (1973).
27
28
People People v.v. Askers Askas
Case No.
No. CF0713-23
Decision andand Order
Page 8 of10
1 OfficerMaurer Here, Officer Maurer requested requested to search the
the vehicle after a traffic stop stop was effectuated.
2 The traffic traffic stop stop .was
was effectuated
effectuated in
in public. The Court
public. The Court does
does find
find that
that Defendant was
was still seized
3 during the course during the of the courseof the traffic
traffic stop
stop when
when he
he gave
gave consent. OfficerMaurer consent. Officer Maurer ordered ordered Defendant
Defendant
4 of the out of the vehicle vehicle after
after Defendant
Defendant disclosed
disclosed that there
there may
may be airsoft or pellet gun be an airsoft gun in the the
5 vehicle. Officer OfficerMaurer
Maureralso
alsotestified
testifiedthat
thateven
evenififDefendant
Defendanthad
hadnot
notlater
laterbeen
been arrested
arrested for other
6 6 she would things, she would not have have let
let him drive
drive away because
because he
hedid
didnot
nothave
haveaavalid
validdriver's
driver's license nor
7 did the vehicle have have aa valid
valid registration
registration or
or current
current insurance.
insurance. Thus, Defendant would not be free 8 away. However, to drive away. However,the theCourt
Courtdoes
does not
not find
find that
that this
this factor weighs
weighs heavily
heavily against
against a finding
9 9 ofvoluntary of voluntary consent consent because
because Defendant
Defendant was not
not placed
placed in
in handcuffs
handcuffs nor
nor was
was Defendant
Defendant under
under
10 arrest when when consent
consentwas
wasgiven. There was
given. There was no
no testimony
testimony indicating
indicatingthat
that Defendant
Defendant was
was threatened
11 intimidated by the or intimidated the officers officers nor
northat
that Defendant
Defendant relied
reliedon
onany
anymisrepresentations
misrepresentations or
or promises
promises
12 12 made by made by the the officers. There was
officers. There was no
no testimony
testimony that
that either
either Officer Maurer or Officer Tithingrad Officer Tithingrad
13 1 had their had their weapons weaponsdrawn.
drawn. Both Officer Maurer and Officer Maurer and Officer Officer Tithingrad
Tithingrad testified
testifiedthat
that Defendant
Defendant
14 14 consent for his gave consent his vehicle vehicle to
to be
be searched.
searched. Officer
Officer Maurer
Maurer further
further testified
testified that
that she
she told
told
15 15 that he Defendant that he could withdraw withdraw his consent
consent at
at any
any time
time during
during the
the search
search of
of the
the vehicle, and
and
16 16 shealso that she askedDefendant alsoasked Defendantfor
forconsent
consenttotoopen
openup
upthe
thewallet
walletafter
afterretrieving
retrievingititfrom
from the
thevehicle.
vehicle.
17 17 Although Defendant Although Defendant testified testified that
that he did
did not consent to the search of the vehicle, vehicle, the
the Court
Court notes
18 18 that he that he acknowledged that that he
he goes by different
different names
names and
and that
that he
he knew
knew he might be in trouble
19 19 because he had because he beenchecking notbeen
hadnot checking in
in for
for his
his criminal
criminal cases since his
cases since his son
son passed
passedaway.
away. Thus, in
20 the totality examining the totalityof ofthe
thecircumstances,
circumstances, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that Defendant's
Defendant's consent
consent to
to the
the search
search
21 of his of his vehicle vehicle was
was freely
freely and
and voluntarily
voluntarily given
givenand
and denies
denies Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionto
to Suppress.
Suppress.
22 II// 23 II// 24 II// 25 25 II// 26 II// 21 27 II// 28 II//
Peoplev.v. Askers People Askas Case No. CF0713-23 Decision and Decision and Order
Page 9 oflO Page 10 1 CONCLUSION
2 foregoing reasons, For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby hereby DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress.
Suppress.
3 Parties shall Parties shall return return for
for aa StatUs
Status Hearing
Hearing onFebruary
February5,
5, 2024at10:30 AsDefendant 2024 10:30 a.m. As Defendantremains remains
4 an asserted status, in an status, the the Court hereby sets a Pre-Trial Pre-Trial Conference
Conference for
for February
February13,
13,2024 at
2024 at
5 10:30 a.m. and 10:30 andJury Jury Selection
Selectionand
and Trial for February
Trial for February20,
20,2024
2024 at
at 1:30 p.m.
6 IT IS SO ORDERED this 31st ofJanuary, let day of January, 2024.
7 J
1
I .
8
9
10 HONORABLE VERNON::P.
VEWONP. PEREZ
PEREZ
Judge, Judge, Superior Court of
ofGuam
Guam
11
12
133 1
14 14
15 15
16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20
21
22
23
24 24
25 25
26
27
28
People v. Askers People v. Askas CF0713-23
Case No. CFO'/13-23 Decision and Order
Page 10
10 oflO
of10