People v. Borja

Opinion

!=iLED ~-~ ) ! r "\! j RT

... ~, 7 ~~ c: !

OF GUAM 2 3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case no. CF128-11 ) 4 ) ) 5 v. ) DECISION AND ORDER ) re: Motion to Suppress 6 ) ) ) 8 ) Defendant. ) 9 --------------------------) 10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on November 23,2011. 12

13 The People of Guam were represented by Assistant Attorney General Jonathan R. Luke. The

14 Defendant was represented by Alternate Public Defender John P. Morrison. After considering

15 the matter presented, the court now issues the following decision and order denying Defendant's 16 motion. 17 BACKGROUND 18 On May 28,2010 at approximately 12:00 p.m., Officer Osborne observed a Nissan Sentra, 19 20 being driven by the Defendant, accelerate abruptly at an intersection in Chalan Pago. Officer

21 Osborne then called in the license plate and learned the insurance on the Sentra expired.

22 Therefore, Officer Osborne conducted a stop, but the Defendant did not have a driver's license 23 or documents for the Sentra. Officer Osborne then observed that the Defendant seemed nervous; 24 make strange movements with his hands; exhibited a dry, chapped mouth; and was shaking 25 26 uncontrollably.

After Officer Osborne obtained consent to search the Sentra, Defendant stated, "It's in my DECISION AND ORDER Criminal Case no. CF128-11 1 2 cigarette pack." When Officer Osborne asked for clarification, Defendant stated, "You know

3 what, sir; the ice. It's in the cigarette pack on top of the odometer." Officer Osborne subsequently

4 found a pack of cigarettes that had a straw with crystalline substance in it. The substance tested 5 positive for methamphetamines. As a result, on March 5, 2011, the Defendant was charged with 6 Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a 3rd Degree Felony). On September 1, 7 8 2011, Defendant filed a motion to suppress challenging the basis for Officer Osborne's traffic

9 stop. The People filed an opposition to Defendant's motion on September 9,2011.

11 The court must determine whether Officer Osborne had probable cause or reasonable 12 suspicion to stop the Defendant's car. The People assert that Officer Osborne had probable cause 13 or reasonable suspicion to pull the Defendant over considering that the officer saw the Defendant 14 accelerate abruptly and learned the insurance on the Sentra expired. See United States v. Delfin- 15 16 Colina, 464 F.3d 392 (3rd Cir. 2006) (police may stop cars for traffic violations with probable

17 cause of an articulable suspicion). see also 16 GCA § 19106(b) ("Any person who operates a

18 mother vehicle in Guam and doesnot possess the insurance mandated ... shall be subject to a 19 mandatory fine of $500.") 20 Defendant argues that Officer Osborne did not witness anything that would justify pulling 21 22 him over. More specifically, he argues that Officer Osborne did not know with certainty that the

23 Defendant did not have insurance. The court disagree because the abrupt acceleration and the lack

24 of insurance created probable cause for the stop of the Defendant. 16 GCA § 19106(b) clearly

25 mandates that vehicular insurance is mandated and failure to carry insurance is a crime. Thus, the 26

Page 2 of 3 DECISION AND ORDER Criminal Case no. CF128-11 1 2 court finds that Officer Osborne had probable cause to pull the Defendant over because he had 3 reasonable suspicion that the vehicle was not insured. l 5 For these reasons, the Defendant's motion to suppress is DENIED. Trial setting is set 6 7 before the court on f'" - 2-( I

8 9 SO ORDERED, this 2 day of £dt: 2012.

10 11 '" ~

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 I

22 FEB a~ 2012 23 James R. Borja 24 25 IThe court need not address the factors laid out in Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590,601 26 (1975) because those factors are addressed when suppression is granted.

Page 3 of 3