fl LED SUPERIOC\ COURT 0 .-I U~,L,1-\!Yl '"' I 2023 NOV -8 Ptl 3: 3 2 CLERK OF COURT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ~ BY: ________ t- 4
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0262-22 6 GPD Report Nos. 22-10845 / 22-10855 v. 7 DECISION AND ORDER MATTHEW JOAQUIN BROWN, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 8 DOB: 07/14/1982 TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 9 Defendant. 10
11 INTRODUCTION
12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on August 23, 2023 and 13 September 11, 2023 for hearing on Matthew Joaquin Brown's ("Defendant's") Motion to Suppress 14 Evidence ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney Generals Grant Olan and Heather Zona represent the 15 People of Guam, and Alternate Public Defender Tyler Scott represents Defendant. Having duly 16 considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the 17 following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion. 18 BACKGROUND
19 Defendant stands indicted on charges of Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (as 20 a 3rd Degree Felony), Eluding a Police Officer (as a Misdemeanor), Resisting Arrest (as a 21 Misdemeanor), Reckless Driving ( as a Petty Misdemeanor), and Operating a Vehicle Without a Valid 22 License (as a Violation). See Indictment (May 2, 2022). 23 The charges stem fro1llcan incident on April 22, 2022. While executing a separate warrant for 24 one Janessa Tydingco, Guam Police Department (GPO) Officers observed Defendant's vehicle 25 parked in front of Ms. Tydingco's residence. See Court Recording at I :31 :00 (Aug. 23, 2023). GPD 26 Officers observed that the vehicle did not have front or back license plates and suspected that it 27 contained Ms. Tydingco. Id. at I :30:00-1 :32:00. When Officers approached Defendant's vehicle, he 28 drove off, leading to an erratic high-speed chase. Id. at I :32:00-1 :39:00.
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page 1 of4 I Defendant eventually stopped his vehicle and was arrested on initial suspicion of reckless 2 driving and resisting arrest. Id. at I :39:00-1 :42:00. Defendant was then handcuffed and secured in 3 the back of GPD Officer Manglona's vehicle. Id. at I :58:00. Defendant was read his Miranda rights 4 inunediately upon his placement into the vehicle. Id. at 2:33 :00. During initial questioning, 5 Defendant claimed his name was "Rico Cruz". Id. at I :41 :00. GPD Officers believed this was a false 6 alias, as the name "Rico Cruz" did not appear in either their driver's license or vehicle title registration 7 databases. Id. at 2:00:30. Officers then searched Defendant's vehicle for identifying information, 8 instead finding methamphetamine and other illegal drug paraphernalia within. Id. at I :43 :00.
9 Defendant now seeks to prevent introduction of all physical evidence seized during that police IO stop. See Motion at 3-4 (Jul. 18, 2023). Defendant claims the search of his vehicle was 11 unconstitutional, being done without a warrant and not qualifying for the warrantless exception as a 12 "search incident to arrest". Id. at 4-6. 13 The People oppose Defendant's Motion, claiming the search was lawfully done incident to 14 arrest. See Opposition at 2-3 (Jul. 19, 2023). Even if the Court does not apply an exception to the 15 warrant requirement, the People still believe the evidence is admissible because it would inevitably 16 be discovered under GPD's vehicle impounding practices. Id. at 2-3. 17 The Court held a hearing on August 23, 2023 and September 11, 2023. After hearing the 18 arguments of the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. Preliminary Rules: 21 The Fourth Amendment provides that people should be free from unreasonable 22 searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. Evidence obtained from a Fourth 23 Amendment violation is inadmissible. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. I, at 12 (1968). 24 II. GPD's seizure and arrest of Defendant was constitutional, because the Officers had 25 probable cause to believe Defendant had committed a crime. 26 Seizures can take the form of both investigative stops and formal arrests, as in either 27 situation a reasonable person would not feel able to decline the Officer's requests or otherwise 28 inunediately terminate such encounters. See People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam I ,r 17. For
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page 2 of 4 1 investigative stops, police may briefly detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion of
2 unlawful activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. !, at 10 (1968). For formal arrests, police
3 must have "probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime". Id. at 10. Both
4 "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are judged by a totality of the circumstances,
5 and those beliefs must be based on "specific reasonable inferences" supported by articulable
6 facts rather than merely inadequate guesswork. Id. at 27.
7 Here, GPD Officers had reasonable suspicion of Defendant's criminal activity
8 justifying their initial investigative stop of Defendant. GPD Officer Shaun King testified that
9 he observed the Defendant operating a vehicle without its license plates. See Court Recording
10 at 1:30:00-1 :32:00 (Aug. 23, 2023). GPD Officers also believed the vehicle contained Ms.
11 Tydingco based on its apparent patrolling of her residence. Id. at 1:30:00-1 :32:00. The GPD
12 Officers had reasonable suspicion of Defendant's criminal activity, legally justifying their
13 initial investigative stop of Defendant.
14 The GPD Officers also had probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a
15 crime, justifying their formal arrest of Defendant. As explained, GPD Officers observed
16 Defendant operating a motor vehicle without its license plates. Id. at 1:30:00-1 :32:00.
17 Furthermore, Defendant led police on an erratic high-speed car chase, during which he broke
18 several traffic laws. Id. at 1:32:00-1 :39:00. The Officers had probable cause to believe
19 Defendant had committed several crimes, legally justifying their arrest of Defendant.
20 III. GPD's warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle was constitutional as a search incident
21 to arrest.
22 Like seizures, searches must too be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Searches
23 implicate an individual's Fourth Amendment rights when they cover areas in which the
24 individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". See Oliver v. U.S. 466 U.S. 170, at 171
25 (1984). If the individual does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, police officers must
26 generally obtain a warrant before conducting a valid search. See People v. Chargualaf, 2001
27 Guam 11114. Warrantless searches are otherwise presumed unreasonable. See Katz v. U.S.,
28 389 U.S. 347,357 (1967).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page3 of 4 ;
1 However, there are several situations where police may conduct a search without first
2 obtaining a warrant. One such exception is a "search incident to a lawful arrest". See Arizona
3 v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332,338 (2009). Under that exception, "police may search a vehicle incident
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
fl LED SUPERIOC\ COURT 0 .-I U~,L,1-\!Yl '"' I 2023 NOV -8 Ptl 3: 3 2 CLERK OF COURT 3 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM ~ BY: ________ t- 4
5 PEOPLE OF GUAM, Criminal Case No. CF0262-22 6 GPD Report Nos. 22-10845 / 22-10855 v. 7 DECISION AND ORDER MATTHEW JOAQUIN BROWN, DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION 8 DOB: 07/14/1982 TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE 9 Defendant. 10
11 INTRODUCTION
12 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on August 23, 2023 and 13 September 11, 2023 for hearing on Matthew Joaquin Brown's ("Defendant's") Motion to Suppress 14 Evidence ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney Generals Grant Olan and Heather Zona represent the 15 People of Guam, and Alternate Public Defender Tyler Scott represents Defendant. Having duly 16 considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the 17 following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion. 18 BACKGROUND
19 Defendant stands indicted on charges of Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (as 20 a 3rd Degree Felony), Eluding a Police Officer (as a Misdemeanor), Resisting Arrest (as a 21 Misdemeanor), Reckless Driving ( as a Petty Misdemeanor), and Operating a Vehicle Without a Valid 22 License (as a Violation). See Indictment (May 2, 2022). 23 The charges stem fro1llcan incident on April 22, 2022. While executing a separate warrant for 24 one Janessa Tydingco, Guam Police Department (GPO) Officers observed Defendant's vehicle 25 parked in front of Ms. Tydingco's residence. See Court Recording at I :31 :00 (Aug. 23, 2023). GPD 26 Officers observed that the vehicle did not have front or back license plates and suspected that it 27 contained Ms. Tydingco. Id. at I :30:00-1 :32:00. When Officers approached Defendant's vehicle, he 28 drove off, leading to an erratic high-speed chase. Id. at I :32:00-1 :39:00.
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page 1 of4 I Defendant eventually stopped his vehicle and was arrested on initial suspicion of reckless 2 driving and resisting arrest. Id. at I :39:00-1 :42:00. Defendant was then handcuffed and secured in 3 the back of GPD Officer Manglona's vehicle. Id. at I :58:00. Defendant was read his Miranda rights 4 inunediately upon his placement into the vehicle. Id. at 2:33 :00. During initial questioning, 5 Defendant claimed his name was "Rico Cruz". Id. at I :41 :00. GPD Officers believed this was a false 6 alias, as the name "Rico Cruz" did not appear in either their driver's license or vehicle title registration 7 databases. Id. at 2:00:30. Officers then searched Defendant's vehicle for identifying information, 8 instead finding methamphetamine and other illegal drug paraphernalia within. Id. at I :43 :00.
9 Defendant now seeks to prevent introduction of all physical evidence seized during that police IO stop. See Motion at 3-4 (Jul. 18, 2023). Defendant claims the search of his vehicle was 11 unconstitutional, being done without a warrant and not qualifying for the warrantless exception as a 12 "search incident to arrest". Id. at 4-6. 13 The People oppose Defendant's Motion, claiming the search was lawfully done incident to 14 arrest. See Opposition at 2-3 (Jul. 19, 2023). Even if the Court does not apply an exception to the 15 warrant requirement, the People still believe the evidence is admissible because it would inevitably 16 be discovered under GPD's vehicle impounding practices. Id. at 2-3. 17 The Court held a hearing on August 23, 2023 and September 11, 2023. After hearing the 18 arguments of the parties, the Court took the matter under advisement. 19 DISCUSSION 20 I. Preliminary Rules: 21 The Fourth Amendment provides that people should be free from unreasonable 22 searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. Evidence obtained from a Fourth 23 Amendment violation is inadmissible. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. I, at 12 (1968). 24 II. GPD's seizure and arrest of Defendant was constitutional, because the Officers had 25 probable cause to believe Defendant had committed a crime. 26 Seizures can take the form of both investigative stops and formal arrests, as in either 27 situation a reasonable person would not feel able to decline the Officer's requests or otherwise 28 inunediately terminate such encounters. See People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam I ,r 17. For
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page 2 of 4 1 investigative stops, police may briefly detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion of
2 unlawful activity. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. !, at 10 (1968). For formal arrests, police
3 must have "probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime". Id. at 10. Both
4 "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are judged by a totality of the circumstances,
5 and those beliefs must be based on "specific reasonable inferences" supported by articulable
6 facts rather than merely inadequate guesswork. Id. at 27.
7 Here, GPD Officers had reasonable suspicion of Defendant's criminal activity
8 justifying their initial investigative stop of Defendant. GPD Officer Shaun King testified that
9 he observed the Defendant operating a vehicle without its license plates. See Court Recording
10 at 1:30:00-1 :32:00 (Aug. 23, 2023). GPD Officers also believed the vehicle contained Ms.
11 Tydingco based on its apparent patrolling of her residence. Id. at 1:30:00-1 :32:00. The GPD
12 Officers had reasonable suspicion of Defendant's criminal activity, legally justifying their
13 initial investigative stop of Defendant.
14 The GPD Officers also had probable cause to believe that Defendant committed a
15 crime, justifying their formal arrest of Defendant. As explained, GPD Officers observed
16 Defendant operating a motor vehicle without its license plates. Id. at 1:30:00-1 :32:00.
17 Furthermore, Defendant led police on an erratic high-speed car chase, during which he broke
18 several traffic laws. Id. at 1:32:00-1 :39:00. The Officers had probable cause to believe
19 Defendant had committed several crimes, legally justifying their arrest of Defendant.
20 III. GPD's warrantless search of Defendant's vehicle was constitutional as a search incident
21 to arrest.
22 Like seizures, searches must too be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Searches
23 implicate an individual's Fourth Amendment rights when they cover areas in which the
24 individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". See Oliver v. U.S. 466 U.S. 170, at 171
25 (1984). If the individual does have a reasonable expectation of privacy, police officers must
26 generally obtain a warrant before conducting a valid search. See People v. Chargualaf, 2001
27 Guam 11114. Warrantless searches are otherwise presumed unreasonable. See Katz v. U.S.,
28 389 U.S. 347,357 (1967).
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page3 of 4 ;
1 However, there are several situations where police may conduct a search without first
2 obtaining a warrant. One such exception is a "search incident to a lawful arrest". See Arizona
3 v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332,338 (2009). Under that exception, "police may search a vehicle incident
4 to a recent occupant's arrest only if the arrestee is within reaching distance of the passenger
5 compartment at the time of the search or it is reasonable to believe the vehicle contains
6 evidence of the offense of arrest." Id. at 351.
7 Here, Defendant had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his car, necessitating a
8 warrant for most searches. However, because Defendant was lawfully arrested (see above),
9 there is a potential "search incident to arrest" exception. GPD may not invoke the first Gant
10 prong because Defendant was secured in Officer Manglona' s vehicle at the time of the search.
11 However, GPD may invoke the second Gant prong because the Officers developed
12 probable cause to believe that Defendant had given them a false name. GPD Officers searched
13 both the driver's license and vehicle title registration databases for the name "Rico Cruz" but
14 found no results. See Court Recording at 2:00:30 (Aug. 23, 2023); See also People v. Boissard
15 5 Cal.App.4th 972, 979 (1992) (probable cause to arrest for false identification offense exists
16 when the name given is absent from identification systems). Therefore, GPD was lawfully
17 allowed to search Defendant's vehicle for identifying information because such evidence is
18 relevant to the offenses he was arrested for.
19 CONCLUSION
20 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. Defendant's initial
21 seizure and formal arrest were both constitutional because GPD had probable cause to believe
22 Defendant had committed a crime. The search of Defendant's vehicle qualifies as a "search incident
23 to lawful arrest" and physical evidence seized during that search is therefore admissible.
27 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III 28 Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam
Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress Evidence CF0262-22, People of Guam v. Matthew Joaquin Brown Page 4 of 4 SERVICE VIA E-MABL I acknowledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed Io:
/%, 4/Q
Date:/./ Time:3: 'l,_ /MM' (`a4<.é¢ 6/\ Deputy Clerk, Supencr Chun of Guam