F I' 1L CLERK CLERK OF OF.COURT l
2 zazsswzs
3 SUPERiOR. CGURT I SUPERIOR COURT \.,
IF GUAM OF GUAM 4
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 6 )) CRIMINAL CRIMINALCASE CASE no. NO.CF0059-25 CF0059-25 7 PEOPLE OFOF GUAM, GUAM, ) ) GPD GPO Report No. No. 25-02071 25-02071 ) 8 8 vs. ) )) 9 9 )) DECISION DECISION & ORDER ) RE. DEFENDANT CHIGUINA'S RE. DEFENDANT CHIGUINA'S 10 JONOVIN JERMAINE MAURER MAURER MOTION TO TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE SUPPRESS CHIGUINA, )) MOTION AND AND DEFENDANT'S DEFENDANT'S JOINDER IN 11 DOB: DOB:04/26/1999 04/26/1999 )) DEFENDANT JONOVIN JERMAINE ) MAURER MAURER CHIGUINA'S CHIGUINA'S MOTION TO 12 12 TYRONE KYLE KYLE QUINATA, )) SUPPRESS EVIDENCE EVIDENCE 13 13 DOB: DOB: 10/27/1995 10/27/1995 ) ) 14 ________________ Defendants. ))) Defendants. > 15
16 16 This matter came came before before the the Honorable Honorable Alberto Alberto E. Tolentino on on August August 21, 21, 2025, 2025, for aa
17 17 Motion Motion Hearing. Hearing. Defendants Defendants Jonovin Jonovin Jermaine Maurer Chiguina Jermaine Maurer Chiguina and and Tyrone Tyrone Kyle Kyle Qui rata Quinata 18 ("Defendants") were present with counsel counsel Alternate Public Defender Defender Tyler Scott and Public 19 Defender Stephen Stephen Hattori, Hattori, respectively. respectively. Assistant Assistant Attorney General General Samuel Samuel Alexander Alexander was 20 20
21 21 present for the People of of Guam ("People"). The court addressed Guam ("People"). DefendantChiguina's addressed Defendant Chiguina'sMotion Motion
22 22 to Suppress Evidenceand Suppress Evidence andDefendant Defendant Quinta'sJoinder Quinata's Joiner in in the the Motion Motion to to Suppress. Following Suppress. Following 23 23 the hearing, hearing, the court took the the matter matter under advisement pursuantto advisement pursuant to Supreme SupremeCourt Court of of Guam 24 24 Administrative Rule06-001, Administrative Rule 06-001,CVR CVR7.l(e)(6)(A) 7.l(e)(6)(A) and and CRl.1 CRl.l ofofthe theLocal LocalRules Rules of ofthe the Superior Superior 25 25 Court of of Guam. Guam. Having Having duly dulyconsidered considered the the parties' parties' briefings, briefings, oral oralarguments, arguments, and and the the 26 26
27 27 applicable law, the court applicable law, court now issues issues this Decision Decision and and Order Order GRANTING the Defendant's Defendant's
28 Motion Motion to to Suppress Evidence. Suppress Evidence.
Decision Decision & & Order OrderRe. Re. Defendant DefendantChiguina's Chiguina'sMotion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine JermaineMaurer MaurerChiguina's Chiguina'sMotion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People v. v. Chiguana Chiguana & & Qui rata, Quinata, CF0059-25 Page Page 1 of 13 13 BACKGROUND 1
2 A. Allegations Allegations against against Defendants Chiguina and Defendants Chiguina and Quinata rata in the the Magistrate's Magistrate's Complaint 3
While While responding responding to to aa report report of ofaagrass grass fire fireon onMt. Mt.Larnlarn LamlamononJanuary January 24, 24, 2025, 2025, Guam Guam 4
5 Police Department Department ("GPD") Officers Officersnoticed noticedDefendants Defendants Chiguina Chiguina and and Qui rata along Quinata along aa
6 6 roadway roadway in the surrounding area.See surrounding area. SeeMagistrate's Magistrate's Compl, Con pl, Affidavit Affidavit (Jan. (Jan. 25, 25, 2025). 2025). Upon aa 7 search search of Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's person person and and additional search of additional search of the nearby nearby area, area, officers 8 uncovered a cigarette pack, pack, lighter, "Sikh "Sika Whistle," Whistle,"deer deercarcass, carcass, two two shotgun shotgun shells, shells, and and a 12- 12- r 9 9
10 gauge Remington Remington shotgun. Id. shotgun. Id.
11 1 Defendant Chiguinawas Defendant Chiguina was later later charged chargedvia via Indictment Indictmentwith withPOSSESSION POSSESSION OF OF A
12 12 FIREARM FIREARM WITHOUT WITHOUT FIREARMS FIREARMS IDENTIFICATION IDENTIFICATION (As (As aa3rd 3rdDegree Degree Felony) Felony) and and 13 13 PROTECTING PROTECTING WILD WILD ANIMALS ANIMALS(POACHING) (As(As (POACHING) a Misdemeanor). a Misdemeanor).See SeeIndictment Indictment (Feb. (Feb. 14 14 13, 2025). In the 13, 2025). the same sameIndictment, Indictment,Defendant DefendantQuinata Qui rata was was charged charged with with WILD PROTECTINGWILD PROTECTING 15 15
16 16 ANIMALS ANIMALS (POACHING) (POACHING)(As (Asa aMisdemeanor) andVIOLATION Misdemeanor) and VIOLATION OF OF A A COURT ORDER (As
17 17 Misdemeanor). Id. a Misdemeanor). Id. 18 18 B. B. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Motion to Chiguina's Motion Suppressand to Suppress andDefendant Defendant Quinta'sJoinder Quinata's Joiner 19 19 In anticipation anticipation for trial, trial, Defendant Chiguina filed Defendant Chiguina filed a Motion Motion toto Suppress Suppress Evidence Evidence 20
("Motion ("MotiontotoSuppress") Suppress")arguing arguingthat that GPD GPDOfficers Officersdetained detainedhim himwithout withoutreasonable reasonable suspicion suspicion 21
22 22 that a crime was committed committed or or about about to to be be committed. committed. See See Def.'s 's Mot. Mot. Suppress Suppress (June 2, 2025).
23 23 The Defendant The Defendant characterizes this detention characterizes this detentionas asaaviolation violationof of 88 GCA GCA §§ 30.30 30.30 under Gualn's Stop under Guam's Stop 24 24 Id atat55--6.6.AsAsa aresult, and Frisk Act. Id result,the theDefendant Defendantmoves movesthis this court court to to suppress suppress all evidence 25 obtained in violation violation of ofhis his Fourth Fourth Amendment rights. Id. at 6. 26 26
28 28
Decision Decision &&Order OrderRe. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People v. v. Chiguana & & Quinata, rata, CF0059-25 Page Page 2 of of 13 13 Defendant Qui ratasubsequently Defendant Quinata subsequentlyfiled filedhis hisJoinder Joiner in in Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motion to to I
2 Suppress ("Joiner") in Suppress ("Joinder") whichhe in which healso also argues argues that that he he was was "held "held beyond beyond the the 15 15 minute minute limit limit
3 imposed by 8 imposed by 8 §§ 30.30 30.30 without withouthis hisconsent." consent."Joinder Joiner (July (July 29, 29, 2025). 2025). 4 In the People's People's Opposition Opposition to the Motion Motion to to Suppress ("Opposition"), the Suppress ("Opposition"), the People People argued argued 5 that the Defendants' that the Defendants' detentions detentions did not not exceed exceed the the permissible permissible duration duration based based on on "suspicious "suspicious 6
7 circumstances [that] gave the officers circumstances [that] officers probable probable cause cause for arrest, arrest, even before uncovering the deer
8 carcass andshotgun." carcass and shotgun."Ppl.'s PpL's Opp'n Opp'n (June (June 16, 2025). 9 C. Defendants Chiguina'sand Defendants Chiguina's andQuinata's Quinta's Motion Hearing 10 10 At At the the evidentiary evidentiary hearing hearing on the the Motion to to Suppress ("Motion Hearing"), Suppress ("Motion Hearing"), the the court court 11 heard testimony heard testimony from three three GPD Officers Officers involved involvedininthe theevents eventsleading leadingup up toto the the Defendants Defendants' 12 12
13 1 arrests on January arrests on January24, 24,2025: 2025:GPD GPD Officer Officer Mark Mark Santos Mangiliman,GPD Santos Mangiliman; GPD Officer Officer Rey
14 14 Vermont Vermond Braga Braga Mendiola, Mendiola; and and GPD Officer Officer Jerome Jerome Andrew. See See generally generally Mot. Hr'g Hr'gMims. Mins. at at 15 15 10:13:23 --. 11:19:15AM(Aug. 10:13:23 -11:19:15AM (Aug. 21, 2025). 16 16 At At the the end end of ofquestioning, questioning, the the Defendants Defendants argued that GPD argued that GPD Officers seized them in 17 17 violation of violation ofGuam's Guam's Stop Stop and and Frisk Rule of offifteen fifteen(15) (15)minutes minutes as as they they were were detained detained without 18 18
19 19 reasonable articulablesuspicion reasonable articulable suspicionatat2:43 2:43a.m. a.m.See SeeMot. Mot.Hr'g Hr'g Mims. at 11:20:13 Mins. at 11:20:13-- 27:07AM.
20 Because of of this, this, both both Defendants Defendants seek seek the the suppression of shotgun suppression of shotgun shells, shells, the the shotgun, shotgun, the deer 21 carcass, andany carcass, and anyincriminating incriminating statements statementsasasaaresult resultof ofthe theunlawful unlawfuldetentions. detentions.Id. Id.The The People 22 oppose, stating that there was more than enough information information to detain detain the the Defendants, Defendants; and and that that 23
24 the physical the physical evidence evidence found found would have have been been inevitably inevitably discovered by by officers officers at at the scene. Id. scene. Id. 24
25 at 11:27:08 11:27:08 -- 29:05AM. 29:05AM. The Thecourt courtthen thentook tookthe thematter matterunder under advisement. advisement. Id. Id. at at 11:32:51 11:32:51 - 26 33:15AM. 27 27 \\ 28
Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motionto toSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motion to toSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People People v. v. Chiguana Chiguana && Qui rata,CF0059-25 Quinata, Page Page 3 3 of of13 13 DISCUSSION 1
2 The Fourth Amendment Amendment provides provides "the "the right of ofthe the people people to to be be secure secure in in their their persons, persons,
3 3 houses, papers, and houses, papers, and effects, effects, against against unreasonable searchesand unreasonable searches andseizures, seizures,[[and] shall not and] shall not be 4 4 violated, and violated, and no no warrants warrants shall issue, but upon issue, but upon probable probable cause, cause, supported supportedby by oath oathor or affirmation, affirmation, 5 and particularly describing and particularly theplace describingthe place to to be be searched, searched, and andthe the persons personsor orthings thingsto to be be seized." seized." 6
7 U.S. Const. Const. Amend. Amend. W. IV.The TheFourth FourthAlnendment's Amendment'sprotections protectionsagainst againstunreasonable unreasonable searches searches 7
8 and Guam through and seizures apply to Guam through §§ 1421b(c) 1421b(c) of of the the Organic Organic Act Act of of Guam. Guam. See See People v. v. 9 Yerten, Yerten, 2021 Guam 8 'H 17(citing ,i 17 (citing People v. v. Johnson, Johnson, 1997 1997 Guam Guam 99 114). ,i 4). 10 A. Guam Guam Police Police Department Department Officers Officers seized seized Defendants Defendants Quinata rata and Chiguina Chiguina 11 11 within the within the meaning of the Fourth Fourth Amendment at 2:43 a.m.
12 12 Both Defendants argue that Defendants argue thatGPD GPD unlawfully unlawfully seized seized them them for for more than than the the fifteen 13 minutes allowed under minutes allowed under88GCA GCA §§ 30.30, beginning when 30.30; beginning when Officer Officer Mangiliman Mangiliman made made contact with contact with 14 14
both Defendants Chiguina and Defendants Chiguina and Quinata Qui rata at at 2:40 2:40 a.m. a.m. See See Def. Def.'s 's Mot. Suppress at 5 (June Suppress at (June 2, 15 15 16 16 see also 2025); see 2025), Joinder(July also Joiner firstissue Thefirst 2025).The 29,2025). (July29, issuethe thecourt courtmust must consider consider is is whether whether the the
17 17 Defendants were seized seized within within the the meaning of ofthe the Fourth Amendment. Amendment. 18 18 The United States Supreme SupremeCourt Cotuthas haslong longheld heldthat that"[a] "[a] person personhas hasbeen been'seized' 'seized' within 19 19 the meaning meaning of the Fourth Amendment Amendment only only if, in in view viewofofall allofofthe thecircumstances circumstancessurrounding surrounding 20 20 the the incident, reasonableperson incident, a reasonable personwould wouldhave havebelieved believed that thathe hewas wasnot notfree freeto to leave." leave." People v. v. 21
22 22 Cunt Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12 ,i 1]21 21 (quoting (quoting United States v. v. Mendenhall, Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554 (1980)).
23 23 For instance, reasonableperson instance, a reasonable personwould wouldnot notbelieve believe they they are are free free to to leave through through a police 24 . . . .. officer's use officer's use of ofphysical physical force force or or show showofofauthority authority to to restrict restrict a person's ability ability to to walk away. away. 25 25 See See People v. v. Chargualaf, Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1 ,i1]21. 21. 26
27 Defendant Chiguina states Defendant Chiguina statesin in his his Motion to to Suppress Suppress that that "[n]o "[n Jo reasonable reasonable person person
28 surrounded byfive surrounded by five officers, being being questioned questioned and and ordered to produce produce items from his his pockets, pockets,
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina'sMotion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People People v. Chiguana & Qui rata, CF0059-25 Quinata, CF0059-25 Page 4 of Page4 of 13 13 would have have felt free to to leave." leave."Def.'s Def.' sMot. Mot.Suppress Suppress atat 5.5. The ThePeople Peopleoppose, oppose, indicating indicating that that 1
2 "suspicious circumstancesgave "suspicious circumstances gavethe theofficers officers probable probable cause cause for for arrest, arrest, even even before before the deer deer
3 carcass andshotgun." carcass and shotgun."Ppl.'s PpI.'s Opp'n at 4. 4 As the the first first officer officer on on scene, scene, GPD GPDOfficer OfficerMangiliman Mangiliman made made contact contact with with the the 5 Defendants Defendants atat 2:40 2:40 a.m. a.m. to to interview them together. interview them together. See See Mot. Mot. Hr'g Hr'g Mins. Mins. atat10:18:15 10:18:15 - 6
7 21:38AM. Although Although they were free free to to leave, leave, Officer OfficerMangiliman Mangilimandid didnot notmention mention this this to either either
8 Defendant. Defendant. Id. When When the the Officer OfficerMendiola Mendiolaarrived arrivedon onscene sceneatat2:43 2:43 a.m., a.m., both both Defendants Defendants were 9 still together. Id. at 10:21:47 together. Id. 10:21:47 -- 22:43AM; 22:43AM, see also also Def.'s Def.'s Mot. Mot. Suppress, Ex. B. Suppress, Ex. B. While While Officer 10 10 Mangiliman Mangiliman stated that his stated that his patrol patrol car car was was parked behind the parked behind the Defendants' Defendants' vehicle vehicle when he 11 arrived arrived on scene, he also scene, he also testified that nothing prevented that nothing prevented them themfrom from driving driving forward forward if if they they 12 12
13 chose to leave in in their their vehicle. vehicle. See Mot.Hr'g See Mot. Hr'gMims. Mins.atat10:29: 10:29:10 10 - 29:25AM.
14 14 he was not the Although he the detaining detaining or arresting arresting officer for for either either Defendant, Defendant, Officer 15 Mangiliman Mangiliman testified testified that that at at the time Officer OfficerAndrew Andrewfound foundthe theshotgun shotgun shells, shells, both both Defendants Defendants 16 16 were not flee free to to leave. leave. See See Mot. Mot.Hr'g Hr'gMims. Mins.atat10:26:36 10:26:36 -.- 26:56AM. 26:56AM. As As the the detaining detaining and and 17 17 arresting officer for arresting officer for Defendant Defendant Chiguina, Chiguina, Officer Andrew testified testified that he was that he was not not free free to to leave 18 18
19 19 at 3:20 3:20 a.m., a.m.; when the two two shotgun shotgun shells shells were uncovered uncovered from Chiguna's Chiguna's pocket. Id. at pocket. Id. at
20 11:14:30 11:14:30 -- 15:20AM, 15:20AM; see also also Def.'s 's Mot. Mot. Suppress, Suppress, Ex. Ex. D. D. As Asthe thedetaining detainingand and arresting arresting 21 officer officer for for Defendant Defendant Qui rata, Officer Mendiola Quinata, Mendiola testified testified that that he was not Hee free to leave leave at at 2:43 2:43 22 a.m., a.m.; well before 3:20 a.m. Id. at 3:20 a.m. at 10:45:59 .- 47:31AM. 10:45:59-47:3 lAM. 23 23
24 When reviewing the the circumstances surroundingDefendant circumstances surrounding DefendantQuinata's Quinta's seizure, seizure, Officer
25 Mendiola testified that that he escorted escorted him away from from Defendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina so so that they can be that they 26 interviewed separately. See Mot. Mot. Hr'g Mins. separately. See Mins. at at 10:43:51 10:43:51 - 44:12AM. 44:12AM. When Whenasked asked whether whether he 27 informed Defendant Qui ratathat Defendant Quinata thathehewas wasfree freetotoleave leave at at 2:43 2:43 a.m., a.m.,Officer Officer Mendiola testified 28 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motionto to Suppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Chiguina's Motion Maurer Chiguina's Motion to to Suppress Evidence Suppress Evidence People v. v. Chiguana & Qui rata, Quinata, CF0059-25 Page 5 of of 13 13 that he did not, because that he the officers because the officers detained detained the the Defendants Defendants so that that they could could conduct conduct their l
2 2 investigation. Id. at investigation. Id. at 10:44:16 10:44:16 - - 44:35AM. 44:35AM. When When asked asked why why Officers Officers Mangiliman's Mangiliman's and and
3 Mendiola's Mendiola's interviews interviewswith withthe theDefendants Defendantslasted lastedseventeen seventeen(17) (17)minutes, minutes,between between2:43 2:43a.1;n. a.m. 4 and approximately3:00 and approximately 3:00a.m., a.m.,Officer OfficerMendiola Mendiola testified testified that thatboth bothofficers officerswere were trying trying "to "to get 5 the Defendants' Defendants' stories straight" straight" regarding regarding hiking hiking up up Mt. Mt. Lamlam Lamlarnat atthis thistime. time.Id. Id at 10:46:24 10:46:24 -- 6
7 47:05AM. Additionally, Additionally, the the officers officers needed needed more more time time to to run run the the Defendants' Defendants' names names for open open
8 cases and and warrants warrantsin intheir theirsystem. system.Id. Id
9 Officer Officer Mendiola Mendiola advised advised Defendant Defendant Qui rata of his Quinata his Miranda Miranda rights at at 3:05 3 :05 a.m. a.m. after 10 10 Officer Officer Andrew Andrewinformed informedhim himthat that he he found found aa shotgun shotgun and bag bag beside beside the the Defendants' Defendants' vehicle. vehicle. 11 II 's Mot. See Def.'s Mot. Suppress, Suppress, Ex. Ex. B. B. However, However,Officer OfficerMendiola Mendioladid didnot notarrest arrestDefendant DefendantQui Quinata rata 12 12
13 1 until 3:40 a.m. a.m.Id. Id
14 14 When looking looking at at the the circumstances circumstances surround Defendant Chiguina's surround Defendant Chiguina's seizure, seizure, Officer 15 Mendiola testified that he was not free to that he to leave leaveatat2:43 2:43 a.m. a.m. because because of ofDefendant Defendant Quinta's Quinta's 16 16 warrant in warrant in an an unrelated unrelatedcase. case.See SeeMot. Mot. Hr'g Hr'g Mims. Mins. at at 10:51:54 10:51:54 -- 52:45AM. During During Defendant Defendant 17 17 Chiguina's interview interview with with Officer OfficerAndrew, Andrew,he heinstructed instructedDefendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina to to empty empty his right 18
19 19 pocket after reaching pocket after for itit at around reachingfor 3:05 a.m. around 3:05 a.m. See See Def.'s Def.'s Mot. Mot. Suppress, Ex. B. Suppress, Ex. B. It is is
20 20 noteworthy noteworthy that this instruction that this occurred after instruction occurred after an an initial initial request request for Defendant Defendant Chiguina to 21 empty his pockets empty his pockets when when Officer Officer Andrew Andrew noticed noticed remaining remainingitems itemsinin his his pocket. pocket.Id. Id In In the the 22 Motion Motion Hearing, Hearing, Officer Officer Andrew Andrew testified testified that that he he had had done done so because of the because of possibility of a the possibility 23 23 24 weapon on the Defendant's person at three three in the morning. morning. See See Mot. Hr'g Hr'gMims. Mins. at at 11:01:05 11:01:05 - 24
25 01:32AM. After After uncovering uncovering the the two two shotgun shotgun shells from his pocket, pocket, Officer Officer Andrew Andrew requested requested
26 26 assistance from Officer assistance from Officer A.J. Fejeran Fejeran to remain remain with with Chiguina Chiguina while while he he checked checked the area for the 27 shotgun. See Def. shotgun. See Def.'s 's Mot. Suppress, Ex. B. Although Suppress, Ex. Although Officer Officer Andrew Andrew states states that that he he advised advised 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motionto to Suppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Chiguina's Motion Maurer Chiguina's Motion to to Suppress Evidence Suppress Evidence People v. Chiguana & Qui rata, CF0059-25 Quinata, Page Page 6 of of 13 13 Chiguina of ofhis Miranda rights at about about 3:20 a.m., he did not arrest arrest him him until until 3:40 3:40 a.m. a.m.See SeeMot. Mot. 1
2 2 Hr'g Hr'gMims. Mins. at 11:17:40 11:17:40 -- 18:32AM. 18:32AM. By By3:20 3:20 a.m., a.m., Officer OfficerAndrew Andrewhad hadalready alreadyconducted conducted aa pat-
3 down down of ofDefendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina and placed him him in in handcuffs. handcuffs.See SeeDef. Def.'s Mot. Suppress, Ex. B. Suppress, Ex. 4 Although it it could could be inferred inferred that a reasonable reasonableperson personwould wouldstill stillhave havefelt felt free Hee to to leave 5 despite their compliance compliance with with an officer's officer's requests requests to follow followhim himto tohis hispatrol patrolcar car and and empty empty his 6 7 pockets, a subsequent instructionto subsequent instruction to empty a pocket and later later request request for assistance from another 7
8 officer officerto toremain remain with withsuch such person person to conduct a check of of the area, area, would would have have begun begunthe thefifteen- fifteen-
9 9 minute clock. Looking Looking at the minute clock. the totality totality of ofDefendant Defendant Quinta's Quinata'sand andDefendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's 10 . circumstances, no circumstances, no reasonable reasonable person person would would have have felt free to leave leave at at 2:43 a.m. 11 11
B. Even EvenififGPD GPDOfficers Officershad hadreasonable reasonablearticulable articulablesuspicion suspicion to to detain detain Defendants Defendants 12 12 Chiguina and Qui rata, their detentions and Quinata, their detentions went beyond beyond the fifteen fifteen (15) minutes (15) minutes 13 allowed under 88 GCA allowed under GCA §§30.30. 30.30.
14 14 Under Under Guam's Guam's Stop Stop and and Frisk Frisk Act, aa peace peace officer officer may maydetain detain any any person person "under "under 15 15 . . . . . . . . . circumstances which reasonably circumstances which reasonably indicate indicate that that such suchperson personhas hascommitted, committed,isis committing commlttlng or is 16 about to commit about to commit aa criminal criminal offense." offense." 8 8 GCA GCA§§30. Additionally, this 30.10. Additionally, this Act Actstates states that: that: 17
Detention Detention pursuant pursuant to to §§ 30.10 30.10 shall shall be be for for the the purpose of ascertaining purpose of the identity ascertaining the identity 18 18 of of the the person person detained detained andand the thecircumstances circumstances surrounding surrounding his his presence presence abroad abroad 19 which lead the the officer officer to to believe believethat that he he had had committed, committed, was was committing, committing, oror was was about about toto commit a criminal offense, but but such shall not such person shall not be be compelled to 20 answer anyany inquiry inquiryofof the the peace peaceofficer. officer. 21 8 GCA §§30.20. 8 GCA 30.20. However, However,aaperson's person'sdetention detentionshall shall not not be be "longer "longerthan thanisisreasonably reasonably necessary necessary 22 to effect the the purposes of that section, and in no event longer longer than fifteen (15) minutes." 88 GCA fifteen (15) GCA §§ 23
24 30.30 (emphasis added). 30.30 (emphasis added). Further, Further,"[s]uch "[s]uch detention detention shall shall not not extend extend beyond beyond the the place place where where it 24
25 25 effected or the immediate was first effected immediatevicinity vicinity thereof." Id. When When analyzing the legality of of seizures, seizures,
26 26 such as as detentions detentions under underGuam's Guam's Stop Stop and and Frisk Frisk Act, Act, the court court utilizes utilizes the the same same standard standard of 27 .. . . . . reasonable suspicion reasonable susplclon articulated articulated in in the the United Court case Unlted States Supreme Court Terry v. case Terry v. Ohio. Ohio. See See 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer MaurerChiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People v. Chiguana & Qui rata, CF0059-25 Quinata, Page Page 7 of of 13 13 People v. v. Tamar, Taman, 2013 2013 Guam 22 ,r1]21. Guam 22 21.In In Terry, Terry, the Court found that "reasonable "reasonable suspicion" suspicion" 1
2 existed: existed:
3 [W]here [W]hereaapolice policeofficer officerobserves observesunusual unusualconduct conduct which which leads leads him him reasonably reasonably to conclude in light of ofhis his experience experience that that criminal activity activity may may bebe afoot afootand and that that the 4 persons persons with whom he is is dealing dealing may may bebearmed armed and and presently presently dangerous, dangerous, where 5 in the course course of investigating investigating this this behavior behavior he identifies identifies himself himself asas aa policeman policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of stages of the the 6 encounter serves serves toto dispel dispel his his reasonable reasonablefearfearfor for his his own own oror others' others' safety.... 7 Terry v. v. Ohio, Ohio, 392 392 U.S. U.S. 1, 1, 30 30 (1968). (1968). To Todetermine determinewhether whethersuch such reasonable reasonable suspicion exists for 8 a detention, courts review detention, courts review the the contents and reliability contents and reliability of of the the information information in the the police's police's 9
10 10 possession, throughthe possession, through theperspective perspectiveofof"an "an objectively objectively reasonable reasonablepolice police officer." officer." People v. v.
11 11 Yerten, 2021 Guam 8 ,r1117 Yerten, 2021 (internalcitations 17 (internal citationsomitted). omitted).
12 12 For reasons For reasons set forth above, above, the the court court found found that that the Defendants' seizures seizures began began at at 2:43 2:43 13 a.m. a.m. However, Officer OfficerAndrew Andrewtestified testifiedthat thathe hearrested arrested Defendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina at at 3:40 3:40 a.m., a.m.; after 14 he found the the evidence evidence of of the bag bag and andthe theshotgun. shotgun.See SeeMot. Mot.Hr'g Hr'g Mins. Mins. at at 11:02:24- 11:02:24 - 02:30AM. 02:30AM. 15 15
16 16 And And according according to to Officer OfficerMendiola, Mendiola,he hearrested arrestedDefendant DefendantQui rata arrested Quinata arrested by 3:30 3 :30 a.m. a.m. See
17 17 Def.'s's Mot. Mot. Suppress, Suppress, Ex. B. 18 18 Ascertaining the Defendants' identity identity is is aa sufficient sufficientpurpose purpose for fordetaining detaining them them under under 8 19 GCA GCA §§30.20. 30.20. But But based based on on Officer OfficerMangiliman's Mangiliman's and and Officer Officer Mendiola's Mendiola's reports reports and and 20
ascertained both testimony, they ascertained both of of the the Defendants' identities around around 2:43 2:43 a.m. a.m. Upon Upon review review of 21
22 the the police reports reports and and officer testimony testimony at the Motion Motion Hearing, Hearing, the the information information the the officers
23 23 possessed atat the possessed the time they detained time they detained the the Defendants Defendants included: included: (1) (1) aa dispatch dispatch call call about about 24 individuals with individuals with headlamps headlampscoming comingdown downMt. Mt.Lamlam; Lamlam,(2) (2)the the smell smell of smoke; (3) of smoke, the (3) the 25 25 Defendants' Defendants' tired demeanor, and (4) demeanor; and (4) aa flashlight. flashlight. Based Based on on his his recollection recollection on on the the stand, stand, the 26
27 information information he had was from an an anonymous caller who said that anonymous caller that he he or she she saw saw individuals with
28 a flashlight who started flashlight who thefire. startedthe fire.See SeeMot. Mot.Hr' Hr'g Mins. at g Mins. at 11: 11:13:02 13 :02 - - 14:32AM. 14:32AM. Officer Officer Andrew
Decision Decision & &Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People v. v. Chiguana Chiguana && Quinata, rata, CF0059-25 Page Page 8 of of 13 13 testified testified that that with the the information the officers possessed information the from this possessed from this call, call, the the grassfire grassfire was was 1
2 them." Id "pinpointed at them." Id
3 When looking at at the the contents and reliability contents and reliability of of this this information, information, it is is still still unclear unclear what what 4 crime any any of ofthe the officers officershad hadreasonable reasonable articulable articulable suspicion suspicion to detain detain the the Defendants for. Defendants for. 5 According According to Officer Officer Mangiliman's Mangiliman's testimony, testimony, he he indicated indicated that that he did did not not suspect suspect the the 6
Defendants of causing Defendants of the grassfire causing the grassfire at the the time he he was was questioning questioning them, them; or or that that he he had had any any 7
8 reasonable suspicionthey reasonable suspicion theywere were committing committing committed committedany anyother othercrime. crime.See SeeMot. Mot.Hr' Hr'g Mins. at at 9 10:29:55 30: 17AM. 10:29:55 - -30:17AM. 10 10 When asked asked about about what what criminal criminal activity activity Officer Officer Mendiola Mendiola suspected them of suspected them 11 11 conducting, hetestified conducting, he testifiedthat thathehefirst firstbelieved believedititwas wasfor forArson. Arson.Id Id at at 10:44:40 10:44:40 -- 46:01AM. 46:0lAM. 12 12
13 13 Officer Officer Mendiola Mendiola acknowledged acknowledged his familiarity with with the the policy policy that that an officer officer is is only only permitted permitted
14 14 to detain detain a person person he suspects hascommitted suspects has committedaacrime crime for for fifteen minutes. Id at minutes. Id at 10:51:40 10:51:40 - 15 51:53AM. Agreeing Agreeing that that Defendant Quinta's fifteen Defendant Quinata's fifteen(15) (15)minutes minutes would would have have expired expired by 2:58 2:58 16 16 a.m., Officer Mendiola a.m., Officer Mendiola testified testifiedthat that he he was was not not free to leave free to leavedue due to toan an active active warrant, warrant; although although 17 17 this information was nowhere information was nowhere in his report report as as the the warrant was for an warrant was an urlrelated case.Id unrelated case. Id at at 18
19 10:51:54 -. 52:33AM. 10:51:54-52:33AM.
20 Despite his earlier earlier testimony testimony that that he had not suspected them of suspected them of committing committing a crime at at 21 the time, Officer the time, Officer Andrew Andrew later later testified testifiedthat that he he only onlyasked asked Defendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina to empty empty his his 22 pockets, and not actually and did not actually pat pathim down.See himdown. See Mot. Mot. Hr'gg Mims. Mins. at 11:10:08 11: :08 -- 11:11 :22AM. In 11: 11 :22AM. 23
doing so, Officer OfficerAndrew Andrewreasoned reasonedthat that he he wanted wanted to to talk talk to to Defendant Defendant Chiguina Chiguina personally and and 24 24
25 make make sure he did not have sure he have any any weapons weapons on on him him despite despite both both Defendants Defendants denying denying that that they 26 started the grassfire. grassfire.Id Id When started the When asked asked why Officer OfficerAndrew Andrewthought thought that that either either Defendant Defendant was was 27 27 presently armed presently armed and and dangerous, dangerous, he he testified testified that that he he "always assumes assumes they armed and they are armed and 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motionto toSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Chiguina's Motion Maurer Chiguina's Motion to to Suppress Evidence Suppress Evidence People People v. Chiguana & Qui rata, CF0059-25 Quinata, Page Page 9 of of 13 13 dangerous," especiallyatathat dangerous," especially that time time inin thethe night night andand their their location. location. Id 11: Id. at l1:50AM. 11 :24 - - 11 at ll:ll:24 1
2 Officer OfficerMangiliman Mangilimanalso also echoed echoed this this sentiment sentiment during during his testimony testimony that that GPD GPD Officers Officers conduct conduct 3 pat-downs of of anyone they counter anyone they counterfor for officer officer safety. safety. Id. at at 10:24:37 10:24:37 -- 25:18AM.1 25:18AM. 1 4 After reviewing reviewing all all this this information information through through a reasonably objective police reasonably objective police officer's officer's 5 perspective, perspective, itit is is not not likely likelythat thatthe theofficers officershad hadreasonable reasonablearticulable articulable suspicion suspicion that that the the 6
Defendants committed, were Defendants committed, were committing, committing, or were about to commit Arson, or any about to any of the the crimes crimes 7
8 charged in the the Indictment, Indictment, when when GPD GPD Officers Officers detained detained the Defendants at 2:43 2:43 a.m. a.m. Even Even if if the the 9 officers had officers had reasonable reasonable articulable articulable suspicion to detain detain the Defendants before their their arrests, arrests, both 10 detentions went beyond detentions went beyond the thefifteen fifteen (15) (15) minutes allowed under minutes allowed under88GCA GCA §§ 30.30. Therefore, the 30.30. Therefore, the 11 II Defendants Chiguina's and Defendants andQuinata's Quinta's detentions detentions were unlawful. 12 12
13 1 C. The Theevidence evidence obtained obtained from from the the unlawful unlawfuldetention detention must be suppressed suppressed as as Fruit Fruit of the Poisonous Poisonous Tree. Tree. 14 14 The last last issue issue is whether whether the the evidence evidence derived derived from from the the unlawful unlawful detention of both detention of both 15
16 16 Defendants must must be be suppressed suppressedunder underthe theFruit Fruitof ofthe thePoisonous PoisonousTree Tree Doctrine. See See Wong Wong Sun Sun
17 17 v. v. United United States, States, 371 371 U.S. 471 471 (1963). In In this this case, Defendant Chiguina moved to suppress "all suppress "all 18 18 evidence evidence obtained obtained as as aa result result of ofthe theunlawful unlawfuldetention detentionand andsearch, search, suppress suppress all statements statements made made 19 19 by Defendant during during the unlawful detention, detention, and and grant such other other relief relief as as this this Court Court deems deems just just 20
and proper." Def.'s and proper." 's Mot. Mot. Dismiss Dismiss at at 6.6. On Onthe otherhand, theother hand, Defendant Defendant Qui rata joins Quinata joins in in the the 21
24 24 11 The court court repeats the longstanding repeats the policy in Terry longstanding policy Terry v.v. Ohio Ohio regarding frisks or pat downs, regarding frisks the Guam which the downs, which Guam Supreme Court has Supreme Court adoptedin hasadopted inseveral severalcases, cases,that thatpolice police officers officers may may conduct conduct them on aa person person whom whom they they observe observe 25 unusual conductfrom unusual conduct fromwhich whichleads leadsthem themreasonably reasonablytotoconclude concludeininlight light of of their experience that criminal activity that criminal activity may bebe afoot afootandand that that such such person person may be be armed armed and dangerous. See Taman, 2013 ,r 22 ("The language and presently dangerous. See Tamar, 2013 1122 ("The language 26 of 88 GCA of GCA§§§§30.10 30.10andand30.20 30.20 reflect, reflect,and andwe wehereby confirm,that herebyconfirm, that Guam's Guam's Stop Stop and and Frisk Frisk Act Act utilizes utilizes the the same same standard standard forfor reasonable reasonablesuspicion suspicionthatthatisisarticulated articulatedininTerry Terryv.v.Ohio Ohio and and its its progeny progeny for courts to apply courts to apply when when 27 analyzing thethe legality legality ofofinvestigative investigativedetentions, detentions,albeit albeithose thosecourts courtsapply applythe thestandard 27 standard under under aa constitutional constitutional analysis."), analysis."); see also People v. v. Tuncap, Tuncap, 2014 Guam Guam 1l ii,r 26 26 ("Putdowns ("Patdowns of ofstopped stopped suspects are permitted suspects are permittedforforofficer officer 28 28 safety, but but only only where where the the officer officerboth bothhas hasreason reasonto believethat tobelieve thathethesuspect suspectisisarmed armedand and dangerous dangerous and limits the and limits the putdown patdown to to searching searchingfor for weapons."). weapons.").
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina'sMotion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Evidence Suppress Evidence People v. Chiguana Chiguana && Quinata, rata,CF0059-25 Page 10 IO of of13 13 Motion Motion to to Suppress Suppress but finds that but finds dismissalisis appropriate that dismissal appropriateininthis thiscase. case.See SeeJoinder Joiner (July (July 29, 29, l
2 2025). 3 Evidence may may be be suppressed underthe suppressed under theFruit Fruitof of the the Poisonous Poisonous Tree Tree Doctrine once the 4 court determines determines"whether "whetherthe thechallenged challengedevidence evidencewas wascome comeatatby byexploitation exploitationof of [the [the initial] initial] 5 illegality or or instead instead by by means means sufficiently sufficiently distinguishable to be purged distinguishable to purged of the the primary primary taint." taint." 6
7 7 People v. v. Curd 2006 Guam 12 ,i1144(internal Cundiff, 2006 (internalcitations citations omitted). omitted). In this case, the court court must must
8 determine whether officers determine whether officers exploited exploited the the Defendants' unlawful detentions Defendants' unlawful detentionstoto come come by the the 9 Defendants' incriminating incriminating statements, statements, and physical evidence, including and other physical including the the shotgun, shotgun, deer 10 carcass, shells, and carcass, shotgun shells, and whistle. whistle. II In In its Opposition, the People argue that "[t]he argue that "[t]he discovery discoveryofofthe thefirearm firearmand anddeer deer carcass carcass 12 12
13 would have happened happenedregardless regardlessof of the the length length of of the the detention of of Defendant. Defendant. Had Defendant Defendant left left
14 14 the scene within a minute the scene minuteof of initially initially making making contact contactwith withthe theofficers, officers, the the officers officers would still 15 have had ample ample reason reason to to investigate investigate the the surrounding surroundingarea." area."Ppl.'s Pp1.'sOpp'n Opp'natat4.4.At At the the Motion 16 Hearing, the People argue Hearing, the argue that the evidence that the evidence found at the scene scene would have have been been inevitably inevitably 17
discovered by officers officers that night. See that night. See Mot. Mot. Hr'gg Mims. at 11 Mins. at 11:27:08 :27 :08 -- 29:05AM. 29:05AM. 18 18
19 Under the doctrine Under the of inevitable doctrine of inevitable discovery, the People discovery, the People may may "rely on on evidence evidence that that
20 20 ultimately would have ultimately would have been been discovered discovered absent absent a constitutional violation[]" provided constitutional violation[]" provided the the 21 government "can "can establish establish by a preponderance preponderance of of the the evidence that the the information information ultimately or 22 inevitably inevitably would have discovered by have been discovered by lawful lawful means[.]" means[.]" United United States States v. v. Rucker, Ruckes, 586 F.3d 23
24 713, 713, 718 718 (9th Cir. 2009) 2009) (quoting (quoting Nix v. v. Williams, Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 431, 443-44 443-44 (1984)) (internal (internal
25 25 quotations and punctuation punctuation omitted); omitted), see also People People v.v. Santos, Santos, 2003 2003 Guam ,i 56 Guam 11 1 56 (applying
26 26 Nix). 27
Decision Decision & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence People v. v. Chiguana Chiguana & & Quinata, rata, CF0059-25 Page ll of Page 11 of1313 The People People state state that that because the Defendants because the Defendants were were the the only ones present present when GPD 1
2 Officers responded Officers responded to to an an alleged alleged grassfire, grassfire, they they would wouldhave havefound foundthe thegun gunand and the the deer deer carcass carcass
3 when when conducting their investigation conducting their investigation into into the the grassfire. grassfire. See See Mot. Mot. H1°'g Hr'g Mims. Mins. at at 11:27:08 11 :27:08 - 4 29:05AM. 29:0SAM. As As mentioned mentioned earlier, earlier, Officer Andrew Andrew stated stated that that he conducted conducted aa check check of of the the 5 surrounding surrounding area after he he instructed Defendant Chiguina instructed Defendant Chiguina to to empty his pockets, pockets; and found the 6
7 two shotgun shells. Without shotgun shells. Without more, more, the the court court finds finds that that the the People People have have not proven by a 7
8 8 preponderance preponderance ofof evidence evidence that that the the GPD GPD Officers Officers would would have have inevitably inevitably obtained obtained the the 9 9 Defendants' incriminating incriminating statements statements and and discovered discovered the the shotgun, shotgun, deer deer carcass, carcass, shotgun shells, 10 10 and deer whistle without without detaining the the Defendants Defendants beyond beyond the the fifteen fifteen minutes minutes permitted permitted under under 88 11 GCA GCA §§ 30.30. 30.30. 12 12
13 13 The court court finds finds that that any any physical physical evidence evidence or orstatements statements made made by by the the Defendants Defendants that that
14 14 was discovered after was discovered a.m.-- the 2:58 a.m. after 2:58 the end end of of any any lawful lawful detention detention within within the themeaning meaningof of 88GCA GCA § § 15 15 30.30 30.30-- must must be be suppressed. suppressed. 16 16 \\ \\ 17 17 \\ \\ 18 18
19 19 \ \\
20 20 \\ 21 \\ 22 22 \\ 23
24 24 \\
25 25 \\
26 26 \\ 27 27 \\ 28
Decision Decision & & Order Order Re. Re. Defendant Defendant Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion MotiontotoSuppress Suppress Evidence Evidence and and Defendant's Defendant's Joiner JoinderininDefendant DefendantJonovin JonovinJermaine Jermaine Maurer Maurer Chiguina's Chiguina's Motion Motion to to Suppress Evidence Suppress Evidence People v.v. Chiguana Chiguana & Qui rata, CF0059-25 Quinata, CF0059-25 Page Page 12 12 of of13 CONCLUSION
2 For the reasons set forth above, the court hereby GRANTS the Defendant Chiguina's
3 Motion to Suppress Evidence and Defendant Quinata's Joinder. The court hereby ORDERS 4 that any physical evidence discovered by GPO Officers or statements made by the Defendants 5 after 2:58 a.m. on the night of January 24, 2025, shall be SUPPRESSED at trial. 6
SO ORDERED this NOV 2 5 2025 9 ~---------- 10
14 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15
23 SERVBCIE VDA E-MAIL I acknowledge that an electronic 24 copy of the original was e-mailed to: JtC,,.I /tfJD, PDJv 25
26 .--- . . . o::Ja.Jvt JC;-z/" 27
Decision & Order Re. Defendant Chiguina's Motion to Suppress Evidence and Defendant's Joinder in Defendant Jonovin Jermaine Maurer Chiguina's Motion to Suppress Evidence People v. Chiguana & Quinata, CF0059-25 Page 13 of 13