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
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
27
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
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
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 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
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
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
thefifteenfifteen
-
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
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
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
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
22
23
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
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
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
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
7
8
SO ORDERED this NOV 2 5 2025 9 ~---------- 10
11
12
13
14 HONORABLE ALBERTO E. TOLENTINO Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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
28
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