People v. Cruz

Opinion

TL w I

$UPE%~€-8m Qt £-..a.1e,,i 1 2G23 J§5%é -8 ?H ll! 33 2 I. I 13L i 3

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

6 Criminal Case No. CF0547-22 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GPD R€poI't No. 22-22425 7 v. 8 DECISION AND ORDER ANTHONY JAE CRUZ, DENYING 9 DOB: 02/09/1997 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS 10 Defendant. 11

12 INTRODUCTION 13 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena, III on May 18, 2023 for hearing

14 on Anthony Jae CnL1z's ("Defendant's") Motion to Suppress ("Motion"). Assistant Attorney General

15 Kristine Borja represents the People, and Assistant Public Defender Christian Spotanski represents

16 Defendant. Having duly considered the parties' briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the

17 Court now issues the following Decision and Order and DENIES Defendant's Motion.

18 BACKGROUND

19 Defendant stands indicted on Possession of a Concealed Firearm (as a 3rd Degree Felony),

20 Possession of a Firearm Without an Identification Card (as a 3rd Degree Felony), Possession of an

21 Unregistered Firearm (as a 3rd Degree Felony), and Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance

22 (as a 3rd Degree Felony) with Notice: Commission of a Felony While on Felony Release. See

23 Indictment (Sep. 2, 2022).

24 The charges stem from an incident on August 28, 2022, when Officer Olivia pulled Defendant

25 over for speeding while Defendant was riding his motorcycle. See Court Recording at I l :08:00 (May

26 18, 2023). During the stop, Defendant admitted to being on probation and having a firearm on him.

27 at 11:10:00. Officer Olivia then searched Defendant's backpack, and found both a firearm and

28 two bags of methamphetamine. at 11:12:00.

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0547-22, People of Guam v. Anthony Jae Cruz Page 1 of 3 1 On April 21, 2023, Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress. Defendant claims that his pulling

2 over amounts to an unconstitutional seizure because the police did not have reasonable suspicion he

3 was engaged in criminal activity. See Motion at 3-5 (Apr. 21, 2023). Defendant also claims the

4 search of his backpack was unconstitutional. at 5-6.

5 On May 3, 2023, the People filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion ("Opposition"). The

6 People claim the initial seizure was constitutional because police had reasonable cause to believe

7 Defendant was engaged in unlawful activity. See Opposition at 1 (May 3, 2023). The People also

8 believe the search of Defendant's backpack was constitutional because Defendant consented. at

9 2.

10 The Court held a hearing on May 18, 2023. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the

11 Court took the matter under advisement.

12 DISCUSSION

13 I. Guam Police Department's stop of Defendant does not constitute an unconstitutional

14 seizure.

15 T he Four th Amendment pr ovides tha t people should be fr ee fr om unr ea sona ble

16 searches and seizures. See U.S. Const. amend. IV. A seizure occurs when law enforcement

17 pulls a vehicle over, because a reasonable person would feel they are not free to decline the

18 officer 's r equests or other wise immedia tely ter mina te the encounter . See People v.

19 Chargualaf, 2001 Guam l 11 17. Evidence obtained from a Fourth Amendment violation is

20 inadmissible. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. l, at 12 (1968).

21 Police have authority to briefly detain someone if they have a reasonable suspicion of

22 unlawful activity. at 10. To determine whether an officer's belief is reasonable, courts

23 look a t the tota lity of the cir cumsta nces, a nd whether tha t belief is ba sed on 'specific

24 reasonable inferences" supported by articulable facts, or merely inadequate suspicion. at

25 27.

26 Officer Olivia clearly had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity justifying his

27 temporary pullover/ seizure of Defendant. Officer Olivia testified that Defendant was driving

28 at an excessive speed well above the speed limit, which is unlawful activity under 16 G.C.A §

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0547-22,People of Guam v. Anthony Jae Cruz Page 2 of 3 1 3301. See Court Recording at 11:09:00 (May 18, 2023). Officer Olivia was able to point to

2 articulable facts indicating Defendant's violation of Guam law, such as the fact that Officer

3 Olivia had to travel at speeds of 80 miles per hour just to reach Defendant. at ll:09:00.

4 Therefore, Defendant's initial pulling over does not amount to an unconstitutional seizure.

5 11. Guam Police Department's search of Defendant's backpack was constitutional because

6 Defendant consented.

7 Like seizures, searches must too be reasonable to be valid under the Fourth

8 Amendment. Searches implicate an individual's Fourth Amendment rights when they cover

9 areas in which the individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". See Oliver v. US.

10 466 U.S. 170, at 171 (1984). If the individual does have a reasonable expectation of privacy,

11 police officers must generally have a warrant before conducting a valid search. Evidence

12 obtained from improper searches is inadmissible. See Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 12 (1968).

13 Here, the Defendant clearly had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the backpack

14 he was canoing. Officer Olivia did not have a warrant before searching the backpack.

15 However, Defendant consented to Officer Olivia's search, negating the need for a warrant.

16 See Court Recording at l l:l2:00 (May 18, 2023). Therefore, the search was valid.

17 CONCLUSION

18 For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion. The initial pullover of 19 Defendant, and subsequent search of his backpack are not Fourth Amendment violations. Therefore, 20 evidence obtained from the August 28, 2022 seizure and search of Defendant is admissible. 21

22 IT is so ORDERED this June 8 a 2 0 2 3 23

26 HONORABLE ALBERTO c. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27

Decision and Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress CF0547-22,People of Guam v. Anthony Jae Cruz Page 3 off