People v. Duenas

Opinion

AKII(nTNJ/AIL , ,-;1 Territorial Law Library 1-, r -:! : ,;... !-. \ .r '''. / .l, ' :--ii ; -i

." r' ;'' lt.,t:

:"1. :l ! i',', i;r l li I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT oF GUAM i. ' " r",. 'rl::-].-iT 2 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) Criminal Case No. CF612-08 J ) Plaintiff, ) 4 v. ) DECISION AI\D ORDER ) re: motion to suppress 5 PETER J. M. DUENAS, ) ) 6 Defendant. ) ) 7

8 This matter came before the Honorable Judge Michael J. Bordallo on May 14,2009-

9 The People were represented by Assistant Attorney General William B. Pole. Defendant

l0 was represented by Attomey Ana Maria C. Gayle. Having heard the arguments and

11 reviewed the memorandum and papers presented, the court now issues the following

t2 decision granting Defendant's motion to suppress.

13 BACKGROTJND

l4 On October 23,2007, Defendant was indicted for: 1) the Possession of a Schedule II

l5 Controlled Substance, a Third Degree Felony; 2) Driving While Under the Influence of

t6 Alcohol, as a Misdemeanor; and 3) Reckless Driving, as a Petty Misdemeanor. The

t7 indictment asserts that the facts which support these charges occurred on or about December

18 25,2008.

t9 DISCUSSION

20 Pursuant to 8 GCA $65.15(c) Defendant has brought a motion to suppress all of his

2l statements and any evidence seized by the People. Mot. at 1. In support of his motion he

22 asserts that the police officers for the People illegally stopped, interrogated, and searched his

23 person and vehicle.Id. at2- 4. The Defendant's motion is not supported by declaration or

24 affidavit. 8 Guam Code Ann. $65.40 (2008). The People respond and oppose Defendant's

25 request. Resp. at 1. In their response they assert that Defendant's initial stop and detention

'ERX@[MAIL I was justified by a reasonable suspicion that Defendant was committing a traf6c violation 2 and that his fuither detainment and arrest justified by his intoxicatio n. Resp. at l- 2. a J Defendant filed no Reply.

4 In the federal circuits, motions to suppress are reviewed under the following standard: 5 "[A] defendant seeking an evidentiary hearing on a motion ro suppress must provide 6 sufficient information 'to enable the court to conclude that asubstantial claim is presented 7 and that there are disputed issues of material fact which will affect the outcome of the 8 motion' "' u. s. v- Juarez, 454 F .3d 7 17 720 (7th cir. 2006)(intemal , citations omitted); see 9 U'S' v' Sandoval,390 F.3d 1294,1300 (l0ttt Cir.2004)(a motion to suppress ,,must raise l0 factual allegations that are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to ll enable the court to conclude that contested issues of fact ... are an issue); see also L/.5. v. t2 wilson, T F'3d 828,834 (9th cir. 1993)(on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the l3 moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the l4 court to conclude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in issue. t5 ' ' ' [a] hearing is not required if the grounds for suppression consist solely of conclusory t6 allegations of illegality). once the Defendant has met its burden of sufficiency, the l7 Government then bears the burden of showing by a preponderance of the evidence the

18 legality of its actions. us. v. Alexander, 5g9 F.supp.2d 777,7g0(E.D. Tex. 200g); see, r9 colorado v. connelly, 479 u.s. r57, r5g (r9s6)(as applied to a miranda waiver); see, y,s. 20 v. vanvliet,542F.3d259,266 (lst cir. 200g) (as applied to a consent search). 2l In this case the Defendant's motion was specific enough to met the burden of 22 sufficiencyrequired above. It included a specific and detailed assertion of facts which 23 would support an argument that Defendant was illegally detained. The people introduced 24 testimony through officers Paulino and Amaguin that they observed the Defendant traveling 25

Page -2- I at a slow rate of speed without his headlights tumed on. The court did not find the people,s 2 witnesses or the evidence they presented to be credible. Their testimony was contadicted a J by a neighbor witness whose testimony was supported byphotographic exhibits 4 corroborating the neighbor's testimony about the location of the vehicle and the width of the 5 road.

6 The exhibit evidence persuasively demonstrated that the Defendant,s vehicle had not 7 moved and was in the place he parked it to attend a Christrnas function. It did support the 8 govemment's contention that the defendant was driving without his vehicles headlights on. 9 Absent some credible evidence justiffing the detention and stop of the Defendant the court l0 is obligated to grant Defendant's motion to suppress all evidence arising out of the ll Defendant's detention

t2 CONCLUSION l3 For the reasons above Defendant's motion to suppress is granted.

t4 SO ORDERilO this/day of May 2009. l5 t6 17 Superior Court of Guam 18

t9 20

2l 22

Page -3-