FiLED SUPERiOR COURT OF GUAI'1 2 2fllB APR II PM f: 33 3 CLERI-\ p{CpURT (_~ 4 By: 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM u 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0500-15 9
10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11
12 JOSE JOHN ECLAVEA, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Jose John Eclavea's
17 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress Evidence. Assistant Alternate Public Defender John P.
18 Morrison represents Defendant, and Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins represents the
19 People of Guam ("the Government"). Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented,
20 and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
21 BACKGROUND
22 On August 28, 2015, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1)
23 Importation of a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); (2) Conspiracy to
24 Import a Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); (3) Conspiracy to Possess with
25 Intent to Deliver a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); and (4)
26 Conspiracy to Possess a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony).
27 (Indictment, Aug. 28, 2015). These charges stem from the discovery of numerous packets of a
28 suspected controlled substance in a package sent to Defendant through Federal Express mail
People v. Eclavea Case No.CF0500-15 Decision and Order
Page 1 of6 ("Fed Ex"). (Decl. of James C. Collins, Magistrate's Compl., Aug. 21, 2015). This Court 2 . previously Denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second, Third, and Fourth Charge of 3 Indictment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Defense Expert. See Dec. & Order, May 13, 4 2016; Dec. & Order, Jun. 9, 2017. This matter has continued to come before the Court for 5 Further Proceedings since the issuance of the last Decision and Order, with the parties 6 indicating that plea negotiations were ongoing. 7 On December 7, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. On January 3, 8 2018, the Government filed its Opposition. The parties represented to the Court that the Motion 9 would be held in abeyance pending continued plea negotiations. On February 27, 2018, counsel 10 for Defendant indicated to the Court that Defendant was not intended on proceeding with plea 11 negotiations, and that he wished to proceed with the Motion to Suppress instead. The parties 12 agreed that that matter could be taken under advisement on the briefing, and that Defendant 13 would file a Reply to the Government's Opposition within a week. The Court indicated it 14 would take the matter under advisement upon receipt of Defendant's Reply, and set a Further 15 Proceedings for April9, 2018. No Reply was filed. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Defendant moves the Court to suppress evidence seized in this matter because the initial 18 search of the Fed Ex package was unconstitutional and that there was an impermissible delay in 19 t_he delivery of the package. See generally, Mot. Suppress, Dec. 7, 2017. The Government 20 opposes, arguing that there is no basis under the Fourth Amendment for either argument. See 21 generally, Opp'n, Jan. 3, 2018.
22 As the parties submitted on their pleadings, no evidence was taken by the Court 23 pertaining to the events. that led to the search of the Fed Ex package. Thus, in disposing of this 24 motion, the Court is left only with the facts as submitted by both parties in pleadings, to the 25 extent that they are undisputed. 26 On August 17, 2015, a package addressed to Defendant from New York via Fed Ex was 21 inspected by Customs Officer Eugene McDonald ("Officer McDonald") at the Guam Customs 28 and Quarantine Air Cargo Facility. Officer McDonald found numerous packages inside the
People v. Eclavea Case No.CF0500-15 Decision and Order·
Page 2 of6 package marked as "Scooby Snax." Officer McDonald applied a chemical field test to some of 2 the packages to determine if the contents of the package were Marijuana, which resulted in 3 negative results. Customs and Quarantine Officer Henry James ("Officer James") was 4 contacted, and he viewed the items and secured the package and its contents. · Officer James 5 conducted an internet search which indicated to him that "Scooby Snax" was a name under 6 which synthetic marijuana or "spice" was often marketed in the United States. 7 Later that day, Fed Ex employees informed Guam Customs and Quarantine that 8 Defendant appeared at the Fed Ex office in person and also via phone inquiring about his parcel. 9 Customs officers conducted a controlled delivery of the package to Defendant on August 19, 10 2015. Defendant was interviewed and subsequently arrested. 11 The items in question have since been tested by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency 12 ("DBA") and the laboratory analysis report indicates that certain compounds present in the 13 substances tested were found that have been identified by the federal government as synthetic 14 cannabinoids. See Dec. & Order at 3-4, Jun. 9, 2017. 15 Warrantless Search of Package 16 The first issue before the Court is whether the initial search and seizure of the package 17 was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 18 guarantees "[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 19 against unreasonable searches and seizures." It is made applicable to Guam via section
20 1421(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam. People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1
Page 3 of6 reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Fed Ex package addressed to Defendant contained 2 contraband or evidence of criminal activity. 3 The Fourth Amendment does not require warrants for stops and searches at the national 4 borders, however, because the sovereign and its public officials have "authority to conduct 5 routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or warrant, in order to 6 regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into [the United 7 States]." United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537-38 (1985) (citing United 8 States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-17 (1977)). Thus, border searches of incoming packages 9 may be initiated without a warrant, probable cause, or even articulable suspicion. See id at 538; 10 United States v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Ani, 138 F.3d 390, 11 392 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 618-19 ("Import restrictions and searches of 12 persons or packages at the national border rest on different considerations and different rules of 13 constitutional law from domestic regulations.").
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FiLED SUPERiOR COURT OF GUAI'1 2 2fllB APR II PM f: 33 3 CLERI-\ p{CpURT (_~ 4 By: 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM u 7
8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0500-15 9
10 vs. DECISION AND ORDER 11
12 JOSE JOHN ECLAVEA, 13 Defendant. 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter is before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on Defendant Jose John Eclavea's
17 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress Evidence. Assistant Alternate Public Defender John P.
18 Morrison represents Defendant, and Assistant Attorney General James C. Collins represents the
19 People of Guam ("the Government"). Having reviewed the pleadings, the arguments presented,
20 and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order.
21 BACKGROUND
22 On August 28, 2015, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1)
23 Importation of a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); (2) Conspiracy to
24 Import a Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); (3) Conspiracy to Possess with
25 Intent to Deliver a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a First Degree Felony); and (4)
26 Conspiracy to Possess a Schedule I Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony).
27 (Indictment, Aug. 28, 2015). These charges stem from the discovery of numerous packets of a
28 suspected controlled substance in a package sent to Defendant through Federal Express mail
People v. Eclavea Case No.CF0500-15 Decision and Order
Page 1 of6 ("Fed Ex"). (Decl. of James C. Collins, Magistrate's Compl., Aug. 21, 2015). This Court 2 . previously Denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Second, Third, and Fourth Charge of 3 Indictment, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion for Defense Expert. See Dec. & Order, May 13, 4 2016; Dec. & Order, Jun. 9, 2017. This matter has continued to come before the Court for 5 Further Proceedings since the issuance of the last Decision and Order, with the parties 6 indicating that plea negotiations were ongoing. 7 On December 7, 2017, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence. On January 3, 8 2018, the Government filed its Opposition. The parties represented to the Court that the Motion 9 would be held in abeyance pending continued plea negotiations. On February 27, 2018, counsel 10 for Defendant indicated to the Court that Defendant was not intended on proceeding with plea 11 negotiations, and that he wished to proceed with the Motion to Suppress instead. The parties 12 agreed that that matter could be taken under advisement on the briefing, and that Defendant 13 would file a Reply to the Government's Opposition within a week. The Court indicated it 14 would take the matter under advisement upon receipt of Defendant's Reply, and set a Further 15 Proceedings for April9, 2018. No Reply was filed. 16 DISCUSSION 17 Defendant moves the Court to suppress evidence seized in this matter because the initial 18 search of the Fed Ex package was unconstitutional and that there was an impermissible delay in 19 t_he delivery of the package. See generally, Mot. Suppress, Dec. 7, 2017. The Government 20 opposes, arguing that there is no basis under the Fourth Amendment for either argument. See 21 generally, Opp'n, Jan. 3, 2018.
22 As the parties submitted on their pleadings, no evidence was taken by the Court 23 pertaining to the events. that led to the search of the Fed Ex package. Thus, in disposing of this 24 motion, the Court is left only with the facts as submitted by both parties in pleadings, to the 25 extent that they are undisputed. 26 On August 17, 2015, a package addressed to Defendant from New York via Fed Ex was 21 inspected by Customs Officer Eugene McDonald ("Officer McDonald") at the Guam Customs 28 and Quarantine Air Cargo Facility. Officer McDonald found numerous packages inside the
People v. Eclavea Case No.CF0500-15 Decision and Order·
Page 2 of6 package marked as "Scooby Snax." Officer McDonald applied a chemical field test to some of 2 the packages to determine if the contents of the package were Marijuana, which resulted in 3 negative results. Customs and Quarantine Officer Henry James ("Officer James") was 4 contacted, and he viewed the items and secured the package and its contents. · Officer James 5 conducted an internet search which indicated to him that "Scooby Snax" was a name under 6 which synthetic marijuana or "spice" was often marketed in the United States. 7 Later that day, Fed Ex employees informed Guam Customs and Quarantine that 8 Defendant appeared at the Fed Ex office in person and also via phone inquiring about his parcel. 9 Customs officers conducted a controlled delivery of the package to Defendant on August 19, 10 2015. Defendant was interviewed and subsequently arrested. 11 The items in question have since been tested by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency 12 ("DBA") and the laboratory analysis report indicates that certain compounds present in the 13 substances tested were found that have been identified by the federal government as synthetic 14 cannabinoids. See Dec. & Order at 3-4, Jun. 9, 2017. 15 Warrantless Search of Package 16 The first issue before the Court is whether the initial search and seizure of the package 17 was lawful under the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 18 guarantees "[t]he right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, 19 against unreasonable searches and seizures." It is made applicable to Guam via section
20 1421(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam. People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1
Page 3 of6 reasonable and articulable suspicion that the Fed Ex package addressed to Defendant contained 2 contraband or evidence of criminal activity. 3 The Fourth Amendment does not require warrants for stops and searches at the national 4 borders, however, because the sovereign and its public officials have "authority to conduct 5 routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or warrant, in order to 6 regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into [the United 7 States]." United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537-38 (1985) (citing United 8 States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-17 (1977)). Thus, border searches of incoming packages 9 may be initiated without a warrant, probable cause, or even articulable suspicion. See id at 538; 10 United States v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Ani, 138 F.3d 390, 11 392 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Ramsey, 431 U.S. at 618-19 ("Import restrictions and searches of 12 persons or packages at the national border rest on different considerations and different rules of 13 constitutional law from domestic regulations."). Guam law also provides that customs officers 14 have the authority to conduct searches pursuant to 5 G.C.A. § 73102. 1 15 Defendant argues that the border exception does not apply in this matter because "the 16 package at issue was shipped from the United States to an address within the United States." 17 (Mot. Suppress at 3). Guam, however, has a unique customs relationship with the United 18 States. 19 Guam is not part of the United States customs territory,- and h~s its own customs zone. Imports into Guam are not governed by the Tariff Act of 1930, and Guam 20 has its own customs administration. Thus, although Guam is geopolitically part 21 of the United States, an item passing from the United States into Guam leaves one 22
23 1 Under Guam law, any customs officer may: 24 (1) arrest persons who violate a prohibition contained in Article 6 of Title 9 GCA Chapter 67; 25 (2) make seizures of any controlled substance imported into Guam in violation of Article 6 of Title 9 GCA Chapter 67; 26 (3) arrest persons who violate a prohibition contained in Chapter 47 of Title 9 GCA; and (4) make seizures of any forged or counterfeit goods imported into Guam in violation of Chapter 27 47 of Title 9 GCA. 28 5 G.C.A. § 73102.
Page 4 of6 customs territory, and its administration, and enters another. It therefore makes sense that, for purposes of Guam customs law, any item arriving in Guam from 2 outside of Guam - even if coming from the United States - is subject to customs 3 inspection.
4 Because Guam has its own customs zone and a different definition of "imported," 5 importation into the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 952 and importation into Guam under Guam's customs laws are not analogous. Guam is part of the United 6 States for purposes of federal drug law, but not for customs purposes. 7 United States v. Rowland, 464 F.3d 899, 904-906 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citations omitted). 8 The Court finds that Guam customs officers may conduct warrantless searches under the border 9 exception, and will not grant Defendant's Motion to Suppress on that ground. 10 Delay of Package Delivery 11 The next issue before the Court is whether the delay of the package was reasonable. 12 There is a discrepancy between the parties as to whether there was a two or three day delay. 13 Defendant argues that "Customs and Quarantine secured a nondescript parcel in storage for 14 three days while its recipient did everything possible to retrieve it," which was a violation of 15 Defendant's possessory interest in a timely delivery. (Mot. Suppress at 4-5). According the 16 Government, the two-day delay was due to "arranging the controlled delivery of the package to 17 [Defendant], based on [Defendant's] rejection of a delivery of the package to a residence." 18 (Opp'n at 6). 19 The Court finds that regardless of whether the delay was two or three days, the delay 20 was due to continued investigation and controlled delivery of the package to Defendant after the 21 discovery of the "Scooby Snax" packages pursuant to a border search. The delay was not 22 necessarily in the processing of the package by the mailing service, or to obtain a search warrant 23 to search the package. As the Government points out in its Opposition, courts have found that 24 delays of several days due to planning logistics for controlled deliveries are not a basis for 25 suppression. See United States v. Hernandez, 313 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2002) (two day delay 26 from package arrival, processing, and controlled delivery found reasonable); United States v. 27 Aldaz, 921 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1990) (five day delay found reasonable); United States v. Gill, 28
Page 5of6 921 F.2d 227 (9th Cir. 1990) (six day delay found reasonable). Accordingly, the Court finds 2 that delay in this matter was reasonable, and denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
ll~y of April, 2018. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED this 6
10 H Judge, Superior Court of Guam 11
12 SERVICE VIA COURT BOX 13 < I acknowledge that a copy ~f the ' original hereto was placed m the 14 < court;sf~ /4-ftJ 15
Page 6 of6