F z e. E z,
I 0L5R=,( GF ma 2 2025 JUL-7 2025JUL -7 RH 8: 12
AM 8: I
3 8€_;p,§;;»;@¥2 *;i§¥§€T I
4 . oF GU3=?~#i Q
5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE
CASE NO.
no. CF0825-24
CF0825-24
9 vs.
10 DECISION AND ORDER 11 11 JAY RYAN RYAN GAZA GAZA
12 12 BRIAN ANDREW MENDIOLA, 13 13 Defendants. Defendants
14 14
15 INTRODUCTION
16 This matter came came before
before the
the Honorable
Honorable Vernon
Vemon P. Perez
Perez on
on March
March 5,
5, 2025, for hearing on
17 17 Defendant Brian BrianAndrew
Andrew Mendiola's
Mendiola's ("Mendiola")
("Mendiola") Motion
MotiontotoSuppress.
Suppress. Present
Present were
were Assistant
Assistant
18 Attorney General J.
J.David
DavidGriffin
Griffin on behalf
behalfof
of the
thePeople
Peopleof
ofGuam
Guam("the
("theGovernment");
Government"); Mendiola
19 with counsel, Assistant with Assistant Alternate Alternate Public Defender Defender Tyler
TylerScott,
Scott;and
and Co-Defendant
Co-Defendant Jay
Jay Ryan
Ryan Gaza
20 20 ("Gaza") ("Gaza") with with counsel,
counsel, Deputy
Deputy Public
Public Defender John P.
Defender John P. Morrison.
Morison. Having
Having reviewed
reviewed the
the
21 21 pleadings, the arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord,
record,the
theCourt
Courtnow
nowissues
issuesthe
thefollowing
following Decision
Decision
22 and Order.
Order.
23 23 BACKGROUND
24 24 On December
December 13,
13, 2024, Mendiola was
2024, Mendiola was indicted indicted with
with one
one count
count of Possession of aa Possession of
25 25 Schedule II Controlled Substance Schedule II (As aa Third Substance (As Third Degree Degree Felony) and
and a Notice: Commission
Commission of aa
26 26 Felony While on on Felony
Felony Release.
Release. (Indictment,
(Indictment, Dec.
Dec. 13,
13, 2024).
2024). Gaza
Gazawas
was indicted
indicted with
with the
the
27 27 following following charges:
charges: (1) Possession
Possession of aa Schedule W Controlled Schedule IV Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Substance (As
28 28 Felony), Felony); (2)
(2) Possession
Possession of
of aa Firearm without Valid Firearm without Valid Identification Identification (As
(As a Third Degree
Degree Felony);
Felony),
People v.
v. Gaza
Gaza &
& Mendiola
Mendiola
Case Case No.
No. CF0825~24
CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 1 ofll
of ll
1 and (3) Speeding and (3) Speeding (As (As a Violation).
Violation). Id
Id.These
Thesecharges
chargesstem
stemfrom
fromthe
the discovery
discovery of
ofaa cylindrical
cylindrical
2 container containing unknown container containing unknownpills;
pills,aa rifle
rifle hard-case;
hard-case, and
and aa meth
met pipe
pipecontaining
containing suspected
suspected
33 methamphetamine residueininGaza's methamphetamine residue Gaza'svehicle vehicle during
during the
the effectuation
effectuation of
of a traffic
traffic stop
stop on
on or
or about
about
4 December 5, 5, 2024.
2024. (Deel.
(Decl. of
ofMatthew
Matthew Wermager,
Wermager, Magistrate's
Magistrate's Con pl., Dec.
Compl., Dec. 6,
6, 2024).
5 On January 23,2025, January 23, 2025,Mendiola Mendiolafiled
filed the instant Motion to instant Motion to Suppress.
Suppress.
6 On February February 6,
6, 2025,
2025,the
theGovernment
Governmentfiled
filed its Opposition.
7 On March 5, 2025, at the 2025, at the Suppression
SuppressionHearing,
Hearing,Gaza
Gazaorally
orallyjoined
joined in
in the
the Motion.
Motion. The
8 Court heard sworn testimony heard sworn testimonyfrom from Guam
GuamPolice
Police Department
Department("GPD")
("GPD") Officers
Officers Jeremiah
Jeremiah De
9 Chavez, Edgar Tiamzon, and Matthew Matthew P.
P. Cepeda.
Cepeda. The
The Court
Court then gave the parties leave the parties leave to
to file
file
10 10 proposed Findings of Fact and and Conclusions
Conclusionsof
of Law.
Law.
11 1 On March 18, 18, 2025, submittedaaProposed 2025, Gaza submitted ProposedDecision Decisionand
andOrder.
Order. The Court did not
12 12 receive receive any any proposed findings from Mendiola Mendiola or
or the
the Government. The
TheCourt
Courtsubsequently
subsequently placed
13 13 the matter under under advisement.
advisement.
14 14 At At the
the Suppression
Suppression Hearing, the Court ascertained ascertained the
the following
following facts
facts::
15 15 l.
1. On
Onthe
thenight
nightofofDecember
December5,5,2024,
2024, Federal
Federal Task
Task Officers
Officers were
were conducting
conducting surveillance
16 16 of of the
the Granada
Granada Apartments
Apartments in Tamuning
Tamuning for drug
drug trafficldng.
trafficking. Sergeant Cepeda Cepeda
17 17 testified that thesurveillance that the surveillanceinvolved involved officers
officers from
from DEA, ATF,
ATF,and
and GPD
GPD SIS
SIS..
18 18 2. While Whilethe
theinvestigation
investigationwas
wasgoing
goingon
onatatthe
theGranada Apartments, Officer Granada Apartments, Officer De Chavez
19 19 and SergeantCepeda and Sergeant Cepedawere
wereparked
parkedatathe
theShirleys
ShirleysCoffee
CoffeeShop
ShopininTamuning.
Tamuning. Officer
Officer
20 20 De Chavez Chavez was
was driving
driving an
an unmarked
unmarked GPD vehicle
vehicle and
and Sergeant
Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda was in the
21 passenger seat. Officer passenger seat. Officer De DeChavez
Chaveztestified
testifiedthat
thathe
hehad
had been
been at
at the parking
parking- lot for a
22 22 while and that GPD and that GPD had
hadeffectuated
effectuated other
otherpull
pull overs
avers relative
relative to the
the drug
drug investigation.
investigation.
23 23 3. Around Around10:00
10:00p.m.,
p.m., Officer
OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chavezobserved
observedaaKia
Kiaspeeding
speedingon
on Carlos
Carlos Camacho
Camacho
24 Street.
Street. The
TheKia
Kiawas
wasobserved
observedearlier
earlierby
byone
oneofofthe
thesurveillance
surveillanceteams
teamsatatthe
the Granada
Granada
25 Apartments.
Apartments. A
Atarget
target individual
individual was
was identified
identified entering
entering the vehicle
vehicle for
for aa short
short period
26 of of time before exiting the vehicle.
vehicle.
27 27 4. Officer OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chaveztestified
testifiedthat
that he followed
followedthe
theKim,
Kia, paced
paced it,
it, and
and could
could not keep up
28 at forty-five forty-five miles
miles per
per hour.
hour. Officer
OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chaveztestified
testifiedthat
that some
some slight
slight traffic
traffic near
near
People v.
v. Gaza
Gaza &
& Mendiola
CaseNo. Case No. CF0825-24 CF0825-24 ·
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 ofll
of 11
1 the intersection of of Governor Carlos Camacho Road and Route 1 helped him catch up.
2 Officer De Chavez was able to catch up and observed the vehicle make aa right right turn
tum
3 onto Route l.1. Officer OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chavezpaced
pacedthe
the vehicle
vehicle around
around 50
50 miles
miles per
per hour.
4 Officer De 5. Officer De Cha
Chavez could not rrecallll if the vez could the light wass green een or red
ed at the
the Route
Route l1
5 OfficerDe intersection. Officer De Chavez Chaveztestified
testifiedthat
that the
the traffic
traffic was clear, however, so he was 6 able to drive right through.
7 Sergeant Cepeda 6. Sergeant Cepeda could could not
not recall
recall getting
getting behind
behind the
the vehicle
vehicle on
on Governor
Governor Carlos
Carlos
8 Road and Camacho Road and testified testified that they were not not able
able to catch up to the vehicle until it 9 had just turned turned right
right onto
onto Route
Route 1.
l.
10 10 AsOfficer 7. As OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chavezwas
wasabout
abouttotoactivate
activate his
his lights
lights and
and sirens
sirens to
to effectuate
effectuate a pull
11 11 over, the vehicle made made aa left
left turn
tum into the East Agana Mobil and Asana Mobil and came
came to
to aa stop at one
12 12 of the gas pumps near the front entrance of of of the Mobil store.
13 13 OfficerDe 8. Officer DeChavez
Chavezactivated
activated his
his lights
lights when
when he
he pulled
pulled behind
behind the
the vehicle
vehicle at
at the gas
14 14 pump. Officer pump. Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez testified
testified that
that the
the blue
blue lights
lights were on
on during
during the
the entire
entire
15 15 interaction.
16 16 Officer De 9. Officer De Chavez
Chavezapproached
approached the
the driver,
driver, who
who was
was identified
identified as
as Defendant
Defendant Gaza.
Gaza.
17 17 Officer De Officer Chavez advised De Chavez advised Gaza
Gaza why there and why he was there and inquired inquired why Gaza
Gaza was
18 18 speeding. Officer De Officer De CChavez
ha rrequested
equ Gaza's dr
ed Ga driver's licensee aand iver licens vehicle nd vehicle
19 19 registration. Gaza registration. Gaza provided both.
20 10. Officer De Chavez indicated he verified 10. verified Gaza's documents by checking the expiration
21 dates and the the name on the registration and driver's license.
license. The vehicle belonged to 22 22 Gaza's mother.
23 23 11. Officer Officer De
De Chavez testified
testified that
that if
if aa driver
driver is
is able
able to
to provide
provide both a valid driver's
24 24 license and car registration, he does not notify or call dispatch to check.
25 12. Officer De Chavez acknowledged 12. acknowledged that that he
he did
did not
not just
just issue Gaza
Gaza a ticket for speeding 26 or issue him a warning and let him go.
27 27 13. Officer De De Chavez testified
testified that
that as
as he
he was
was reviewing
reviewing Gaza's documents, he was also
28 looking around the vehicle to see if there is any any potential
potential danger.
danger. Officer De Chavez
People v. Gaza People v. Gaza & & Mendiola
Mendiola
CaseNo.
No. CF0825-24
CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 3 of 11
ofll
1 cylinder-shaped container observed a clear cylinder-shaped container with with what
what appeared
appearedto
tobe
be pills
pills inside on
2 the floorboard floorboard by
by Gaza's
Gaza's right
right foot. OfficerDe
foot. Officer DeChavez
Chavezcould
could not
not identify the type
type of
3 pill from pill from outside
outside the
the vehicle.
vehicle.
4 14. Officer 14. De Chavez
Officer De Chavez later
later testified
testified that
that the
the pills
pills appeared
appeared to
to be
be Xanax
Xanax after he
he got a
5 Additionalpills closer look. Additional pillswere werealso
alsofound
foundininthe
thecenter
center console
console and
and in
in aa brown
6 backpack. The backpack backpack. backpack was was located
located on the
the floor of
ofthe
the front
front passenger's
passenger's seat.
seat.
7 Mendiola denied Mendiola denied ownership ownership of
ofthe
the backpack.
8 15. Officer 15. OfficerDe
DeChavez
Chavezasked
asked Gaza
Gaza to
to step
step out
out of
ofthe
the vehicle
vehiclebecause
because he
he wanted to talk to
9 him and get into into the
the vehicle.
vehicle.
10 10 16. OfficerDe 16. Officer conducted aa pat Chavezconducted DeChavez pat down down of
ofGaza,
Gaza, to
to which
which no
no weapons
weapons were found.
found.
111 1 Officer De 17. De Chavez
Chavez requested
requested for
for permission
permission to
to search
search the vehicle.
vehicle. Gaza
Gaza seemed
seemed
12 12 hesitant to hesitant to give response and give a response and said
said he
he wasn't
wasn't sure. Officer De
sure. Officer De Chavez
Chavezrequested
requested
13 13 permission again permission again and
and Gaza stated no.
14 14 18. Officer 18. DeChavez
Officer De inGaza's change in
notedaachange
Chaveznoted Gaza'sresponses responses when
whenhe
he asked
asked to
to search
search the
15 15 vehicle, which vehicle, whichappeared
appeared to
to be
be nervousness.
nervousness.
16 16 19. Officer De 19. Officer testifiedthat Chaveztestified DeChavez thathe he also
also tried
tried to
to request
request for
for aa K-9
K-9 unit,
unit, however, there
there
17 17 no K-9 unit available on was no on duty.
duty.
18 18 20. Officer DeChavez OfficerDe Gaza stand had Gaza
Chavezhad stand towards the backof theback ofthe
thevehicle
vehicle with
with Special
Special Agent
Agent
19 19 Jason JasonRoman.
Roman. Officer De Chavez
Officer De Chavez also
also had
had Mendiola exit
exit the vehicle.
20 21. Officer 21. De Chavez
Officer De Chavez then
then went
went back
backto
tothe
thevehicle
vehicleto
tolook
look around.
around. Officer
Officer De Chavez
21 the vehicle looked into the vehicle with a flashlight.
flashlight.
22 22 22. Officer De Chavez Officer De Chavezobserved observedaablack
blackhard
hard plastic
plastic type case in the
the back
back of
of the
the vehicle
vehicle
23 23 that he he believed
believed was a rifle
rifle case
case based
based on
on his
his training and
and experience.
24 24 23.
23. Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez also
also observed
observed what
what appeared
appeared to be aa firearm firearm magazine
magazine on
on the
the
25 25 driver's seat. Officer driver's seat. Chavezwas DeChavez
OfficerDe wasnot
notcompletely
completelysure
surefrom
fromwhere
wherehe
hewas
was standing
standing
26 26 because he because he was
was not
not as
as familiar with that
familiar with that particular particular type
type of magazine and
and the
the angle it
27 27 was viewed from.
from.
28
People v. People v. Gaza & Mendiola Gaza & Mendiola
Case No. CF0825-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 44 ofll
of ll
l Chavez approached 24. Officer De Chavez approached Gaza Gaza and
and asked
asked him
him ififthat
that was aa rifle case in the back 2 of the vehicle. GaZa of Gaza responded yes;
yes, it was. Officer De
was. Officer De Chavez
Chavez asked
asked ifif there was a
3 if he had a firearms identification card.
rifle inside and if
4 25. Officer De Chavez then read Gaza his Miranda rights.
5 26. Officer De Chavez could not recall if if he
he gave
gave Gaza's
Gaza's driver's license and registration
6 immediately back to him.
immediately
7 27. Officer Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez acknowledged that there there was nothing about the cylinder alone
8 which suggested suggested its
its only purpose was for criminal activity.
9 28. Officer 28. Officer De
De Chavez
Cha vez testified
testified that
tha t Gaza
Ga za told
told him
him thatt he ha
had aa prprescription for escr iption for
10 Alprazolam.
11 29. Officer De Chavez testified that he did not tell Gaza that he could leave.
12 12 30. Officer Officer De
De Chavez testified that if testified that if the
the defendants
defendants had
had requested
requested to
to leave,
leave, he
he would
13 have had to to let them go.
go.
14 14 31. When the officers confirmed confirmed that
that there
there was
was a rifle in the back seat, Officer Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez
15 15 arrested Gaza, Gaza, placed
placed him
him in handcuffs, and sat him him down on the curb.
16 16 32. When Officer Edgard Tiamzon and Jason Roman Roman aniseed
arrived on the scene, the occupants 17 17 of the vehicle of vehicle were still still inside.
inside. Officer Tiamzon observed Officer De Chavez speaking
18 18 with the operator of of the
the vehicle.
vehicle. Officer Tiamzonkept kept an
an eye
eye on
on the
the passenger
passenger of
of the
19 19 vehicle. 20 20 33. Officer Officer Tiamzon
Tiamzon was
was later apprised
apprised by
by Officer De Chavez that there was a firearm firearm
21 inside the vehicle. Officer Officer Tiamzon
Tiamzon confiscated
confiscated the
the rifle
rifle and magazine clip.
22 22 34. Officer Tiamzon could not recall if he he spoke to
to anyone in the vehicle.
23 23 35. Officer 35. Officer Tiamzon
Tiamzon could
could not
not recall
recall if
if there
there was
was any other container in the vehicle vehicle
24 24 and was not involved containing medicine and involved with with confiscating
confiscating any
any drugs.
25 36. Sergeant Cepeda engaged the passenger, later identified identified as
as Mendiola,
Mendiola, when
when he exited
26 26 the vehicle.
vehicle. Sergeant
Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda engaged
engaged in
in "small
"small talk"
talk" with him and
and explained
explained why
27 they were there. Sergeant Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda told
told Mendiola
Mendiolathat
that they needed to do what they they just needed
28
People People v.
v. Gaza
Gaza & Mendiola
Case No. CF0825-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 ofll
of 11
J
1 needed to do needed to do and
and then
thenifif everything
everything was
was clear,
clear, they
they would
would be
be free
free to
to go. Sergeant
2 Cepeda Cepeda acknowledged
acknowledged that
that at
at that time, the driver
driver and were detained.
and passenger were detained.
3 37. Mendiola Mendiola was
was calm
calm and
and cooperative
cooperative and
and did
did not
not appear under the appear to be under the influence.
influence.
4 38. Sergeant 38. Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda took
took a quick glance at the vehicle as he vehicle as he approached
approached Mendiola, but
but
5 did not see anything anything noteworthy
noteworthy immediately.
6 39. Sergeant Cepeda testified testified that itit was
was standard
standardfor
forofficers
officers to
to use
usetheir
theirflashlight
flashlightto
toview
view
7 into a vehicle during during a traffic stop
stop at night for safety concerns.
concerns.
8 40. Sergeant Cepeda Cepeda testified
testified about
aboutthree
three or
or four
four other
other officers
officers came to the scene in two the scene
9 vehicles, parked behind vehicles, parked behindhis hisand
andOfficer
Officer De
De Chavez's vehicle.
vehicle. Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda
10 10 testified testified the
the officers
officerswere
werestanding
standing towards
towards the
the back, just observing.
11 11 DISCUSSION
12 12 The Fourth Amendment to the the U.S. Constitution
Constitution "protects
"protectsagainst
againstunreasonable
unreasonable searches
searches
13 13 seizuresand and seizures madeapplicable andisismade applicabletoto Guam
Guam section
viavia 142l(b)(c)
section l42l(b)(c) of
of the
the Organic
OrganicAct
Act of Guam."
Guam."
14 14 v. Charguolaf, People v. Chargualaf, 2001 2001 Guam ,i 14
Guam l111 14 (internal
(internal citations
citations omitted).
omitted). Brief
Brief investigative
investigative
15 15 detentions are detentions are permitted permitted under
underthe
theFourth
FourthAmendment
Amendment"when
"when aa police officer has police officer has reasonable reasonable
16 16 suspicion that that an
anindividual
individualwas
wasengaged
engagedin
inor
orisisabout
abouttotobe
beengaged
engagedin
inillegal
illegal conduct."
conduct." People
17 17 v. Johnson, 1997Guam v. Johnson, 1997 ,i 4 (citing 99 114 (citing Terry
Terry v.
v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1l (1968)).
392 U.S. (l968)). "As
"Asa ageneral
generalmatter,
matter, the
the
18 18 decision to stop stop an
an automobile
automobile without a warrant is reasonable where the reasonable where the police have probable
19 19 cause to cause to believe that that a traffic violation
violationhas
has occurred.
occurred. Further,
Further, ititisis reasonable reasonable to
to stop
stop aa car where
20 20 the police merely merely have
have aa reasonable
reasonable suspicion to believe the suspicion to the driver driver has
has committed
committed a traffic
21 violation." Chargualaf, violation." Chargualaf, 2001 ,i 17 Guam 1l 11
2001 Guam 17(citations (citationsomitted).
omitted). "In
"In order
order to
to determine
determine whether
whether
22 an officer officer had had reasonable suspicion sufficient sufficient to
to warrant
warrant a traffic
traffic stop,
stop, the
the court
court must look
look at the
23 23 totality of ofthe
the circumstances, taking into account circumstances, taking the facts account the facts known
known to
to the
the officers from
from personal
personal
24 24 observation."
observation." Johnson, Johnson, 1997 Guam 9 ,i116 1997 Guam (citationand 6 (citation andquotation
quotationmarks
marksomitted).
omitted). Furthermore,
25 the reasonablesuspicion the reasonable mustexist suspicionmust existatatthe the timethe
time thestop
stop was
was initiated.Id.Id (citation initiated. (citation omitted).
26 26 Reasonable suspicion suspicionrequires
requires"'some
"'some minimal
minimal level
level of
ofobi ective justification' for objective for making making aa stop,
27 but considerably less than thanthe
thelevel
level of
of suspicion required for for probable cause."
cause."People
People v.
v. Mansapir,
Mansapit,
28 28 ,i 13 (quoting 2016 Guam 30 1113 (quoting United United States
States v. Sokolow, 490U.S.
Sokolow, 490 U.S.1,l, 77(1989)).
(l989)).
People v. Gaza & v. Gaza & Mendiola
Mendiola
Case No.
No. CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 66 ofll
of ll
1 Here, Mendiola concedes that Mendiola concedes that the initial detention detention for
for purposes of
of the traffic violation was 2 valid but argues argues that
that "officers
"officers illegally
illegally detained
detained [him]
[him] when
when they
they removed
removed him from
from the vehicle
3 questioned him and questioned about the possible him about possible presence esence of drugs weapons inside ugs or weapons inside the the vehicle."
vehicle."
4 Suppress at 3, (Mendiola Mot. Suppress 3, Jan.
Jan. 23,
23, 2025). Gaza disputes
2025). Gaza disputes that the initial detention for the 5 traffic violation was valid, arguing that itit was was pre-textual
pre-textual and
and the
the Government
Government has failed to prove
6 it was valid valid in
in light
light of
ofthe
theofficers'
officers' conflicting
conflicting testimony
testimony about following following the
the vehicle
vehicle on Governor
Governor
7 Carlos Camacho Road. (Gaza (Gaza Proposed
Proposed D&O,
D&O, Mar.
Mar. 18,
18, 2025).
s 8 The Court finds that initial initial stop
stop was
was a valid traffic
traffic stop
stop based
based on
on Officer
Officer De
De Chavez's
9 testimony that he observed the Kia speeding on on Governor
Governor Carlos
Carlos Camacho
Camacho Road, pacing it at at
10 10 forty-five miles per hour, and then speeding speeding on
on Route
Route 1,
1, pacing
pacing itit at around fifty miles per hour.
11 11 See 16 See GCA §§ 3301.
16 GCA 3301. Although Although Sergeant
Sergeant Cepeda
Cepeda could
could not
not recall
recall getting behind the getting behind the vehicle vehicle on
on
12 12 Governor Carlos Camacho Road and testified that they were not able to catch up to to the vehicle
13 13 .until it had just just turned
turned right
right onto
onto Route
Route 1,
l, the Court notes that he he was
was the
the passenger
passenger of
of the
the vehicle,
vehicle,
14 14 not the driver, and he could also not recall recall whether
whether he and Officer De Chavez were at the parking
15 15 of Shirleys or Onward when they received lot of received information information about
about the Kia
Kia being at
at the Granada
Granada
16 16 Apartments. Further, ther , the
the lawfulness
la wfuhiess of
of a traffic
a ffic stop
stop does
does not depend on
on the
the subjective
subjective
17 17 of the police officer. See Warren motivations of Whren v.v. United United States, (1996); United States, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996), United 18 18 States v. Taylor, 596 F.3d 373, 378 (7th Cir.
v. Taylor, Cir. 2010)
2010) ("the subjective motivations of of the agents are
19 19 irrelevant to the Fourth Amendment analysis.").
Amendment analysis.")
20 20 The Court must next next determine whether the initial detention for the traffic determine whether traffic violation violation ended
ended
21 and, if so, whether the the defendants
defendants were subjected subjected to
to a subsequent
subsequent detention. "[T]he tolerable detention. "[T]he tolerable 22 22 duration of duration of police police inquiries
inquiries in
inthe
thetraffic-stop
traffic-stopcontext
contextis isdetermined
determinedbybythe
theseizure's 'mission'-
seizure's 'mission'-
23 23 to address address the traffic traffic violation
violation that warranted
warranted the attend to the stop and attend to related related safety
safety concerns.
concerns.
24 Because addressing Because addressing the the infraction
infraction isis the
the purpose
purpose of
of the
the stop,
stop, itit may
may 'last no longer than is is
25 necessary necessary to effectuate effectuate that purpose.'"
purpose."' Rodriguez v.
v. United
United States, (2015)
States, 575 U.S. 348, 354 (2015)
26 26 (internal citations (internal citations omitted). "Authority for omitted). "Authority for the seizure seizure thus ends when
when tasks
tasks tied
tied to
to the
the traffic
traffic
27 infraction are- or reasonably reasonably should
shouldhave
havebeen
been- - completed."
completed." Id. (citation omitted).
Id (citation
28 28
People v.
v. Gaza & Mendiola
Gaza & Mendiola
Case No. CF0825-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 77 ofll
of ll
whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer's mission includes Beyond determining whether 1 ordinary inquiries ordinary inquiries incident incident to traffic stop.
to the traffic stop. Typically such such inquiries
inquiries involve
involve
2 checking the driver's license, determining whether there are checldng are outstanding warrants 3 against the driver, against driver, and
and inspecting
inspecting the
the automobile's
automobile's registration registration and
and proof of of
These checks
insurance. These checks serve servethe
thesame
sameobi
objective as enforcement
enforcementof ofthe
the traffic
traffic code
code:
4 ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely safely and responsibly.
55 Id. atat355 355 (internal
(internal citations,
citations, quotation
quotation marks and alterations omitted").
6 Here, Officer De Chavez testified that Gaza gave gave him
him his
his driver's license and registration 7 and that there were no issues with the documents.
documents. Gaza
Gaza and
and Mendiola
Mendiola were
were asked
asked to
to step out of
of
8 for weapons.
the vehicle and patted down for weapons. Officer Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez testified
testified that after he finished the 9 pat down, he asked Gaza for permission permission to
to search
search the
the vehicle. Gaza seemed
vehicle. Gaza seemed hesitant to give a 10 10 response and said he he wasn't
wasn't sure. Officer
Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez requested
requested permission
permission again and Gaza stated 11 1 no. The The Court
Court finds
finds that
that Officer
Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez asking
asking whether
whether or
or not
not he
he could
could search
search the vehicle
12 12 indicates the original investigation investigation of
of the traffic violation ended, as such inquiry was unrelated to 13 13 the traffic violation of speeding.
14 14 "Investigative questioning regarding criminal questioning regarding criminal activity activity does
does not,
not, in itself,
itself, implicate the
15 15 Fourth Amendment." Chargualaf, 2001 ,-i 20 (citing Florida v. Royer, 2001 Guam 1 1120 Royer, 460 U.S. 491 16 16 (l983)).
(1983)). "Obviously, not all all personal
personal intercourse
intercourse between
between policemen and citizens citizens involves
involves
17 17 'seizure'
'seizure' of ofpersons.
persons. Only
Onlywhen
whenthe
theofficer,
officer, by
bymeans
means of
ofphysical
physical force
force or
or show
show of
of authority, has
18 18 in some way restrained the liberty liberty of a citizen may we conclude conclude that
that aa 'seizure' has
has occurred."
occurred."
19 19 Florida v. Bostick, Bostick, 501 U.S. 429,
429,434 (1991) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.
v. Ohio, U.S. 1, 19,
19, n.
n. 16
16 (1968)).
(l968)).
20 20 See also Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1 ,-ifl 20 20 ("the
("the Fourth
Fourth Amendment
Amendment is
is only
only at issue where the police 21 detain or seize seize an
an individual
individual while
while posing
posing investigative
investigativequestions.").
questions."). Here,
Here, Officer De Chavez
22 22 testified that testified that the the blue
blue lights
lights on his unmarked vehicle his unmarked vehicle were were on
on during
during the
the entire
entire encounter.
encounter.
23 23 Additional Additional officers and their vehicles were also present at at the
the scene.
scene. Although Officer De Chavez 24 24 that the testified that the defendants defendants would
would have
have been
been free
free to
to go
go if they had asked, Officer De Chavez 25 specifically told
never specifically told Gaza Gaza that
that he
he was
was free
free to
to leave.
leave. Gaza
Gaza was
was able
able to
to provide
provide both a valid
26 26 driver's license license and
and vehicle
vehicle registration,
registration, however, Officer De Chavez could not recall if he gave 27 Gaza his driver's license license and
and registration back. Instead Instead of
ofissuing
issuing aa traffic citation or giving Gaza 28
People v.
v. Gaza
Gaza && Mendiola
Case No.
No. CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 8 ofll
of 11
1 a warning regarding his his speeding,
speeding, Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez had
had Gaza
Gaza exit
exitthe
thevehicle.
vehicle. Sergeant Cepeda
2 testified testified that that Gaza
Gaza and
and Mendiola
Mendiola were
were detained
detained when
when they
they were
were asked to exit the vehicle and as
3 would not be able to leave until the officers officers "did
"did what they needed to do." Gaza and Mendiola
4 were not standing next to each other or or by
by themselves.
themselves. Gaza
Gaza was standing next to Officer Roman Roman
5 and Mendiola was standing next to Sergeant Cepeda.
Cepeda. Therefore,
Therefore, the
the Court
Court finds
finds that
that Gaza and
6 Mendiola were detained at at this time. Police
Police may
mayonly
onlyfurther
further detain
detain aa driver
driver following
following aa traffic
traffic
7 stop when reasonable stop reasonable suspicion suspicion exists that the exists that the driver
driver is engaged
engaged in
in criminal
criminal activity.
activity. See
88 Rodriguez, Rodriguez, 575 U.S.
U.S. at
at 355
355 ("An
("An officer
officer ...
... may
mayconduct
conductcertain
certain unrelated
unrelated checks
checks during
during an
9 otherwise lawful traffic stop.
stop. But
But ...
...he
hemay
maynot
notdo
doso
soininaaway
waythat
that prolongs
prolongs the
the stop,
stop, absent the
10 reasonable suspicion reasonable suspicion ordinarily ordinarily demanded
demanded to
to justify
justify detaining
detaining an
an individual.").
individual."). Accordingly, Accordingly,
11 1 Officer De Chavez would have to have developed developed reasonable
reasonable suspicion of a new offense while 12 12 he was in process of in the process of completing completing his
his original
original mission
mission in
in stopping
stopping the
the vehicle
vehicle for
for the
the traffic
traffic
13 13 violation.11 violation.
14 14 "Reasonable "Reasonable suspicion
suspicion is
is present
present when,
when, considering
considering the
the totality
totality of
of the circumstances, there 15 15 is both a particularized particularized and an objective basis for suspecting suspecting the
the individual stopped of of criminal
16 16 activity." United States v.
v. Dapolito,
Dapolito, 713 F.3d 141, 148 (1st (let Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks
17 17 omitted).
omitted). Here, Here, Officer
Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez was
was candid
candid that
that he asked
asked Gaza
Gaza to step
step out of
of the vehicle
18 18 because he wanted to talk to to him
him and
and get
get into
into the
the vehicle.
vehicle. Prior
Prior to
to asking
asking Gaza
Gaza to exit the vehicle, vehicle,
19 19 Officer De Chavez had only seen seen aa clear
clear cylinder-shaped
cylinder-shaped container container in the vehicle with what 20 appeared to be pills inside. Officer De Chavez could not identify the type of of pill from outside the
21 vehicle. Officer Officer De
De Chavez
Chavez acknowledged
acknowledgedthat
that there
there was
was nothing
nothing about
about the cylinder alone which 22 22 suggested its only purpose was for criminal criminal activity.
activity. An
An unlabeled
unlabeled pill
pill bottle,
bottle, in and
and of
of itself,
itself,
23 23 does not necessarily necessarily constitute probable cause constitute probable cause for for aa search
search or
or seizure.
seizure. See, Ag., People See, e.g., People v.
24 Williamson, Williamson, 608 N.E.2d 943, 950 (Ill.
(Ill. App. 1993)
1993) ("Nothing about a prescription bottle bottle is so
25 unique that it would immediately immediately suggest
suggest criminal
criminal activity.
activity. While
While there
there isis aa chance a prescription 26 26 bottle may contain a controlled controlled substance, it is equally, if not more, likely to contain a number of 27 27 11 In 2013, In the Guam
2013, the specifically repealed Legislature specifically
Guam Legislature repealed and and re-enacted
re-enacted 16
16 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §
§ 9108
9108 to
to change
change violations
violations of
of Title
Title
28 16 from 16 from aa petty misdemeanor misdemeanor to
to aa civil
civil violation
violation punishable
punishableby
byaafine.
fine. See
See P.L.
P.L. 32-027
32-027 (May
(May 10,
10, 2013).
People People v. Gaza & Mendiola Case No.
No. CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 9 ofll
of11
1 innocent innocent obi ects such as objects as aa valid valid prescription,
prescription, aspirin,
aspirin, thumbtacks
thumbtacks or nothing
nothing at all.
all. Probable
Probable cause
22 requires requires more than simply having seen seen an
an item
item associated
associated with
with criminal
criminal activity
activity on an
an earlier
earlier
3 occasion."), abrogated on other grounds by People v.
v. Gipson,
Gibson, 786 N.E.2d
N.E.2d 540
540 (Ill.
(Ill.2003)).
2003)). "An
4 officer can draw draw on his or her training training and experience to make reasonable inferences under the 5 circumstances, but circumstances, but training training and
and experience
experience alone are not an adequate adequate substitute
substitute for objectively 6 observable facts."
facts." State v. Mock, 485 P.3d Mock, 485 P.3d295, 301-02 301-02 (Or. 202l) (citation (Or. App. 2021) (citation omitted).
7 Although the vehicle vehicle was
was seen
seen at
at and
and leaving
leaving aa target
target location
location under
under surveillance,
surveillance, there
8 was no testimony testimony that
that Gaza or Mendiola appeared appeared to be under
under the
the influence
influence throughout
throughout their
9 interactions with interactions with the officers.
officers. Gaza
za was aable to
to pr
provide his
his dr iver license
driver's license aand vehicle vehicle
10 10 registration, which registration, which Officer De De Chavez
Chavez verified.
verified. There
There was no testimony
testimony that
that Gaza or Mendiola
11 had weapons or contraband discovered discovered on
on them
them during
during the
the pat
pat downs.
downs. Officer De Chavez noted
12 12 a change in Ga za rresponses Gaza's esponses when he
he aasked
sked to
to sea r
search the
the vehicle,
vehicle, which
which aappeared
ppea ed to be
13 nervousness, however, "[t]hat the defendant exhibited signs of nervousness and evasiveness in nervousness, 14 14 the context of the context of an an involuntary
involuntary police
police encounter
encounter cannot,
cannot, without
without more,
more, generate
generate reasonable
reasonable
15 15 suspicion." Commonwealth v. Cordero, Cordero, 74 N.E.3d 1282, 1289 (Mass. 2017).
1289 (Mass. 2017). See also United United
16 16 v. McKay, States v. McKoy, 428 428 F.3d
F.3d 38,
38, 40
40 (1st
(let Cir.
Cir. 2005)
2005) ("Nervousness
("Nervousness is a common common and
and entirely natural
17 17 reaction to police presence"). Further, Further,asasnoted
notedearlier,
earlier, at
at this
this point, the original investigation of of
18 18 traffic violation the traffic violation ended.
ended. While
While there
there was
was also
also testimony about
about Officer De Chavez observing 19 19 firearm magazine what appeared to be a firearm magazine on the the driver's
driver's seat (which he later clarified clarified that
that he
he wasn't
wasn't
20 20 too sure what the item was because of the angle he was viewing it from and he was not familiar 21 with that type of magazine) and a closed black hard plastic type case case in the
the back seat (which
(which he
22 22 suspected to be a rifle case and went to ask Gaza to to confirm),
confirm), these
these observations
observations were made after
23 Gaza refused to give consent consent to search the vehicle and Officer De Chavez went back to look into 24 the vehicle the vehicle with a flashlight.
flashlight. Accordingly,
Accordingly, the Court
Court does not find that Officer De De Chavez's
25 observations at the time he asked Gaza for consent consent to
to search
search the
the vehicle
vehicle were
were enough to constitute
26 26 traffic stop.
particularized reasonable suspicion to extend the duration of the traffic stop. The Court therefore
27 grants Defendants'
grants Defendants' Motion Motion to
to Suppress.
Suppress.
28
People v.
v. Gaza
Gaza &
& Mendiola
Mendiola
Case No.
No. CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 10
10ofll
of ll
1 CONCLUSION
2 For the the foregoing
foregoing reasons, the Court reasons, the Court hereby hereby GRANTS
GRANTS the
the Defendants'
Defendants' Motion to
3 Suppress. Parties shall return for aa Pre-Trial Suppress. Pre-TrialConference Conferenceon
onAugust
August5,5,2025
2025atat9:30
9:30a.1n.
a.m.
74
4
5 IT IS
IS SO
SO ORDERED
ORDEREDthis
this J_t day of
ofJuly,
July, 2025.
2025.
6
7 -.-...
8 HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNONVERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Judge, Superior Court
Court of
of Guam
9
10 10
11
12 12
13
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
21
22
23
24
25 25
26
27
28
People v. Gaza & Mendiola Case No.
No. CF0825-24
Decision Decision and and Order
Page 11
11 ofll
of ll