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.
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.
7 -.-...
8 HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNONVERNON p. P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Judge, Superior Court Court of of Guam 9
10 10
12 12
14 14
15 15
16 16
17 17
18 18
19 19
20 20
25 25
People v. Gaza & Mendiola Case No. No. CF0825-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 11 11 ofll of ll