i i
if Q 11
Fw
»
as
3 `5 - sI
are 1;
1 s *Lu i;.=#L;..;Q g
F' "H¢-*\ \-. ,
L il 5
' r Si
' 5112*
;§
2 2§25 nm: JU% ruu 3 AM 10:213 Ul:.I .., i. - 3 519:
Ann
2:
3 3
s; H £?';r 4 - _ Lr 1*-1
3
vi 3 5 ==1' °{u1 Ja
5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 6 6
7 PEOPLE OF GUAM,
8 8 NO. CF0028-25
CRIMINAL CASE no. CF0028-25
9 9 vs.
DECISION AND ORDER
IO 10
II 11 ROLAND JUNIOR JUANILLO GUZMAN aka Roland Juanillo Guzman Jr. aka 12 Roland Jay Guzman, 13 13 Defendant.
14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION !6 1 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez Vemon P. Perez on
on May
May 21, 2025, for hearing on 17 1 Defendant ROLAND JUNIOR JUANILLO GUZMAN aka Roland Juanillo Guzman Guzman Jr. aka
18 18 Roland Roland Jay G uzman' ("Defendant")
Guzman's Motion Requesting ("Defendant") Motion Requesting a Hearing Hearing to
to Invalidate
Invalidate Search
Search
19 1 Warrant and Warrant and to
to Suppress
Suppress Evidence
Evidence ("Motion
("Motion to
to Suppress").
Suppress"). Present
Present were
were Assistant
Assistant Attorney
Attorney
20 20 General Neil Bonavita on behalf behalf of
of the
the People
People of
of Guam
Guam ("the
("the Government")
Government") and Defendant with
21 21 counsel, Assistant Alternate Alternate Public
Public Defender
Defender Peter
Peter J.J. Santos.
Santos. Having
Having reviewed
reviewed the pleadings, the
22 arguments presented, and the record, the the Court now
now issues
issues the
the following
following Decision and Order.
23 2 BACKGROUND
24 24 Defendant Defendant is charged with one count of of Possession of
of a Schedule II Controlled Controlled Substance
25 25 with Intent to Dispense (As a First Degree Felony) and one count of of Possession
Possession of
of a Firearm
Firearm
1 (Superseding Indictment, Apr. 24, 26 26 Without Valid Identification (As a Third Identification (As Third Degree Degree Felony).
Felony).1 (Superseding Indictment,
27 27 11 Defendant initially charged Defendant was initially charged with with two
two counts of Possession of a Schedule II ll Controlled Substance with Intent 28 to Di
Dispense
spense (As aa Fi
First Degree Fel
rst Degree Felony). Indictment, Jan.
ony). See Indictment, Jan. 17, 17, 2025,
2025; Superseding
Superseding Indictment,
Indictment, Apr. 24,
Apr. 24,
People People v. Guzman Case No.
No. CF0028-25
Decision Decision and Order
Page 1 ofS
1 of 5
I
l 2025). These stem from charges stem
These charges the discovery from the of 174.8 discovery of gross grams 174.8 gross suspected grams ofofsuspected
2 methamphetamine, paraphernaliaand drug paraphernalia
methamphetamine, drug firearmduring andaafirearm the execution duringthe search warrant at execution of aa search
3 Defendant's residenceon Defendant's residence onJanuary 10,2025.
January10, (Decl.of 2025.(Deel. Emily L.A.
ofEmily Compl., L.A. Rees, Magistrate's Con
4 Jan.11, Jan. ll, 2025).
2025).
5 On May 5, 2025, Defendant filed the 5, 2025, instant Motion. On the instant May 13, On May 2025, the Government 13, 2025,
6 filed filed its its Opposition. On
On May
May 16, Defendant filed 2025, Defendant
16, 2025, his Reply.
filed his
7 On May On 21, 2025,
May 21, the Court heard arguments 2025, the the Motion arguments on the and subsequently placed the Motion and
8 matter under under advisement.
advisement.
9 DISCUSSION
10 10 issue before At issue At beforethe
theCourt
Courtisisthe
theSearch
SearchWarrant
Warrantissued thismatter inthis
issuedin onJanuary matteron January 9, 2025 9, 2025
11 by Magistrate Judge E. Brown.
Judge Sean E. Brown. Defendant Defendant moves
moves the
the Court invalidate the to invalidate
Court to search warrant the search
12 12 "on "on the the grounds
grounds that the
the affidavit
affidavit in
in support
support thereof
thereofdid
did not the information was demonstrate that the
not demonstrate
13 13 independently reliable." (Mot.
independently reliable." (Mot.Suppress Suppress at
at 4, May 5, 2025). Government opposes, TheGovernment
2025). The arguing opposes, arguing
14 that the Magistrate that the Magistrate Judge's decision to issue based on the erroneous based
issue the warrant was not clearly erroneous
15 15 details providedininthe details provided theaffidavit affidavitof
ofprobable
probablecause.
cause.(Opp'n
(Opp'natat3,3,May
May 13,
13,2025).
2025). In Reply,
16 16 Defendant reasserts that"[t]he reasserts that "[t]he issue affiant represented to the court anything issue is whether or not the affiant 17 17 to support thereliability support the reliabilityor or veracity
veracity of
of the
the informants. so it is clear not, so
informants. Here they plainly did not,
18 18 error."
error." (Reply, (Reply, May
May16,
16, 2025).
2025).
19 19 "To "Tobe
bevalid,
valid,aasearch
searchwarrant
warrant must
must be
be supported
supported by an
an affidavit
affidavit establishing probable establishing probable
20 cause.
cause. Probable Probable cause
cause is aa fluid
fluid concept
concept -- of probabilities assessmentof
- turning on the assessment probabilities in particular
21 factual contexts-- not readily, factual contexts readily, or even usefully, reduced neatset to a neat
reduced to of legal setof rules." People legal rules." v.
People v.
22 22
23 2025. Defendant moved the Defendant moved the Court Courtto to disclose
disclose the
theidentity
identityof
of three
three confidential
confidentialinformants:
informants:SOI#l;
SoI#l, SOI#2,
SOI#2; andand
24 GPI#24-024. See Mot. Disclose, Mar. 19, 2025. The See Mot. Disclose, Mar. 19, 2025. The Court Court ultimately ultimately determined
determined that
that the
the Government
Government did
did not
not need
to disclose the the identities
identitiesofSOI#l
oflsoI#l and andSOI#2
SOI#2but
butthat
that itit must provide
provide the
the identity
identityofGPI#24-024
ofGPI#24-024 init ifit wanted wanted toto move
25 forward forward with the First Charge the First Charge -- Count Count One of ofPossession Possession of of aa Schedule Schedule llIIControlled
ControlledSubstance
Substance with Intent
Intent to
26 Dispense (As a First Dispense (As First Degree Degree Felony).
Felony). (Dec.
(Dec.&&Order,
Order,Apr. Apr.28,
28,2025).
2025). This
Thiscount
countstemmed
stemmed from
from aa controlled buy controlled buy
operation with GPI#24-024 GPI#24-024 on on January January8,8,2025.
2025.See
SeeSuperseding
SupersedingIndictment,
Indictment,Apr.
Apr.24,24,2025;
2025,Deel. EmilyL.A.
Decl.ofofEmily L.A.
27 Rees, Magistrate's Comal., Comp!., Jan. ll, 2025.
Jan. 11, 2025. The
TheGovernment
Governmentsubsequently
subsequently moved
moved toto dismiss
dismiss Count
Count One of of the First the First
Charge, which was was granted grantedby bythe
theCourt.
Court.See
SeeMot.
Mot. Dismiss
DismissWithout
Without Prejudice
Prejudice Count
Count 11of of Charge
Charge 1l and Order, May and Order,
28 6, 2025, Fntry, May 6, 2025; Minute Entry, 6, 2025.
2025.
People People v.
v. Guzman
Guzman
Case No.
No. CF0028-25
Decision Decision and Order
Page 22 ofS Page off i _--
I Gallo, 2017 Guam 24 ,i1122 (citationomitted).
22 (citation omitted). "The "The task
task of
of the
the issuing
issuing judge
judge is
is simply to make a
2 practical, common-sense practical, common-sense decision decision whether,
whether, given
given all
all the
the circumstances
circumstances set forth
forth in the affidavit
33 before him, ... thereisisaafair ... there fair probability probability that
that contraband
contraband or evidence of of a crime will be found in 4 a particular
particular place."
place." Id.
Id (citing
(citing Illinois v.
v. Gates,
Gates, 462 U.S. 213,
213, 238
238 (1993)).
(1993)). "Because an initial
5
5 probable cause determination is ill-suited to the application ofrigid rigid legal rules and is to be based
6 upon the totality of determination is generally of the circumstances, such a determination generally entitled to great deference
7 by any reviewing court."
court." [cl ,i 23 ((citations, Id. atat1123 quotation marks, citations, quotation marks, and and alterations
alterations omitted).
omitted). "[T]he
8 reviewing court is simply duty of the reviewing simply to to ensure
ensure that
that the
the magistrate
magistrate had a substantial substantial basis for
9 concluding that probable concluding that cause existed."
probable cause existed." Id.
Id (quoting
(quoting Gates,
Gates, 462 U.S.
U.S. at
at 238).
238). Although
10 Defendant moves moves the
the Court to
to focus
focus on
on the
the issue
issue of reliability,
reliability, see
see Reply,
Reply, May 16, 2025, "it is 16, 2025,
II well-settled law well-settled law that a showing of of reliability is but
but one factor
factor for consideration in determining 12 probable cause;
probable cause, it is
is not itself a specific requirement requirement that
that must
must be
be separately
separately analyzed." Gallo, Gallo,
13 13 2017 Guam 24 ,i 1]28
28 (citing Gates,
Gates, 462 U.S. at 232).
14 Where an affidavit relies on hearsay, particularly particularly from an informant, informant, the issuing
issuing
court may consider court may things such consider things such as as the veracity
veracity or basis
basis of
of knowledge
knowledge of the the
15 15 informant. informant. These
These considerations
considerations are not mutually exclusive, a weak showing of mutually exclusive; of 16 1 one can be balanced against a strong balanced against strong showing showing of of the
the other.
other. When
When considering
considering
17 veracity, veracity, a reviewing
reviewing court can weigh such court can such factors factors asas whether
whether thethe informant
informant
17 provided reliable information in the past, past, offered
offered first-hand
first-hand knowledge,
knowledge, waswas willing 18 to reveal his or her identity, provided detailed predictive information about future 19 19 events, offered admission against penal interest, and whether whether there was
was independent
co1-roboration corroboration bybythe
theaffiant.
affiant.When
When considering
considering the
the basis
basis of
of affiant's
affiant's knowledge, a
20 court can weigh whether the informant is speaking from first-hand knowledge or is 21 21 offering hearsay.
hearsay. Ultimately,
Ultimately, facts
facts supporting
supporting the reliability of of an informant need not take any particular form.
form.
22 ,i
Id. atat1129 (citations omitted).
23 v. Gallo,
In People v. Gallo, the defendant similarly argued "there was insufficient probable cause 24 to support the issuance
issuance of the search
search warrant because the wairnnt because the affidavit affidavit in support of the the warrant
warrant
25 application relied on information from from a confidential
confidential informant and the affiant did not establish 26 the informant's reliability."
reliability." 2017
2017Guam
Guam24
241117.
,i 17. The Supreme Court of Guam ultimately found:
found:
27
28
People v. Guzman Case No.
No. CF0028-25
Decision Decision and Order
Page 5 Page 3 ofS
s
l
reviewing the In reviewing the totality totality of
ofthe
thecircumstances,
circumstances, and with proper deference to the the l issuing court, issuing court, the
thereviewing
reviewing court recognized recognized that
that the
the affiant
affiant did
did not
not rely
rely solely on
2 informant's statement the confidential informant's statement but also included information regarding the 3 affiant's background affiant's background knowledge knowledge and and expertise, expertise, personal
personal observations,
observations, andand
information gathered through the information the investigation.
investigation.
4 Upon a review of
ofthe
the warrant application and andsupporting
supportingaffidavit,
affidavit, we
we find, like the
5 court below,
reviewing court below, that that there was no clear error in the issuing issuing court's initial
6 probable cause determination.
cause determination.
7 Id. at ,i,i 32-33.
at'lm 32-33.
8 In case, Detective In this case, Joe G.
Detective Joe G. Nucum
Nucum applied
applied for
for aa search
search warrant from Magistrate Judge Judge
2
9 Sean E. Brown Brown to search
search Defendant's residence and and car on January
January9,9,2025.
2025.2 In
Inhis
hisaffidavit
affidavit in
10 10 support for support the search
for the search warrant,
warrant, Detective
Detective Nucum included information Nucum included information provided provided by
by two
111 confidential sourcesof confidential sources information ("SOI")
of information and information ("SOI") and information regarding regarding aa controlled
controlled buy
buy
12 conducted by conducted by GPD
GPD with a confidential
confidential informant,
informant,GPI#24-024.
GP1#24-024.SOI#l
SOI#l provided information on
13 13 September 30, 30, 2024
2024 regarding
regarding the
the distribution
distribution and
and selling
selling of
of methamphetamine
methamphetamine at Defendant's
14 14 residence.
residence. SOI#l told
told GPD
GPDthat
that he
heororshe
shepurchased
purchased met
meth more
more than five (5) times than five times from
15 15 Defendant Defendant in the
the past year and
past year and that
thatthe
the target
target location,
location, Defendant's
Defendant's residence,
residence,has
hasaa"ton
"ton of
16 traffic." On traffic." OnOctober
October6,6, 2024,
2024, SOI#2
SOI#2 openly
openly admitted to being
admitted to being an
an avid
avid user
userof
of "ice,"
"ice," using
using it
17 17 multiple times a week week at
at different
different locations.
locations. These
These statements
statements from SOI#1
SOI#l and
and SOI#2
SOI#2 are
are both
18 from their first-hand knowledge and first-hand knowledge and are are admissions
admissionsagainst
againsttheir
theirpenal
penalinterest.
interest. SOI#2 also
also
19 19 provided provided information regarding his information regarding his or or her
her other
otherhalf
halfpurchasing
purchasing methamphetamine methamphetamine from
20 Defendant.
Defendant. "Even
"Even ififthe
the reliability
reliability ofofa aconfidential confidentialsource
source isisnot
notclearly
clearlyestablished,
established, the
the
21 credibility of ofthe
the statement
statement is 'enhanced'
'enhanced' when
when the
the statement
statement gives aa detailed account account of events
22 that is corroborated by by the
the statements
statementsof
ofother
otherconfidential
confidential informants."
informants." United
United States
States v.
v. Alvarez,
23 358 F.3d 1194, 358 F.3d 1203(9th
1194, 1203 (9th Cir.
Cir. 2004)
2004) (citing United
United States
States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d
24 1560, 1560, 1566 (9thCir.1989)).
1566 (9th Cir. l989)). See See also United
United States
States v.
v. Landis, 726 F.2d 540,543 543 (9th
(9th Cir.
Cir. 1984)
1984)
25 ("Interlocking tips tips from
from different
different confidential
confidential informants enhancethe informants enhance the credibility credibility of
of each.").
26 GPI#24-024 took part in a controlled buy operation at Defendant's residence, residence, which
which resulted
resulted in
27 27
2
A copy of
of the affidavit
affidavit for
forsearch
search warrant is attached to to both
bothDefendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress and the
Suppress and theGovernment's Government's
28 Opposition. Opposition.
People v.v. GzlzIl1(l}'l People Guzman Case No.
No. CF0028-25
Decision andand Order
Page Page 4 of
of5
. A -- .
Y
l the purchase purchase of
of 1.52
1.52 gross
grossgrams
gramsofmethamphetamine
of methamphetamine from
from Defendant.
Defendant. Detective Nucum wrote 2 in his affidavit affidavit that
that GPD
GPD corroborated the high vehicular and foot corroborated the foot traffic at at the
the target
target location
3 through drive-by drive-by of the
the target
target location
locationininthe
themonths
monthsfollowing.
following. Detective Nucum also included 4 information about his background background as
as aapolice
policeofficer,
officer,including
including his
his relevant
relevant experience.
experience. Detective
5 Nucum sets forth forth that
that he
he"has
"has initiated,
initiated, assisted,
assisted, and
and taken
takenmajor
majorroles
rolesininextensive
extensive investigations, investigations,
6 working with with informants
informants to
to gather
gather intelligence
intelligence on
on criminal
criminal activity,
activity, which led to multiple case 7 closures with arrest(s)
closures with arrest(s) and and recovery
recoveryof
ofstolen
stolenitem(s)."
item(s)." Thus,
Thus, like in Gallo,
Gallo, Detective Nucum's
Detective Nucum's
8 affidavit "did not rely solely affidavit "did solely on on the
the confidential
confidential informant's
informant's statement
statement but also
also included
included
9 information regarding the affiant's affiant's background
background knowledge and expertise, expertise, personal observations, o 10 and information gathered through through the
the investigation."
investigation." Gallo,
Gallo, 2017 Guam
Guam 24
24 at
at 1132.
,i
11 Accordingly, the Court Accordingly, the Court finds finds that Magistrate
Magistrate Judge
Judge Brown
Brown had
had a substantial
substantial basis for
for
12 12 concluding that that probable
probable cause
cause existed
existed and
and will not
not invalidate
invalidate the
the search
search warrant
warrant or
or suppress
suppress
13 1 evidence. 14 14 CONCLUSION 15 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court reasons, the Court hereby herebyDENIES
DENIES Defendant's Motion Motion Requesting
Requesting aa
16 16 hearing to Invalidate Search Warrant hearing to Warrant and andto
to Suppress
SuppressEvidence.
Evidence. As
As this
this matter
matter remains
remains in
in an
an
17 17 asserted status,the asserted status, theCourt Courthereby
herebysets
setsJury
JurySelection
Selectionand
andTrial
Trial for June 6, 2025 at 9:30 a.m.
18 Parties shall shall return
returnfor
for aaPre-Trial
Pre-Trial Conference on June 4, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
a.m.
19 19
20
21 IT IS SO ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2025. IT rs so ORDERED this 3rd day of June, 2025. k---~ 22
23 HONORABLE VERNON P. p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court.of
Court._of Guam
24 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL \.
II acknowledge that acknowledge that an an electronic electronic
25 copy of copy of the
the original
original was
was e-mailed
e-mailed10:
to:
26 Ms ,WS #TP
tt1:P
JO j;N ~. UP Jo j 2025
we, . Iol3'/.
Date: _ _ _Time:
l,11 I '2 U
nme:..a.,..;;..iv_,.;;...;:,...;:7'°'-.
27 Date:
Evah~L-Tépa§ma4 ~_£vah~L Tctp9jna 4{.
28 28 Deputy Clerk.
Clerk, Superior`
Deputy Superinr Court01 of Guam
People v.. Guzman
Gu m
Case No. N CF0028-25
CF
Decision e c i s i o n a nd
d Order
Page Page 55 of
ofS5