People v. John

Opinion

I .I I

FI LE D I I I

SUPERIOR COURT I I I OF GUAM I I 2 2022 HAY 21, PH L: 10 3 CLERKOFCOURT 4 I

I I n s'r= __ 6 I IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 I

8 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0329-21 9

10 I I vs. DECISION AND ORDER

MATTI-IE\V OTIS JOHN aka Matthew \Via aka J.R. Sunny aka Mack John aka Jesus, [3 Defendant. 14

15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Vemon P. Perez on March 23, 2022, for hearing I 17 non Defendant MATTHEW OTIS JOHN aka Matthew Wia aka J.R. Sunny aka Mack John 18 aka Jesus's ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Assistant Attorney General Rochelle Y. Canto 19 was present on behalf of the People of Guam ("the Government") and Defendant was present 20 with counsel, Assistant Public Defender Alisha Molyneux. Having reviewed the pleadings, the 21 arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision and Order 22 1 DENYING Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 23 BACKGROUND 24 l Defendant is charged with Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a 25 Third Degree Felony) with an attached Notice: Commission of a Felony While on Felony 26 Release. (Indictment, Jul. 13, 2021). This charge stems ham the discovery of a white plastic I

2? bag with a white color crystal-like substance suspected to be methamphetamines and a clear 28 I I

People v. John I Case No. CF0329-2 I Decision and Order

Page 1 0f6 I I I I i.

I

| I

I I 1 I improvised glass pipe beneath the driver's seat of a vehicle operated by Defendant on or about I 2 I July 6, 2021. (Decl. of Brendlynn O. Joseph, Magistrate's Con pl., Jul. 7, 2021). At the time of |

3 this alleged offense, Defendant was on pre-trial release in Criminal Case No. CF0162-19. Id. I 4 On December 9, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress. On December 28, 2021, I 5 the Government filed its Opposition. I 6 On February 23, 2022, the Court heard sworn testimony from Guam Police Department I 't' Officer Kylen Valenzuela ("Officer Valenzuela"). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court

s 'gave the parties leave to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. I I

9 On March 10, 2022, Defendant filed his Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

10 .Law and on March 21, 2022, the Government tiled its Proposed Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law. The Court subsequently placed the matter under advisement.

12 At the Suppression Hearing, the Court ascertained the following facts:

13 (l) On July 6, 2021 around 3:35 am, Officer Valenzuela was driving on East Swamp

14 Road when he observed a blue Mitsubishi Mirage off the road parked behind a bus

15 stop. Officer Valenzuela testified that there was not a lot of street lighting in this

16 area and that it was very dark.

1? (2) As Officer Valenzuela approached the vehicle, his headlights illuminated the vehicle I

18 I and he saw two occupants. He observed the driver quickly moving his left hand I

19 from his face towards the driver door. Officer Valenzuela testified that Ir appeared I

20 he was concealing something because his hand was tightly clenched.

21 (3) Officer Valenzuela exited his vehicle and approached the driver of the car. Officer

22. | ValenzL1ela had a flashlight with him. The driver's window was already down.

23 Officer Valenzuela asked what they were doing. The driver identified himself as

24 Matthew Wia and stated he lived down the street and that his passenger was using

25 I his cell phone.

26 (4) Officer Valenzuela peered down into the driver door while he was speaking with

27 II Defendant and noticed in the door handle area a clear plastic baggie containing a | 28

Peopl e v. John Case No. CF0329»2 l Decision and Order I

Page 2 of 6 : I I

n I l | white crystallized substance he suspected was methamphetamine. Officer Valenzuela |

2 testified he saw the plastic baggie when he looked directly downwards.

3 (5) Officer Valenzuela told Defendant what he saw, to which Defendant said "I'm sorry | I 4 sir, that's mine." Officer Valanzueia asked Defendant to exit the vehicle and I 5 conducted a pat down search. Officer Valenzuela located a knife on Defendant's

6 I waistband. Officer Valenzuela then conducted a search of the vehicle and found a

7 I clear glass pipe beneath the driver's seat, which contained suspected crystal I

8 methamphetamine residue. I

9 (6) Officer Valenzuela also interviewed the passenger of the vehicle. The passenger

i0 stated that he was arguing with his girlfriend around 3 am at his house, he lai his I

house and began walking and noted his cousin, the Defendant, behind the bus stop. I

12 He asked Defendant to use his cell phone. As he was calling his mother, the police I

13 arrived. A pat down search was also conducted on his person, no items were located

14 on him. He claimed he had no knowledge that there were drugs in the vehicle.

15 (7) Officer Valenzuela testified that Swamp Road is a high crime rate area and that he

16 has d ealt with things fr o m sim p le thefts to b u r glar ies o f vehicles and d r u g

l'7 transactions.

18 DISCUSSION I

19 I

Defendant moves the Court to suppress evidence seized in this matter because GPD I

20 Officer Valenzuela did not have any reasonable suspicion to stop him. See generally, Mot.

21 Suppress, Dee. 9, 2021, Deft. Proposed FFCL, Mar. 10, 2022.

22 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protects against unreasonable searches I

23 and seizures and is made applicable to Guam via section 142l(b)(c) of the Organic Act of

24 - Guam." People v. Ch orguafaf, 2001 Guam I 11 .14 (internal citations omitted). Brief 25 ' investigative detentions are permitted under the Fourth Amendment "when a police officer has

26 reasonable suspicion that an individual was engaged in or is about to be engaged in illegal

2? conduct." People v. Johnson, 199'7 Guam 9 114 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (I968)). "The 28 reasonable suspicion necessary to justify an investigatory stop is dependent upon both the

.I People v. John I Case No. CF0329-2 I Decision and Order

Page 3 of 6 I

I I I I

| l content of information possessed by police and its degree of reliability." Id. at 115 (citation and

2 = internal quotation marks omitted). :

3 . The Fourth Amendment, however, is not implicated in every situation where police

4 : officers have contact with an individual. See Florida v. Bo5!z.ck, S01 U.S. 429 (1991). The 5 protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is not implicated "simply because a police

6 'officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions." Id. at 434. See also Ch arguakf, i

1 .2001 Guam 1 'H 20 ("Investigative questioning regarding criminal activity does not, in itsehi

s 'implicate the Fourth Amendment."). "Obviously, not all personal intercourse between

9 policemen and citizens involves 'seizures' of persons. Only when the officer, by means of

10 I physical force or show of authority, has in some way restrained the liberty of a citizen may we

11 conclude that a 'seizure' has occurred." Bosffck, 501 U.S. at 434. (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392

12 U.S. 1, 19, n.16 (l968)).

13 When examining whether an encounter between police and a citizen constitutes a seizure |

14 under the Fourth Amendment, "a court must consider all the circumstances surrounding the

15 | encounter to determine whether the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable

16 person that the person was not free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the

17 encounter." Id. at 439 (emphasis added). See also People v. Czozdif 2006 Guam 12 1121. The

is reasonable person test presupposes an innocent person. Bostfck, 501 U.S. at 438. (emphasis

19 nadded). "Examples of circumstances that might indicate a seizure, even where the person did 20 I not attempt to leave, would be the threatening presence of several officers, the display of a ' 21 weapon by an officer, some physical touching of the person of the citizen, or the use of .

22 language or tone of voice indicating that compliance with the officer's request might be

23 compelled." United Stores v. Men derz lroll, 446 U.S. 544 (1980). "While most citizens will

24 respond to a police request, the fact that people do so, and do so without being told they are free

25 |not to respond, hardly eliminates the consensual nature of the response." LNCS. v. Delgado, 466 26 U.S. 210, 216 (1984).

2? In this case, Defendant was not pulled over by police while driving his vehicle on the |

is mroad. Defendant was parked behind a bus stop on Swamp Road when Officer Valenzuela I| People v. John

l Eiii§o?. €i00§21 Page 4 of 6 | I

I | 1 approached him to ask a few questions. Officer Valenzuela testified that this occurred at 3 :35 in

2 the mor ning on Swa mp Roa d, a n a r ea which he knew fr om pr ior investiga tions of illega l I

3 conduct. Officer Valenzuela also testified that he had observed the driver of the vehicle move

4 nhis hand from the front of his face towards the driver door and that Ir appeared that he was S concealing something because his fist was clenched. "[A] police officer may in appropriate

6 1clfcumsl3Hc€s and in an appropriate manner approach a person for purposes of investigating

7 possibly criminal behavior even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest." Terry,

8 392 U.S. at 22. The Court finds that the initial interactions behveen Defendant and Officer

9 :lVaiellzuela constituted a consensual encounter that did not implicate the Fourth Amendment. I 10 u Officer Valenzuela testified that when he approached the driver's side of the vehicle, the

driver's window was already down. Officer Valenzuela asked the occupants of the vehicle what

12 they were doing, to which Defendant identified himself and stated he lived down the street and

13 his pa s s enger wa s jus t us ing his ceil phone. T her e 'is no evidence Officer Va lenzuela

14 approached Defendant with a weapon drawn, or that he was overly aggressive or demanding in

15 speaking with Defendant. Defendant's vehicle was not blocked by police cars, nor was he

16 surrounded by police officers instructed to keep him at the location. Further, Defendant had

17 voluntarily rolled down his window prior to Officer Valenzuela arriving at the driver side door.

18 Accordingly, the Court finds that Officer Valenzuela did not restrain Defendant's freedom to

19 walk away, prior to his discovery of the suspected methamphetamine in the driver door and

20 - asking Defendant to step out of the vehicle. See, e.g., People v. Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 'W

21 24-26.

22 Officer Va lenzuela t est ified t ha t a s he wa s spea king wit h Defenda nt , he gla nced

23 downward into the car and saw a clear plastic baggie containing a white crystallized substance

24 which he suspected was methamphetamine. After Defendant admitted that the baggie was his,

25 Officer Valenzuela asked him to step out of the vehicle and conducted a pat-down search. Once

26 the suspected methamphetamine was discovered in the driver door, Officer Valenzuela then had

IT nreasonable suspicion to arrest and detain Defendant for a felony offense of Possession of a 28 IScl1eduie II Controlled Substance. S ee 9 G . C . A. § § 6 7 . 4 0 l . 2 ( a ) & ( b ) ( l ) , 8 G . C . A. §

People v. John i Cast: No. CF0329-2 l Decision and Order

I Page 50fl6 . I I I I

1 |20.15(a)(1). This arrest would also allow for a search incident to arrest of the vehicle. See, e.g_, 2 Arizona v, Grant, 556 U.S. 332, 343-44 (2009) (concluding that "circumstances unique to the

3 vehicle context justify a search incident to lawful arrest when it is reasonable to believe

4 evidence relevant to the crime of arrest might be found in the vehicle."), Cara' v. City Court of

5 fudsonfa, Arkansas, 141 F.3d 839, 842 (9th Cir. 1998) ("Warrantless searches incident to a

6 ncustodial arrest are justified by the reasonableness of searching for weapons, instruments of

7 escape, and evidence of crime when a person is taken into official custody and lawfully I

8 detained. The search must be of objects within the arrestee's area of immediate control and

9 .must be contemporaneous with the arrest."), United States v. Page, 679 F.Supp. 2d 648, 654

10 [E.D. Va. 2009) ["The Court in Grant specifically cited drug offenses as illustrative of the

11 exception to the rule announced. Accordingly, under the rationale in Grant, the seizure of a

12 quantity of marijuana from the defendant, justified the search of the passenger compartment of

13 his vehicle."). Therefore, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Suppress. .I 14 CONCLUSION

15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

16 A Status Hearing is set for July 7, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. I

17 IT IS SO ORDERED this day of May, 2022. 18 m 19

20 J

22 HONORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ I Judge, Superior Court of Guam I

23 I

25 I

2.7

People v. John . Case No. CF0329-2 l I Decision and Order I I Page 6 off I I