F I L E.._. 1 CLERKCSFCQURT 2 253, Aus - 2 g; Q: 20 3 SUPERIOR CGI ART 4 OF GUAM 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE no. NO.CF0182-22 CF0182-22 9 vs. 10 10 DECISION DECISION AND ORDER 11 JASON VINCE LEON GUERRERO, 12 12 Defendant. Defendant. 133 1
14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter matter came came before the Honorable Vernon Vernon P. P. Perez Perezon onMay May29, 29,2024 2024and and June June 14, 14, 16 16 2024, for hearing on on Defendant JASON VINCE VINCE LEON GUERRERO's GUERRERO's ("Defendant") ("Defendant") Motion 17 17 to Suppress. Suppress. Present were were Assistant AssistantAttorney Attorney General General Kristine Kristine B. B. Borja on behalf of of the the People 18 18 of of Guam Guam ("the Government") Government") and Defendantwith and Defendant withcounsel, counsel,Terry TerryE.E.Timblin. Timblin. Having reviewed 19 19 the the pleadings, pleadings, the the arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow now issues issues the the following following 20 Decision Decision and and Order. Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 22 On April April 8, 8, 2022, 2022, Defendant was indicted with one one count count of of Possession of of a Schedule Schedule II II 23 23 1 Controlled Substance withIntent Substance with IntentotoDeliver Deliver(As (As a First First Degree Degree Felony). Felony).1 (Indictment, (Indictment, Apr. 8, 24 24 2022). 2022). This charge charge stems stems from from the the discovery discoveryofof suspected suspectedmethamphetamine methamphetamine and and drug drug 25 25
26 11 The TheIndictment Indictmentalso alsocharges charges co-defendant co-defendant Deeana Deeana Marie Marie Babauta Babauta with two counts of Possession of a Schedule counts of Schedule II II 27 27 Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony). Substance (As Felony). On OnFebruary February14, 14,2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant entered entered a guilty plea to one count count of Possession Possession of aa Schedule Schedule IIII Controlled Controlled Substance. Substance. See See Plea PleaAgreement, Agreement, Feb. Feb. 27, 27, 2024, 2024; Judgment Judgment of 28 Conviction, Conviction, Feb. Feb. 27, 27, 2024. 2024.
People v. v. Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CF0182-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 1 oflO 10 1 paraphernalia paraphernalia ininDefendant's Defendant'svehicle vehicle during during the the execution execution of aa search search warrant warrant of aa residence. residence. 2 2 (Decl. (Deel. of ofRichelle RichelleY. Y.Canto, Canto,Magistrate's Magistrate'sCon pl., Mar. Compl., Mar. 23, 23, 2022). 3 On March March 25, 25, 2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed the the instant instant Motion. Motion. On April April 8, 8, 2024, 2024, the the 4 Government filed filed its its Opposition, Opposition, and and on April 16, 16, 2024, Defendantfiled 2024, Defendant filed his his Reply. Reply.
5 On On May May 29, 29, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court heard heard sworn sworn testimony testimony from from Guam Guam International International Airport 6 Authority ("GIAA") Police Authority ("GIAA'') PoliceOfficers OfficersJan Jan M. Dizon Dizon ("Officer ("OfficerDizon") Dizon")and and Randy Chaco ("Officer Randy Chaco ("Officer
7 Chaco"). On OnJune June3,3,2024, 2024, Defendant Defendant filed filed aa Memorandum Memorandum re: Scope Scope of ofSearch Search Warrant Warrant in 8 response to testimony response to testimonyprovided providedby byOfficer Officer Dizon. Dizon.
9 On June June 14, 14, 2024, the Court heard 2024, the heard sworn testimony testimony from Guam Guam Police Police Department Department 10 10 ("GPD") DetectivePeter ("GPD")Detective PeterT.F. T.F.Pauli ro ("Detective Paulino ("DetectivePauli ro") and Paulino") and Defendant. Defendant. At Atthe the conclusion conclusion 11 of of testimony, testimony, the the Court Court gave the parties two the parties two weeks weeks to to file any any proposed proposed findings findings of fact fact and and 12 12 conclusions of law, conclusions of as for as well as law, as for the the Government Government to to file fileany anyresponse response to to Defendant's Defendant's 13 13 Memorandum re: Scope Memorandum re: Scope of of Search SearchWarrant. Warrant. The Court did not receive any further briefing any further briefing from
14 14 either party. party. 15 15 The Court ascertained thefollowing ascertained the following facts from from testimony testimony received received on on May May29, 29, 2024 2024 and and 16 16 June 14, 2024: June 14, 2024:
17 17 1. 1. The The Drug Drug Enforcement Enforcement Administration ("DEA") was Administration ("DEA") was investigating investigating Ivan Leon Leon 18 18 Guerrero Guerrero for evidence of drug drug trafficking. 19 19 2. Officer OfficerDizon Dizonobtained obtained aafederal federal Search Search Warrant Warrant to to search search Ivan's Ivan's residence residence in m 20 Talofofo, Guam Talofofo, Guam and and vehicle, vehicle,aa2017 2017 black black Mitsubishi Mitsubishi Outlander. Outlander. 21 3. On OnMarch March22, 22,2022 2022 around around 6:00 6:00 in in the the morning, morning, aa joint joint task task force effectuated effectuated the the 22 22 federal Search Warrant Warrant at at 199 199Leonardo LeonardoTenorio Tenorio Street, Street,Talofofo, Talofofo, Guam. Guam. 23 23 4. The Thesubject subjectresidence residencewas waslocated locatedon onthe the comer comerlot lotofofthe thestreet streetnear near the the Seventh Day 24 24 Adventist Adventist Church. Church. 25 5. Ivan IvanisisDefendant's Defendant's father. father. 26 26 6. The Thejoint jointoperation operationincluded included DEA, DEA, GIAA, GIAA,GPD, GPD,Guam GuamCustoms, Customs, and and Navy Criminal Criminal 27 Investigative Division.
People v. v. Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CF0182-22 CF0l Decision Decision and Order
Page 2 of10 oflO f
l TheGIAA 7. The GIAAtactical tacticalteam teamwas wasresponsible responsible for for breaching breaching the residence. residence. The The tactical tactical v 2 team wore bullet proof proofvests vests and and helmets and and carried carried automatic automaticweapons weapons(AR15). (AR15).
3 8. DEA DEAwas was responsible responsible for for perimeter perimeter security. 4 9. GPD Special Special Investigation Investigation Section Section was was responsible responsible with with assisting assisting with any any other other 5 individuals located in the residence residence who were not not the the primary primary targets (Ivan (Ivan and and his his 6 wife).
7 10. Officer Dizon 10. Officer Dizon testified testified that that over over ten officers officers from from the the various various agencies agencies were part of s8 the operation. operation.
9 ll. Officer 11. OfficerDizon Dizontestified testifiedthat thatthe theplan planwas was totomonitor monitorIvan Ivan leaving leavingthe the residence residence and and 10 10 conduct a traffic traffic stop further away away from the residence.
11 1 12. Officer Chaco 12. Officer Chaco was was part part of ofthe the tactical tactical team team assigned assigned to make make entry into the residence. 12 12 13. 13. The tactical team team used backside of the residence to enter used the backside enter the house. house. 13 14. As the tactical 14. As tactical team approached the residence, approached the residence,they theynoticed noticedaa vehicle,, vehicle, a Toyota Toyota 14 14 Corolla, parked behind it. parked directly behind it. Officer OfficerChaco Chacotestified testifiedthat that in in order order for for their their team team 15 15 to proceed, they had had to to clear clearthe thevehicle vehicle for safety purposes. purposes. When they went to clear
16 16 the vehicle, they they observed observed two individuals individuals in in the the vehicle, aa male, male, later later identified identified as as 17 17 Defendant, and aa female, female, later identified identified as as Co-Defendant Co-Defendant Babauta. Babauta. 18 18 15. Officer Chaco 15. Officer Chaco instructed Defendanttotostep instructed Defendant stepout outofofthe thevehicle. vehicle. A A few few seconds seconds after, 19 19 Officer Officer Dizon Dizon relieved relieved Officer OfficerChaco, Chaco,and and Officer OfficerChaco Chacoproceeded proceeded to to make make entry entry 20 20 residence with into the residence the rest with the restof of his his team. team. Officer OfficerChaco Chaco did did not not have have any any further further 21 interaction with Defendant. interaction with Defendant. Officer Officer Chaco Chaco testified testified that that because Officer Dizon because Officer Dizon 22 relieved him so so quickly, Defendantdid quickly, Defendant did not not get get out out of of the the vehicle vehicle before before he he left, left; 23 Defendant was wasstill stillin inthe thevehicle vehiclewhen whenOfficer OfficerDizon Dizonarrived. arrived. Officer Officer Chaco testified
24 24 that Defendantwas that Defendant wasmaking makingefforts effortsto to get get out out of of the the vehicle vehicle after being being told to do so, 25 but that that he he had hadbeen beenlaying laying down and and laying laying back.
26 26 16. Officer Dizon 16. Officer Dizon was was part of of the the perimeter perimeter security. security. Officer Officer Dizon Dizon observed observed one of of the the 27 27 tactical team members, members,Officer Officer Chaco, approach approach aagrey grey Toyota Toyota Corolla Corolla at at the back of of
28 the residence. residence.
v. Leon People v. Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CF0182-22 CFOl82-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 3 oflO 10 1 17. Officer Dizon 17. Dizon saw saw Officer OfficerChaco Chaco talking talking to to someone someone so so he he went went to to take take his his spot spot so 2 that Officer Chaco could Officer Chaco couldgo gototothe thehouse houseand and assist assist with with the the breach. 3 18. Officer 18. Dizonobserved Officer Dizon observedDefendant Defendantand and aa female female sleeping sleeping in inthe the front front passenger passenger seat. 4 19. Officer 19. Officer Dizon explained explained to to Defendant Defendantwhy whythey theywere were there. Officer Dizon there. Officer Dizon asked asked 5 Defendant to place hands on place his hands onthe thesteering steering wheel. WhenDefendant wheel. When Defendantplaced placedhis his hands hands 6 there, Officer there, Dizonnoticed Officer Dizon noticed aa box box on on the the dashboard. dashboard. Officer Dizonasked Officer Dizon asked Defendant Defendant 7 what was inside the thebox, box, to to which Defendant responded he hehad hadbrass brassknuckles. knuckles.Officer Officer
8 Dizon testified Dizon testified that that he asked asked Defendant Defendantif if he he could could place place the the box box on on the the roof roof of the
9 vehicle for for both both his and Defendant's Defendant's safety.
10 10 20. Officer Officer Dizon Dizontestified testifiedthat thathe hestill stillneeded neededtotopresent presentthe the Search Search Warrant to the owner 11 11 of of the the residence, residence, so GPD came came over over to to assist assist in in taking taking over over the the investigation investigation into into 12 12 Defendant (to (to ask ask additional questions as to to why he was on the the premises).
13 13 Officer Dizon 21. Officer toldGPD Dizontold GPDthat thatthere therewere werebrass brassknuckles knuckles in inthe the box boxand and that that he had to 14 14 go and and serve the search warrant warranton onthe theresidence's residence's owner.
15 15 22. Officer Officer Dizon Dizondid didnot nothave haveany anyfurther further contact contact with with Defendant, Defendant, but but did take photos of of
16 16 the vehicle later on. on. 17 17 23. Officer Officer Dizon Dizontestified testifiedthat that two two individuals individuals were were located located inside inside the residence- residence Rosetta
18 18 Camacho, the owner, and her her son sonRandy. Randy. Both Both Rosetta Rosetta and Randy were detained until 19 19 they cleared cleared and and secured the residence. 20 20 24. Officer OfficerDizon Dizontestified testifiedthat thatas aspart partof ofexecuting executingaasearch searchwarrant, warrant, when when they encounter encounter 21' 21 people other other than the target, than the target, they they take take them them into into custody, do a pat down, custody, do down, ask for 22 identification, identification, and and keep keep them them around around until they secure the the area, area, regardless regardless of whether
23 23 or or not they are are involved involved in in the investigation. 24 24 25. Officer Dizon 25. Officer Dizon testified testified that that ififDefendant Defendant had told him he he was was going going to get out of the
25 car and and walk walk away, away, he he would would have have told told Defendant not not to to leave. leave.
26 26 26. Officer OfficerDizon Dizonhad hadnever neverheard heard of ofDefendant Defendantprior priorto to encountering encountering him him on on the property. 27
People v. v. Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CF0l CF0182-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 oflO 10 1 27. Officer Dizon 27. Officer Dizon testified testified that that two two flash flash bang bang grenades grenades were detonated prior to him detonated prior 2 encountering Defendant. Officer encountering Defendant. OfficerDizon Dizonbelieved believedthat thatthe theflash flash bang bang grenades grenades were 3 used by the tactical team to distract anyone inside the house. house. 4 28. Officer Dizon 28. Officer Dizon was was not not dressed dressed like the the tactical tactical team and and was was wearing wearing aa long long sleeve
5 shirt and a vest. vest.
6 29. Detective Paulino ro testified testified that thatGPD GPD Special SpecialInvestigation InvestigationSection Section("SIS") ("SIS") was was tasked tasked 7 with with security for for perimeter perimeter of ofthe the residence residence in in case case there were individuals individuals in in the yard 8 or on the property. property.
9 30. Detective Pauli 30. Detective ro indicated Paulino indicated that that their role role included included doing doing aa background background check on any 10 10 individuals discovered. discovered.
11 31.l. Detective Paulino ro and andformer formerDetective DetectiveRicky RickyCamacho Camacho("Detective ("Detective Camacho") Camacho") were
12 12 tasked with with assisting assisting with with two occupants found in occupants found in aavehicle vehicle on the property.
13 13 32. Detective Paulino 32. Detective ro interacted interacted with the passenger, passenger, Deeana, Deeana, and and Detective Camacho Camacho 14 14 interacted with the operator, Defendant.
15 15 33. Detective Pauli 33. Detective ro was able to hear the conversation between Detective Paulino Detective Camacho Camacho and and 16 16 Defendant. Defendant. 17 17 34. Detective Paulino 34. Detective Pauli ro testified that that Detective Camacho Camacho was inquiring inquiring with with Defendant Defendant 18 18 was in what was in the thegreen greencase casefound foundininthe thevehicle vehicleby byTask TaskForce ForceOfficer Officer Dizon.
19 19 35. Detective Detective Pauli ro testified Paulino testified that that Detective Detective Camacho Camacho asked asked Defendant if he could open 20 20 the case. case. After Afterthe thecase casewas wasopened, opened,Detective DetectiveCamacho Camachofound founddrug drugparaphernalia paraphernalia 21 (used pipes). pipes). Detective DetectivePauli ro couldn't Paulino couldn'tremember remember ififbrass brass knuckles knuckles were found found 22 inside the case. case. 23 23 36. Defendant admitted that that the the pipes pipes were were his. his.
24 37. Detective Paulino 37. Detective Pauli ro then thenasked askedDeeana Deeanatotostep stepout outofofthe thevehicle. vehicle. Detective Detective Pauli ro Paulino 25 observed observed Deeana Deeana had had a clenched jaw and shewas and that she wasclenching clenching her right-hand right-hand pocket. pocket.
26 26 After Detective After DetectivePauli ro asked Paulino askedher her what what was was in in the the front pocket, she took out a baggie baggie 27 27 full of ofsuspected suspectedmethamphetamines methamphetamines. 28
People v. v. Leon Guerrero Case No. CFOI CF0182-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 oflO of10 1 38. Deeana Deeann said that that the the drugs drugs belonged belonged to Defendant and Defendant admitted that it was Defendant admitted
2 his.
3 39. Detective Paulino ro testified that that his his gun gun was was holstered holstered when when he he approached approached the the vehicle. vehicle.
4 40. Detective Paulino ro was was wearing wearing civilian clothes and a vest over them.
5 41. Detective Detective Paulino Pauli ro testified testified that that Detective Detective Camacho Camacho received received verbal verbal consent from
6 search the vehicle and Defendant to search and that that prior searching the vehicle, Defendant prior to searching 7 admitted there were several more pipes in the center console.
8 42. The vehicle was searched and a digital scale, scale, pipes pipes with with suspected suspected methamphetamine methamphetamine
9 residue, cut straws residue, straws and scissors scissors were found. Detective were found. Detective Pauli Paulino testified that these ro testified
10 indicative that these items were indicative these individuals individuals were were possibly possibly involved involved in smoking or
11 distributing methamphetamine. distributing methamphetamine.
12 12 43. Defendant and Deeana Deeana were taken taken to the SIS SIS Office for further interview. 13 13 44. Detective Detective Paulino ro testified that it was was not not unusual unusual to to encounter encounter other other people people during the
14 14 execution of execution of aa warrant at a target target location location because because there may be individuals present present at 15 15 the location to purchase. 16 45. Detective Detective Paulino Pauli rotestified testifiedDefendant Defendantdid didnot not ask ask toto leave leave when when they they were were at the
17 17 residence, and that he was willing to speak to them during during the interview interview at at the SIS 18 18 office.
19 19 46. When asked asked if if Defendant Defendant was was advised advised of ofhis his Miranda Miranda rights rights in in the field field and and at at the SIS 20 20 Office, Detective Paulino ro responded yes and that he waived those rights in writing.
21 47. Detective Detective Paulino Pauli ro also also never never heard heard of of Defendant Defendant prior prior to to encountering encountering him him at the
22 residence.
23 23 48. Defendant Defendant testified that he he and Deeana Deeann went went to to his his parent's parent's house house to to get get some some hygiene hygiene
24 24 and utensils around around midnight. Because the midnight. Because the house was locked when when they they arrived, arrived, they 25 25 fell asleep in the car and waited till morning. morning.
26 26 49. Defendant Defendant and Merizo. Defendant testified their kids were and Deeana live together in Merino.
27 27 being watched by his in-laws while they were in Talofofo.
People v. Leon Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CFO! CFol82-22 82-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 oflO of10 1 50. Defendant Defendant testified that they didn't didn't go back home because they were trying to conserve
2 gas and that they slept in the car because there was air con. 3 51. Defendant 51. Defendant testified testified on on cross cross examination examination that that they they first first slept slept in in the the car with the
4 windows Windows cracked cracked down down half way and that they they turned turned on the air con twenty minutes
5 before the sun came up so they could cool off.
6 52. Defendant testified testified that that he he woke woke up up when when he he heard a loud loud bang. Defendant saw bang. Defendant saw four 7 guys in full uniform uniform with a mask mask and and helmet helmet with their guns drawn on him him banging on
8 the car window window telling him to wake up.
9 53. Defendant has gout and takes prescribed medication for it. medication for
10 10 54. Defendant testified that he he was groggy because of his gout medication.
11 55. Defendant testified testified that that even even though though he was groggy and trying to wake up, he could
12 12 still hear and see everything happening around him clearly.
13 1 56. Defendant testified he was having a hard time getting up to unlock the door.
14 14 57. Defendant testified that Detective Detective Camacho pulled him out of the vehicle.
15 15 58. Defendant testified that Detective Camacho brought him aa chair chair to sit on and that he 16 16 sat next to the car for for thirty thirty minutes minutes before before officers officers took took him him away from the scene.
17 17 59. Defenda nt testified 59. Defendant wa s asked tha thehewas testifiedthat a skedwhat wha t was wa s in in the the green gr een box, box, to which he to which
18 18 responded responded brass brass knuckles knuckles. 19 19 60. Defendant testified he Defendant testified he was was not not asked asked anything anything else else by by the the officers officers until until he got got to Tiyan. 20 61. Defendant testified testified that that he he was was not read his his Miranda rights until he was placed into
21 the patrol vehicle. 22 22 62. Defendant testified testified that that he he believed believed he was under an'est arrest because he was handcuffed 23 23 and placed behind the truck.
24 24 63. Defendant denied giving consent consent to search the the box box or or his his vehicle. vehicle. Defendant Defendant testified 25 25 that no one asked him for consent to search the vehicle. 26 26 DISCUSSION
27 27 Defendant argues that his his Fourth Fourth Amendment Amendment rights were violated because he "was not
28 present present in either either the target residence or vehicle [of of the search warrant] and was not not under under suspicion suspicion
People v. v. Leon Leon Guerrero Guerrero Case No. No. CF0182-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 7 oflO 10 1 of possessing methamphetamine with intent of intent to to distribute when he was detained, interrogated and 2 (Mot. Suppress his vehicle searched." (Mot. Suppress at at 3, 3, Mar. Mar. 25, 2024). 2 The Government 25, 2024).2 Government opposes, opposes, arguing 3 that Defendant voluntarily consented to to a search of his vehicle. See generally, generally, Opp'n, Apr. 8, 4 2024. s 5 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protects against unreasonable searches
6 and seizures and is is made made applicable applicable to to Guam Guamvia via section section 1421(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam." l42l(b)(c) of
77 People v. v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1l 1114 Chargualaf, 2001 ,1 14 (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). "Warrantless searches and
8 seizures are per se unreasonable, seizures unreasonable, subject subject to specifically established to a few specifically established and and well-delineated well-delineated 9 exceptions." People v. v. Camacho, 15. "In ,1 15. Camacho, 2023 Guam 9 11 "In the absence of a warrant, the police
10 10 may lawfully lawfully conduct conduct aa search search or or seizure seizure only only ififan anexception exceptionto to the the warrant warrantrequirement requirement applies applies. 11 11 Voluntary consent is aa recognized Voluntary recognized exception exception to the the warrant warrant requirement." requirement." Chargualaf, 2001l 12 12 Guam l111 ,1 14 14 (internal (internalcitations citations omitted). omitted). "Where the consent occurs during a lawful encounter
13 13 detention, the validity of the exception turns on whether the consent was voluntarily given. or detention,
14 14 However, if the consent was given during an unlawful encounter, encounter, the consent is invalid and the 15 15 exception does not apply absent a demonstration by the government both of of a sufficient break in 16 16 the causal chain between the illegality and and the seizure seizure of of evidence, thus ensuring that the search 17 17 is not an exploitation of the prior illegality, illegality, and of voluntariness." Camaeho, Guam 99,115. Camacho, 2023 Guam 1115.
18 18 In this case, the consent occurred during a lawful encounter, as officers were executing a
19 search warrant warrant for for the the residence residence where where Defendant's Defendant's vehicle vehicle was was located. located. The The issue issue before before the 20 Court is whether Defendant's consent consent was voluntary voluntary based based on the the totality totality of of the the circumstances. circumstances. 21 See Chargualaf, 2001 2001 Guam l1,125. 'H 25. The Court examines the following factors: factors: 22 22
23 23 2 On June 3, 2024, Defendant Defendant also also filed filed aaMemorandum Memorandum re: re: Scope Scope of of Search Search Warrant. Warrant. The Memorandum was filed 24 in response to to testimony given by Officer Officer Jan Dizon, whereby Officer Officer Dizon Dizon "gave "gave his his legal legal opinion opinion that that the Search Warrant alone gave him and the other officers the the authority authority to to detain detain and and question question LEON LEON GUERRERO," GUERRERO," in case the 25 Government subsequently Government subsequently raised raised the the issue issue or or the Court Court was to to consider consider itit sue sua sponge. sponte. See Memo. at at 2, Jun. 3, 2024. 26 The Government Governmentdiddidnot notassert assert this this as a basis for for its its opposition opposition to the the Motion a Motion and never filed a formal formal written written response response to the Memorandum, although itit was was provided provided the the opportunity opportunitytotododoso. See Opp'n so. See Opp'natat 2, 2, Apr. Apr. 8, 8, 2024 2024 ("While the 27 Amendment has a warrant requirement, Fourth Amendment requirement, there there are are exceptions exceptionstotothe therequirement requirement ...... Consent Consent isis one exception recognized by both the United States States Supreme Supreme Court Court and and the the Supreme Supreme Court Court of of Guam."). Guam."). The The Court declines Court declines to 28 further address it as iiirther as a basis basis for for the search.
People v. v. Leon Leon Guerrero Case No. No. CF0l CF0182-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 8 oflO 10 1) whether 1) defendant was detained and the length of whether the defendant of time of of the questioning; questioning, 2) 1 whether the defendant whether defendant was threatened or intimidated by the police, police; 3) whether the 2 defendant relied on misrepresentations or promises made by the police, police; 4) whether 3 the defendant defendant was custody or under arrest was in custody arrest when the consent consent was given, 5) given; 5) whether the defendant defendant was was in aa public public or or secluded secluded place, place; and 6)6) whether whether the 4 defendant obi defendant objected to the search. 5 (citation omitted). Id. (citation omitted). The TheGovernment Governmenthas hasthe theburden burdentoto prove prove by by aa preponderance of evidence 6 whether Defendant's consent was voluntary. "[I]tisisonly voluntary. Id. "[I]t onlyby byanalyzing analyzing all all the the circumstances circumstances 7 of an individual consent that it can be ascertained whether in fact it was voluntary or coerced." of 8 Schneckloth v. Bustamante, Bustamante, 412 U.S. 218, 233 (1973). See also, ,r Camacho, 2023 Guam 9 1131 also, Camacho, 9 evaluating ("When eva the tota ting the totality the cir lity of the circumstances, court should cumsta nces, a cour should ba balance la the fafactors the ctor 10 10 surrounding consent that it finds relevant, surrounding relevant; no single single factor factor isis dispositive. dispositive. Relevant Relevant factors factors are 11 11 guideposts which guideposts which should shouldnot notbe be applied appliedmechanically mechanicallytotothe thefacts factsofofaacase. case. A A trial trial court's totality- 12 12 analysis is not temporally limited of-the-circumstances analysis limited to to aa precise precise moment. moment. Rather, Rather, aa trial trial court 13 13 receives eceives and weighs evidence nd weighs evidence aaccording to its ccor ding to its judgment judgment aand experience nd exper ience a and, ultimately, nd, ultima tely, 14 determines what determines what facts facts are relevant to the analysis."). . 15 15 Here, it is is clear clear that thatDefendant Defendant was was detained. detained. The officers testified that individuals individuals located 16 16 at the scene would not be allowed to leave until until their their identifications identifications were were confirmed confirmed and the scene 17 17 OfficerDizon secured. Officer testified that Dizontestified that ifif Defendant Defendant had had told told him him he he was was going going to to get get out out of of the car 18 18 and walk away, he he would would have have told told Defendant Defendant not not to to leave. leave. No testimony, however, was provided provided 19 19 as to to the length of the detention. Defendantwas detention. Defendant was not notformally formally arrested arrested until until after after the search of of the 20 20 There was vehicle. There was no no testimony testimony that that Defendant Defendant relied relied upon upon misrepresentations misrepresentations or or promises of of 21 interaction took officers. This interaction took place place outside outside of Defendant's parent's residence Defendant's parent's residence early early in the 22 morning and not morning and not on on the side of of the street of a main main road or other other public public area. area. The officers did not 23 23 testify to holding or aiming their weapons at Defendant or the passenger of the vehicle, Deanna. 24 24 Defendant testified Defendant testified that he was awoken awoken in in the car car by four officers with their guns drawn banging 25 on the car window window telling him to telling him to wake wake up up and and that that he he was was pulled pulledout outof ofthe thevehicle, vehicle Defendant 26 also testified also testified that that he he had had taken taken his his prescribed prescribed gout gout medication medication the the night night prior prior which which made made him 27 27 Defendant, however, groggy. Defendant, however, did did not not provide provide any any testimony as to testimony as to whether whether Detective Camacho 28
v. Leon People v. Leon Guerrero Case No. CF0182-22 Case No. CFol82-22 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 9 of10 oflO had any weapon aimed at him during their conversations or after he left the vehicle and testified 2 that he just sat outside the vehicle until he was brought to the precinct. The Court therefore finds 3 that these facts do not weigh heavily against a finding of voluntariness. See, e.g., United States 4 v. Garcia, 890 F.2d 355, 362 (11th Cir. 1989) (Finding the defendant's consent to search car was 5 voluntary even though fourteen law enforcement agents were present when he was arrested and 6 he was handcuffed at the time he gave consent); United States v. Espinosa-Orlando, 704 F.2d 7 507, 513 (11th Cir. 1983) (Finding the defendant's consent to search voluntary where the 8 defendant was surrounded by four agents, one of whom had his firearm drawn and pointed to the 9 ground.). Lastly, the parties contest whether Defendant actually provided consent. At the 10 Suppression Hearing, Defendant testified that he did not give consent to search the box or the 11 vehicle, and that he was never asked permission by the officers to search his vehicle. Detective 12 Paulino on the other hand testified that Detective Camacho asked Defendant for consent to search 13 both the case that Defendant indicated had brass knuckles inside as well as Defendant's vehicle. 14 Detective Paulino also testified that Defendant never asked to leave the scene nor did he ever ask 15 to end the interview at the SIS Office. Detective Paulino testified that Defendant also waived his 16 Miranda rights in writing prior to their interview at the SIS Office. 17 The Court, having considered the totality of the circumstances above, finds that Defendant 18 voluntarily consented to the officer's search of his vehicle and therefore DENIES Defendant's 19 Motion to Suppress. 20 CONCLUSION 21 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 22 .,~ IT IS SO ORDERED this _d-_ day of August, 2024. 23
25 SERVICE VIA E-MAIL HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 26 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 27
People v. Leon Guerrero Case No. CF0l 82-22 Decision and Order
Page 10 oflO