People v. Mackwelung
Opinion
F j LED
S t) RT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM
2 CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM 0652-11 PEOPLE OF GUAM, )
) 0;: COURT 3 vs. ) lMENDED 4 ) DECISION AND ORDER WILL Y WILTON MACKWELUNG, ) (Motion for Reconsideration)
5 Defendant.
6
7 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration was heard on September 21, 2012 before the
8 HONORABLE ELIZABETH BARRETT -ANDERSON. People were represented by Assistant Attorney
9 General James Collins, and Defendant was represented by Attorney Suresh Sampath. The Court
10 GRANTED Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration from the bench so as to remove disputed facts 11 irrelevant to rendering a decision. Yet, for the forgoing analysis, The Court having considered all the 12 motions and arguments herein now issues its ruling, Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
13
14 HISTORY
15 On June 1, 2011, Defendant was charged with: (1) Driving While Under the Influence of 16 Alcohol, misdemeanor; (2) Driving While Under the Influence of Alcohol, misdemeanor (BAC); and (3)
17 Reckless Driving, petty misdemeanor. Defendant filed a Notice of Motion to have his Motion to 18 Suppress heard before the Court on April 9, 2012. On June 13, 2012, the Court issued its Decision 19 th
denying Defendant's Motion to Suppress (hereinafter "June 13 Decision). On July 2, 2012, Defendant 20 th
filed a Motion for Reconsideration. The issues of fact remain contested as laid forth in the June 13 21 Decision.
22
23 DISCUSSION 24 Defendant moves to suppress "any and all evidence" obtained by Officers as a result of an 25 unlawful detention of his person in violation of 8 Guam Code Annotated §30.] 0-30.60, Guam's "Stop 26 and Frisk" statute. Guam law provides, "[ n]o person shall be detained under the provisions of §30.] 0 27 longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that section, and in no event longer than 28 fifteen (15) minutes ... " 8 GCA §30.30. Defendant argues that he was detained for more than the
+
permitted fifteen (15) minutes, and therefore, the remedy for a "Stop and Frisk" violation should be
2 suppression of any and all evidence seized. Defendant cites to an earlier decision, People v. Santos, CM
3 805-09 (Super. Ct. Guam July 2, 2010), wherein the Court concluded the police officers had detained
4 the defendant longer than lawfully permitted under the facts of the case. The Court is abandoning its
5 ruling in Santos based on the following analysis.
6 The purpose for Guam's "stop and Frisk Act" is for 'investigatory stops' where the police officer
7 has reasonable suspicion that a person has, is, or is about to commit a criminal offense. 8 G.C.A. § 30.
8 10. A police officer than has fifteen (15) minutes to ascertain the identity of the person detained and to
9 determine the circumstances surrounding his presence which lead the officer to believe that he
10 committed, was committing or was about to commit a criminal offense. 8 G.C.A. § 30.20. If probable
11 cause arises any time after the onset of the detention, the person shall be arrested .. 8 G.C.A. § 30.40.
12 The time limitation under Section 30.10 is no longer applicable once probable cause has been formed.
13 During the investigatory stop, Officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant based on his
14 admission to having drank alcohol. Once probable cause is formed during the "investigatory stop," the
15 fifteen (15) minute time limit for the purposes of Section 30.10 no longer governed. The "investigatory
16 stop," then becomes a detention and need only pass constitutional muster against unreasonable searches
17 and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
18 The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the application of a bright-line time
19 limit for Fourth Amendment detentions. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985).
20 Although having a 'bright-line' rule would be helpful in evaluating whether an investigative detention is
21 unreasonable, a police officer's common sense and judgment must ultimately govern their conduct. In
22 United States v. Place, the court reasoned, "[s]such a limit would undermine the equally important need
23 to allow authorities to graduate their responses to the demands of any particular situation." Place, 462
24 U.S. 696, 709, n. 10 (1983). The Guam legislature has provided clear framework for 'stops' for the
25 purposes of Sections 30.30-40, which at any time probable cause appears, the person shall be arrested.
26 The fifteen minute limitation was inapplicable in this case since Officers had probable to arrest.
27 Accordingly, the Court does not agree with Defendant's assertion that "any and all" evidence
28 from a detention should be suppressed under Section 30.60. Although the Court in Santos did not address the suppression issue, the Court will do so now. Guam law provides that "[n]othing seized by a
2 peace officer in the search of authorized by§30.50 [Weapons Search Permitted] shall be admissible
3 against any person in any court of this Territory unless both the detention and the search which disclosed
4 its existence was authorized by, and conducted in compliance with, the provisions of this Chapter." 8
5 G.C.A. § 30.60. In the present case, there is no evidence to suppress from a search of Defendant based
6 on the following analysis.
7 A "detention" is limited to ascertaining the identity of the person and the circumstances
8 surrounding his presence which lead the officer to believe that he had committed, was committing, or
9 was about to commit a criminal offense. 8 G.C.A. § 30.20. A request for identification and investigation
10 does not generally constitute as seizure, and most importantly, does not trigger Fourth Amendment
II protections. In Terry, a 'detention" occurs when a "police officer accosts an individual and restrains his
12 freedom to walk away." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. I, 16 (1968). The Michigan Court of Appeals suggests
13 she determining factor in assessing whether a detention is too long in duration is "whether the police
14 were diligently pursuing a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel their suspicions"
15 People v. Chambers, 489 N.W. 2d 168, 125 (1992).
16 Defendant urges the Court to rely on its ruling in People v. Santo, CM 0332-09, Superior Court
17 of Guam, July 2,2010. The Court effectively abandons its ruling in Santos/wherein it concluded police
18 officers have fifteen (15) minutes to make an arrest after the onset of probable cause following an initial
19 investigatory stop. The Court has not previously adhered to such analysis. See People v. Pascual, CF
20 370-08, Superior Court of Guam, January 11, 2010; see also People v. Tedtaotao, CF 50-09, Superior
2I Court of Guam, April 20, 2009.
22 Even if Section 30.30 was violated, the Court finds suppression is not an appropriate remedy.
23 The fifteen (15) minute limitation is a statutory right prescribed by the Guam legislature, not a
24 constitutional right. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizures is
25 applicable pursuant to § 1421 b( c) of the Organic Act of Guam; however, nothing in the Act incorporates
26 I The Court abandons its logic in Decision & Order (July 2, 2010) on a p. S ~ 2 that states, "the existence ofprobabl 27 cause does not alter the time and place limitations of 8 G.C.A. § 30.20." Instead, the Court finds the existence of probable cause does alter the time and place limitations of Section 30.20. If probable cause is found during the 28 "investigatory stop," the exclusionary rule is not triggered even after the expiration of the fifteen (IS) minute time limitation.
the fifteen (15) minute limitation as a constitutionally-afforded right to the people of Guam.
2 Additionally, Section 30.50 only applies to weapons searches and is not applicable to the case at present,
3 as no weapons search was conducted. Section 30.60 provides the limitations upon admissibility of
4 seized evidence found in searches authorized by Section 30.50, which is only applicable to weapons
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Mackwelung (People v. Mackwelung) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.