»»-m -;': g i . :na . LJ I SUM f8§":¥IB *" .f JL) k J V* Q;"-' r, ._. 1 QE §£;Ur"§,j\_€
2 2823 /1UQ P .S 33 3 CLERHGFCGURT
-__-.>~,..,.,_ 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0373-22 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
PERRY ANTHONY MENDIOLA, 12 Defendant. 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on June 23, 2023, for hearing on 16 Defendant Perry Anthony Mendiola's ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Present were Assistant 17 Attorney General Kristine Borja on behalf of the People of Guam ("the Government") and 18 Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff. Having reviewed the 19 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision 20 and Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 20, 2022, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1) Possession of 23 a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), (2) Resisting Arrest (As a 24 Misdemeanor), and (3) Eluding a Police Officer (As a Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jun. 20, 25 2022). These charges stem from allegations that Defendant was operating a motorcycle at a high 26 rate of speed and attempted to elude police. (Decl. off. Basil O'Mallan III, Magistrate's Con pl., 27 Jun. 3, 2023). After the motorcycle finally stopped, Defendant refused to cooperate with police 28
People v. Mendiola Case No. CF0373-22 Decision and Order
Page 1 of 5 1 and struggled with them. Id. When officers tried to get positive identification from Defendant,
2 they found several plastic baggies within a bag he was can'ying containing suspected
3 methamphetamine. Id.
4 On May ll, 2023, Defendant Hled the instant motion. The Government did not file a
5 written response, but orally opposed the motion at the Motion Hearing.
6 On June 23, 2023, the Court heard sworn testimony from Guam Police Department
7 ("GPD") Officer Byron Joseph Due fas, Officer Joseph Anthony Tudela Gabutin and Defendant.
8 The Court subsequently gave the parties three weeks to submit proposed findings of fact and
9 conclusions of law. The Court did not receive proposed findings from either party.
10 At the Suppression Hearing, the Court ascertained the following facts:
11 1. On June 2, 2022 around 2:25 in the morning, Officers Due fas and Gabutin were
12 traveling on Route 10 approaching the Chalan Pago Church when they came across a
13 motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed.
14 2. Officer Due fas and Gabutin were in a marked patrol vehicle. Officer Gabutin was the
15 driver.
16 3. Officer Due fas indicated that they did not have a radar, but that any reasonable person
17 would have observed it traveling above the speed limit of 35 miles per hour.
18 4. Officer Due fas testified that they were traveling a little bit below the speed limit.
19 5. Officer Gabutin executed a u-tum to try to follow the vehicle to pace it and see how
20 fast it was going. When Officer Gabutin noticed that his speedometer was over 45
21 miles per hour and the motorcycle was still able to have a gap and pick up speed, he
22 attempted to effectuate a traffic pull Over.
23 6. Officer Gabutin activated the emergency lights and sirens on the patrol vehicle,
24 however, the motorcycle refused to pull over and continued to travel at a high rate of
25 speed. .
26 7. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle increased speed because it started to gain
27 significant distance from their patrol car.
Page 2 of 5 1 8. Officer Gabutin had to increase his speed up to 70 miles per hour to keep up with the
2 motorcycle.
3 9. Both Officers Due fas and Gabutin testified that they followed him onto Route 10 to
4 the Father Due fas Memorial School area and all the way to the tri-intersection (Route
5 10, Route 8, and Route 16) attempting to pull him over. Defendant took a right turn
6 and continued to drive all the way to the over-pass area. Defendant then took a right
7 tum towards the Cost-u-less and Compadres Mall area in Harmon. Defendant
8 proceeded all the way to Route l up to Route 9 in Yigo by Anderson Air Force Base
9 then around nictams (Route 3 area) and then back down towards Route l by Jollibee.
10 Officer Due fas testified that they then turned at Jollibee towards Harmon Loop and
11 proceeded towards the overpass.
12 10. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle went into the oncoming lane at the
13 overpass. Officer Due fas testified that they drove towards the tri-intersection again,
14 where the motorcycle took a left turn and proceeded towards Route 10 and past Father
15 Due fas Memorial School. Officer Due fas testified that the lights and sirens were
16 activated this whole time.
17 l l. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle timed right onto Route 4 back to the area
18 they first observed him towards Chalan Palo Church and Dero Road.
19 12. Officer Due fas testified that when they approached the traffic light, his window was
20 down and the motorcycle was slowing down and coming to a stop. Officer Due fas
21 informed the operator to stop the motorcycle and step off the motorcycle as he was
22 exiting the patrol vehicle.
23 13. Officer Due fas testified that the operator tried to take off again and he had to use his 24 laser to incapacitate him.
25 14. Defendant fell to the ground and was given more verbal commands to show his hands . 26 Officer Due fas testified that as officers were attempting to place Defendant in
27 restraints, he continued to refuse and not comply. Officer Due fas testified 28 Defendant's hands were tucked in under his stomach area.
Page 3 off l 15. Officer Due fas testified he had to discharge his laser a second time.
2 16. After Defendant was placed in restraints, he was secured and searched incident to
3 arrest. Officer Due fas found multiple reusable baggies with suspected
4 methamphetamine residue and fabricated glass pipes.
5 17. Defendant admitted on the stand that he was aware of the lights and sirens but that he
6 refused to stop the motorcycle.
7 DISCUSSION
8 Defendant moves the Court to suppress all evidence seized in this matter, both physical
9 and verbal, on the grounds that they were the fruit of an illegal pull over. See generally, Mot.
10 Suppress, May 11, 2023 .
11 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protects against unreasonable searches
12 and seizures and is made applicable to Guam via section l42l(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam."
13 People v. Cnargualaf, 2001 Guam l 11 14 (internal citations omitted). Brief investigative
14 detentions are permitted under the Fourth Amendment "when a police officer has reasonable
15 suspicion that an individual was engaged in or is about to be engaged in illegal conduct." People
16 v. Johnson, 1997 Guam 9 1[4 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. l (l968)). "As a general matter, the
17 decision to stop an automobile without a warrant is reasonable where the police have probable
18 cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Further, it is reasonable to stop a car where
19 the police merely have a reasonable suspicion to believe the driver has committed a traffic
20 violation." Chargualaf, 2001 Guam l ii 17 (citations omitted). "In order to determine whether
21 an officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to warrant a traffic stop, the court must look at the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
»»-m -;': g i . :na . LJ I SUM f8§":¥IB *" .f JL) k J V* Q;"-' r, ._. 1 QE §£;Ur"§,j\_€
2 2823 /1UQ P .S 33 3 CLERHGFCGURT
-__-.>~,..,.,_ 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0373-22 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER
PERRY ANTHONY MENDIOLA, 12 Defendant. 13
14 INTRODUCTION 15 This matter came before the Honorable Vernon P. Perez on June 23, 2023, for hearing on 16 Defendant Perry Anthony Mendiola's ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Present were Assistant 17 Attorney General Kristine Borja on behalf of the People of Guam ("the Government") and 18 Defendant with counsel, Assistant Public Defender William C. Bischoff. Having reviewed the 19 pleadings, the arguments presented, and the record, the Court now issues the following Decision 20 and Order. 21 BACKGROUND 22 On June 20, 2022, Defendant was indicted with the following charges: (1) Possession of 23 a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a Third Degree Felony), (2) Resisting Arrest (As a 24 Misdemeanor), and (3) Eluding a Police Officer (As a Misdemeanor). (Indictment, Jun. 20, 25 2022). These charges stem from allegations that Defendant was operating a motorcycle at a high 26 rate of speed and attempted to elude police. (Decl. off. Basil O'Mallan III, Magistrate's Con pl., 27 Jun. 3, 2023). After the motorcycle finally stopped, Defendant refused to cooperate with police 28
People v. Mendiola Case No. CF0373-22 Decision and Order
Page 1 of 5 1 and struggled with them. Id. When officers tried to get positive identification from Defendant,
2 they found several plastic baggies within a bag he was can'ying containing suspected
3 methamphetamine. Id.
4 On May ll, 2023, Defendant Hled the instant motion. The Government did not file a
5 written response, but orally opposed the motion at the Motion Hearing.
6 On June 23, 2023, the Court heard sworn testimony from Guam Police Department
7 ("GPD") Officer Byron Joseph Due fas, Officer Joseph Anthony Tudela Gabutin and Defendant.
8 The Court subsequently gave the parties three weeks to submit proposed findings of fact and
9 conclusions of law. The Court did not receive proposed findings from either party.
10 At the Suppression Hearing, the Court ascertained the following facts:
11 1. On June 2, 2022 around 2:25 in the morning, Officers Due fas and Gabutin were
12 traveling on Route 10 approaching the Chalan Pago Church when they came across a
13 motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction at a high rate of speed.
14 2. Officer Due fas and Gabutin were in a marked patrol vehicle. Officer Gabutin was the
15 driver.
16 3. Officer Due fas indicated that they did not have a radar, but that any reasonable person
17 would have observed it traveling above the speed limit of 35 miles per hour.
18 4. Officer Due fas testified that they were traveling a little bit below the speed limit.
19 5. Officer Gabutin executed a u-tum to try to follow the vehicle to pace it and see how
20 fast it was going. When Officer Gabutin noticed that his speedometer was over 45
21 miles per hour and the motorcycle was still able to have a gap and pick up speed, he
22 attempted to effectuate a traffic pull Over.
23 6. Officer Gabutin activated the emergency lights and sirens on the patrol vehicle,
24 however, the motorcycle refused to pull over and continued to travel at a high rate of
25 speed. .
26 7. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle increased speed because it started to gain
27 significant distance from their patrol car.
Page 2 of 5 1 8. Officer Gabutin had to increase his speed up to 70 miles per hour to keep up with the
2 motorcycle.
3 9. Both Officers Due fas and Gabutin testified that they followed him onto Route 10 to
4 the Father Due fas Memorial School area and all the way to the tri-intersection (Route
5 10, Route 8, and Route 16) attempting to pull him over. Defendant took a right turn
6 and continued to drive all the way to the over-pass area. Defendant then took a right
7 tum towards the Cost-u-less and Compadres Mall area in Harmon. Defendant
8 proceeded all the way to Route l up to Route 9 in Yigo by Anderson Air Force Base
9 then around nictams (Route 3 area) and then back down towards Route l by Jollibee.
10 Officer Due fas testified that they then turned at Jollibee towards Harmon Loop and
11 proceeded towards the overpass.
12 10. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle went into the oncoming lane at the
13 overpass. Officer Due fas testified that they drove towards the tri-intersection again,
14 where the motorcycle took a left turn and proceeded towards Route 10 and past Father
15 Due fas Memorial School. Officer Due fas testified that the lights and sirens were
16 activated this whole time.
17 l l. Officer Due fas testified that the motorcycle timed right onto Route 4 back to the area
18 they first observed him towards Chalan Palo Church and Dero Road.
19 12. Officer Due fas testified that when they approached the traffic light, his window was
20 down and the motorcycle was slowing down and coming to a stop. Officer Due fas
21 informed the operator to stop the motorcycle and step off the motorcycle as he was
22 exiting the patrol vehicle.
23 13. Officer Due fas testified that the operator tried to take off again and he had to use his 24 laser to incapacitate him.
25 14. Defendant fell to the ground and was given more verbal commands to show his hands . 26 Officer Due fas testified that as officers were attempting to place Defendant in
27 restraints, he continued to refuse and not comply. Officer Due fas testified 28 Defendant's hands were tucked in under his stomach area.
Page 3 off l 15. Officer Due fas testified he had to discharge his laser a second time.
2 16. After Defendant was placed in restraints, he was secured and searched incident to
3 arrest. Officer Due fas found multiple reusable baggies with suspected
4 methamphetamine residue and fabricated glass pipes.
5 17. Defendant admitted on the stand that he was aware of the lights and sirens but that he
6 refused to stop the motorcycle.
7 DISCUSSION
8 Defendant moves the Court to suppress all evidence seized in this matter, both physical
9 and verbal, on the grounds that they were the fruit of an illegal pull over. See generally, Mot.
10 Suppress, May 11, 2023 .
11 The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "protects against unreasonable searches
12 and seizures and is made applicable to Guam via section l42l(b)(c) of the Organic Act of Guam."
13 People v. Cnargualaf, 2001 Guam l 11 14 (internal citations omitted). Brief investigative
14 detentions are permitted under the Fourth Amendment "when a police officer has reasonable
15 suspicion that an individual was engaged in or is about to be engaged in illegal conduct." People
16 v. Johnson, 1997 Guam 9 1[4 (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. l (l968)). "As a general matter, the
17 decision to stop an automobile without a warrant is reasonable where the police have probable
18 cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. Further, it is reasonable to stop a car where
19 the police merely have a reasonable suspicion to believe the driver has committed a traffic
20 violation." Chargualaf, 2001 Guam l ii 17 (citations omitted). "In order to determine whether
21 an officer had reasonable suspicion sufficient to warrant a traffic stop, the court must look at the
22 totality of the circumstances, taking into account the facts known to the officers from personal
23 observation." Johnson, 1997 Guam 9 116 (citation and quotation marks omitted). Furthermore,
24 the reasonable suspicion must exist at the time the stop was initiated. Id. (citation omitted).
25 In this case, Officer Gabutin effectuated a traffic stop after observing Defendant traveling
26 at a high rate of speed. Officer Gabutin testified that he effectuated a u-tum to pace the Defendant
27 on his motorcycle. After Officer Gabutin noticed that his speedometer was over 45 miles per
28 hour and the motorcycle was still picldng up speed, he attempted to effectuate a traffic stop.
Page 4 of 5 1 Defendant refused to pull over, however, and continued to travel at a high rate of speed, leading
2 the officers all over the north of Guam. Officer Gabutin testified that at one point he was traveling
3 at 70 miles per hour. Officer Gabutin testified that there was about six car lengths between the
4 patrol car and the motorcycle, and Officer Due fas testified there was aboutl00 feet in between.
5 The Court finds that based on this testimony, the Officers had reasonable suspicion Defendant
6 was traveling above the posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour, against Guam law. See, e.g.,
7 United States v. Green, 897 F.3d 173, 178 (ad Cir. 2018) ("When pacing, the key requirement is
8 maintaining a consistent distance with the target vehicle.... Logically, the more excessive a
9 driver's speed, the less precise a measurement must be to establish reasonable suspicion that the
10 driver is speeding at least to some degree. The operative question is whether [the officer] had a 11 reasonable suspicion [the defendant] was speeding, not whether [the officer] could determine [the
12 defendant's] exact speed." ). Further, Defendant admitted that he was aware of the lights and
13 sirens while driving and that he did not pull over. Accordingly, the Court finds that the
14 effectuation of the traffic stop was valid and DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
15 CONCLUSION
16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion to Suppress. Parties
17 shall return for a Pre-Trial Conference on August 8, 2023 at 10:00 a.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of August, 2023 . 19
21 5
22 HO'NORABLE VERNON p. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 23
Page 5 of 5