People v. Mesa

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: July 28, 2025
• Docket: CF0208-24
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 OFGUAM 4

5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0208-24 6 ) 7 ) vs. ) 8 ) 9 ) ) DECISION AND ORDER RE. JOHN PAUL FEJERANG MESA, ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DOB: 07/11/1982 ) SUPPRESS 11 ) 12 Defendant. )

13 INTRODUCTION 14

15 This matter came before the Honorable Maria T. Cenzon upon Defendant John Paul

16 Fejerang Mesa's ("Defendant or John Paul Mesa) Motion to Suppress ("Motion or Motion to 17 Suppress"). The People of Guam ("the People) are represented by Assistant Attorney General 18 Valerie A Nuesa. Defendant is represented by Alternate Public Defender Tyler R. Scott. 19 Defendant and counsels were present at the suppression hearing on April 28, 2025. Following the 20

21 hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement pursuant to CVR 7.l(e)(6)(D) of the LOCAL

22 RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM and Administrative Rule No. 06-001. After 23 considering the pleadings on file and having heard oral arguments, and after reviewing the 24 applicable statutes and case law, the Court now issues this Decision and Order GRANTING 25 Defendant's Motion to Suppress. 26

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Pagel of9 PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2 Defendant is charged with Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (As a 3r 3 Degree Felony). See Indictment. (April 16, 2024). The charges in the Indictment stem from 4

5 traffic stop that occurred on or about March 29, 2024, at approximately 11 :00 p.m. Magistrate'

6 Compl. (March 30, 2024).

7 Officer Guardian conducted a routine traffic stop on a white sedan that did not have it 8 headlights turned on. Magistrate's Compl. The white sedan then pulled into the Dededo Payles 9 parking lot. Def.'s Mot. Compel at 2 (May 31, 2024). Officer Guardian conducted a call out ofth 10

11 license plate and was informed that the sedan had expired registration and insurance. Id. Afte

12 meeting the driver of the vehicle, Kendrick Benavente, Officer Guardian requested his driver' 13 license and registration. Id. Benavente informed Officer Guardian he did not have a driver's licens 14 or registration. Id. Officer Guardian asked the front passenger of the vehicle, John Paul Mesa, fo 15 a driver's license, which he was able to provide. Id. Officer Guardian then asked to see th 16

17 vehicle's insurance and shone a flashlight into the interior of the car. Id. Officer Guardian observe

18 a small plastic baggie underneath a vehicle's key fob on the vehicle's center console. Id. Accordin 19 to the motions filed by Defendant and the people, Officer Guardian alleges the baggie appeared t 20 contain a white crystallized substance. Id, People's Mot. Compel at 2 (April 9, 2025). Defendant' 21

22 motion claims that Officer Guardian then asked Benavente to pick up the baggie, which h

23 complied with. Def. 's Mot. at 2. The people's motion instead claims that Officer Guardian gesture

24 towards the baggie and Benavente picked up the bag and held it out on his own. People's Mot. a 25 2-3. Benavente and Defendant were asked to step out of the vehicle while Officer Guardi 26 confiscated the baggie. Def. 's Mot. at 2. The contents of the baggie tested presumptive positiv 27

28 for approximately 0.41 grams of methamphetamine. Id. Benavente and Defendant both denie

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 2 of9 owning the baggie. After placing Benavente and Defendant under arrest, Officer Guardi 2 searched them incident to arrest. Id. He found a wallet inside of Defendant' s front pocket. People' 3 Mot. at 3. Inside the wallet was a small plastic baggie that contained a white crystallized substance. 4

Id. That substance tested presumptive positive for approximately 1 gram of methamphetamine. Id. 5

6 On May 31, 2024, Defendant filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the evidenc

7 was seized in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Def.'s Mot. at 3. The People filed 8 opposition to the motion on April 9, 2025. 1 People's Mot. at 1. Defendant replied to the People' 9 opposition on April 14, 2025. Oral argument on the motion was heard on April 28, 2025. Neithe 10

ll party submitted witness lists, as required under CR l.l(b)(3). The People failed to produce an

12 witnesses at the hearing, although the People indicated that GPD Officer Jorem Guardian had bee 13 previously served with a Subpoena to appear for the hearing. Hrg. on Def 's Mot. to Suppress o 14 4/28/ 2025 at 2: 11 :33 PM (Apr. 28, 2025). 2 The defendant submitted three exhibits of photograph 15 of the vehicle ' s interior at the hearing without objection by the People. 16

17 Through his motion, Defendant is requesting the suppression of all physical evidence an

18 statements, arguing the search and seizure of the Defendant was unconstitutional. The Defendan 19 claims that the incriminating character of the small baggie was not immediately apparent to Office 20 Guardian until he requested that Benavente pick it up. Def.'s Mot. at 6. Therefore, Defendan 21

22 asserts there was no probable cause to arrest and search his person. Id at 7. The People argue tha

25 1 The People's Opposition was originally due by June 14, 2024. Ntc. of Mot. (May 31 , 2024). The Court issued

Briefing Scheduling Order modifying the People's due date to file an Opposition by September 5, 2024, which wa 26 subsequently extended to October 24, 2024. Briefing Scheduling Order (Jul. 16, 2024); Amended Briefing Schedu/in Order (Sep. 30, 2024). 27 2 During the hearing, which was scheduled to commence at 2:00 pm on April 28, 2025, the Court allowed the Peopl

to contact Officer Guardian to determine his arrival time at Court for the hearing. The People informed the Court tha 28 the witness would arrive at the Court "in the next 40 minutes." Id. at 2:29:55 PM. As the 2 p.m. hearing had alread been delayed by 30 minutes, the Court proceeded with the hearing. At no time during the hearing, which ended at 2:53 PM, did the People's witness appear. People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 3 of9 the incriminating character of the baggie was immediately apparent and that Officer Guardi 2 could see a white, crystalline substance before the baggie was manipulated. People's Mot. at 5. A 3 a result, the People contend the arrest and subsequent search of the Defendant was valid. Id at 5. 4

5 DISCUSSION

6 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides "the right of the peopl 7 to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches an 8 seizures, [and] shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, 9 supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and th 10

11 persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. Amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment protects agains

12 unreasonable searches and seizures and is made applicable to Guam by 48 U.S.C.A §1421b(c) o 13 the Organic Act of Guam. People v. Yerten, 2021 Guam 8 ,r 17 (citing People v. Johnson, 199 14 Guam 9 ,r 4) (internal citations omitted). Warrantless searches are "presumed to be unreasonable.' 15 People v. Quintanilla, 2020 Guam 8 ,r 27. When there is a warrantless search and seizure, th 16

17 People have the burden of proof to prove that the search and seizure was valid. People v. Calhoun

18 2014 Guam 26 ,r 9 (quoting People v. Santos, 1999 Guam 1 ,r 51). A warrantless search or seizur 19 is only valid "if an exception to the warrant requirement applies". Id. 20 I. The initial investigatory stop of the vehicle was lawful and based upon reasonabl 21 suspicion Benavente was committing a traffic violation. 22 A traffic stop is valid if police have a reasonable suspicion that a traffic violation occurred. 23 People v. Chargualaf 2001 Guam 1 ,r 17. "Reasonable suspicion entails "some minimal level o 24

25 objective justification" for making a stop, but considerably less than the level of suspicion require

26 for probable cause." People v. Mansapit, 2016 Guam 30 ,r 13. (citing United States v. Sokolow 27 490 U.S. 1, 7). Magistrate's Compl. 28

Pe ople v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 4 of9 The People argue that Defendant was not seized during the traffic stop because he was onl 2 a passenger in the vehicle. However, when a vehicle is stopped by the police, everyone inside o 3 it, including passengers, is seized. Brend/in v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 255 (2007). "Althoug 4

5 stopping a car and detaining its occupants constitute a seizure within the meaning of the Fou

6 Amendment, the governmental interest in investigating an officer's reasonable suspicion, based o 7 specific and articulable facts, may outweigh the Fourth Amendment interest of the driver an 8 passengers in remaining secure from the intrusion." United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 22 9 (1985).

11 Here, based upon information provided to the Court which was not controverted b

12 Defendant, Officer Guardian had reasonable suspicion to perform a traffic stop on Benavente an 13 Defendant. Officer Guardian observed that the car was driving at approximately 11 :00 p.m. wi 14 no headlights on, which is a traffic violation. Under the totality of the circumstances analysis, 15 driving without headlights at 11 :00 p.m. is sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion and justi 16

17 stopping the vehicle. Although Benavente and Defendant were briefly seized, the seizure wa

18 justified by the reasonable suspicion that Benavente, as the driver, was committing a traffi 19 violation. 20 II. The plain view doctrine does not apply to the first baggie of methamphetamin 21 because its incriminating character was not immediately apparent. 22 According to the plain view doctrine, "if police are lawfully in a position from which the 23 view an object, if its incriminating character is immediately apparent, and if the officers have 24

25 lawful right of access to the object, they may seize it without a warrant." People v. Camacho, 200

26 Guam 6 ,r 20 (quoting Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366, 375 (1993)). The Guam Suprem 27 Court has adopted the Dickerson and Horton three-part test to evaluate whether the plain vie 28 doctrine applies. Id.

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 5 of9 I. [T]he officer must "arriv[e] at the place from which the evidence could be plainly 2 viewed' without violating the Fourth Amendment, 3 2. the evidence must be in 'plain view' and its 'incriminating character must also be 4

5 immediately apparent,' and

6 3. the officer 'must also have a lawful right of access to the object itself.'

7 Id. (quoting Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128, 136-37 (1990)). 8 Here, Officer Guardian lawfully arrived where he could view the possible evidence. As addresse 9 above, the officer had executed a valid traffic stop on Benavente and Defendant, so the first pron

11 is satisfied.

12 As for the second part of the test, the incriminating character of the evidence was no 13 immediately apparent. Officer Guardian did not see the baggie until he illuminated it with hi 14 flashlight. People's Mot. at 2. The baggie was directly beneath a vehicle's key fob on the cente 15 console. Id. There are conflicting statements about whether it was immediately clear that the baggi 16

17 contained a white crystalline substance: The People submit that the Officer could immediately se

18 the contents of the baggie and recognized it as methamphetamine. People's Mot. at 2. Defendan 19 submits that the baggie and amount of drugs found in the baggie, 0.41 grams, was too small fo 20 the officer to have seen underneath the key fob. Def.'s Mot. at 6. They contend that the office 21

could have only seen the plastic part of the bag and not the actual contents. Id. 22

23 There are also conflicting statements about whether Officer Guardian directed Benavent

24 to lift up the baggie, revealing its incriminating character. The People submit that the officer "mad 25 both Benavente and Defendant aware of what he was looking at" and then Benavente lifted up th 26 baggie on his own accord. People's Mot. at 5. Defendant submits that the officer "asked Benavent 27

28 to pick up the baggie" and Benavente complied. Def.'s Mot. at 2.

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 6 of9 "The incriminating nature of an item is immediately apparent 'where the officer ha[s] 2 probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity."' People v. Camacho, 2004 Gua 3 6 ~25 (alteration in the original) (quoting United States v. Hudson, 100 F. ad 1409, 1420 (9th 4

5 Cir. 1996)). This prong was satisfied in Camacho, where the officer recognized a white powde

6 substance inside plastic straws as methamphetamine. Id. There, the officer's recognition of th

7 drugs gave probable cause to associate the contraband with criminal activity. Id. However, in thi 8 case, the People have not proven whether the officer could see the drugs in the plastic baggi 9 before it was manipulated. Until the bag was lifted and its contents revealed, there was no probabl

11 cause to believe a plastic baggie was related to criminal activity. Upon considering the limite

12 evidence relating to this encounter, and without Officer Guardian's testimony, this Court finds tha 13 the baggie's incriminating character was not immediately apparent. 14 Similar to the first part of the test, the third prong is satisfied because the initial stop of th 15 vehicle was lawful. Officer Guardian conducted a valid traffic stop on Benavente and Defendant, 16

17 so he had lawful access to the interior of the vehicle to seize the baggie. See United States v. Hall

18 974 F.2d 1201 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 In sum, the seizure of the baggie fails on the second element of the plain view test. Th 20 plain view doctrine does not apply to the seizure of the baggie because, based upon the evidenc 21

22 produced during the suppression hearing - or lack thereof - its incriminating character was no

23 immediately apparent when Officer Guardian first viewed it. All three prongs of the test must b

24 fulfilled in order for the plain view doctrine to apply to a warrantless search, so it is inapplicabl 25 to the seizure of the first baggie. People v. Camacho, 2004 Guam 6 ~28. 26 II 27

28 II

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 7 of9 m. The subsequent arrest and search of Defendant was unlawful; therefore, th evidence derived from that arrest is excluded. 2

3 Police may place an individual under arrest without a warrant when there is probable caus

4 to believe a crime has been or will be committed. Devenpeck v. Alford, 543, 593 U.S. 146 (2004). 5 Probable cause is based on the facts known by the officer at the time of the arrest. Id. The Peopl 6 do not address whether the arrest was lawful. People's Mot. at 5. Here, the officer arreste 7

8 Benavente and Defendant after seizing the baggie that was underneath the key fob. Id. As discusse

9 above, this was an invalid seizure because the incriminating character of the baggie was no 10 immediately apparent based on the evidence produced during the hearing. The illegally seize 11 baggie cannot establish probable cause for the subsequent arrest of Benavente and Defendant. 12 Evidence obtained as the result of an illegal search and seizure must be suppressed. Peopl 13

14 v. Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12 ,i 41. However, before determining that the evidence is "fruit of th

15 poisonous tree," the Court must evaluate "whether the challenged evidence was 'come at b 16 exploitation of [the initial] illegality or instead by means sufficiently distinguishable to be purge 17 of the primary taint.'" Segura v. US., 468 U.S. 796, 804 (1984), quoting Wong Sun v. Unite 18 States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963). The People do not submit any intervening events that break the causa 19

20 chain between the illegal seizure of the baggie from the vehicle to the arrest and search of th

21 Defendant. The warrantless seizure of the baggie from the center console of the vehicle taints th 22 later seizure and search of the Defendant. As a result, the baggie found in Defendant's wallet i 23 excludable and must be suppressed. 24

25 CONCLUSION

26 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Whil 27 GPD's initial traffic stop was constitutional, the first baggie's incriminating character was no 28 immediately apparent. Therefore, the plain view doctrine does not apply, and the following arrest

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 8 of9 search, and seizure was unconstitutional. The People have not overcome the presumption o 2 unreasonableness for warrantless searches. Physical evidence seized during the search is 3 therefore, inadmissible. 4

5 The Court shall issue a Criminal Trial Scheduling Order under separate cover.

6 SO ORDERED this 28 th day of July, 2025.

10 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 11

24 sf,(\ilir.~ '\iHA iErmrn1. I ackno~1leage that an electronic copy of the or1g1nal was e-mailed to 25

26 Date: 2 · ·· 8 27 dlau 28

People v. Mesa Criminal Case No. CF0208-24 Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Page 9 of9