• do*
1 F\LED SUPERIGR COURT GF GUAM 2
3 :mere en me CLER COURT 4
5 By*
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0315-17 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER LAWRENCE REYES NAPUTI, (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 11 DOB: 05/24/1961 12 DEFENDANT. 13
14 INTRODUCTION
15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Lawrence Reyes Naputi's
16 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Attorney John C. Terlaje represents the Defendant. Assistant
17 Attorney General Matthew A. Phelps appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("People"). Upon
18 review of the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court
19 herebyDENIES the Defendant's Motion.
20 BACKGROUND
21 On May 26, 2017,' a Superior Court Judge authorized a search warrant ("Search Warrant")
22 on a residence located at 220 Cham Kanton Tasi in Merizo. Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A (Mar. 22,
23 2018). The items to be seized included illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, U.S. currency, drug
24 ledgers, tirearrns, and ammunition. Officers from the Guam Police Department conducted a
25 search on June 2, 2017. at 1. Inside the residence, the officers discovered methamphetamine,
6 suspected marijuana, glass pipes, and digital scales. Opp'n at 2 (Apr. 2, 2018).
28 1 This date is disputed, as discussed below.
CF0315-17, People vs. Naputi Page 1 of 5 ( .QECISION ANDORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 1 The copy of the Search Warrant provided to Defendant during execution of the search 2 states: "Dated this 26th day of March, 2017, at 3:53, in Hagatna, Guam." Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A. 3 However, during discovery the People provided another copy of the Search Warrant in which the 4 month of March was crossed out and May was written in its place. Q Ex. B. The Affidavit 5 supporting the Search Warrant ("Affidavit") is dated May 26, 2017. Opp'n, Ex, A. 6 On June 13, 2017, a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury returned an indictment charging 7 Defendant with the following charges: POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED 8 SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF 9 A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First 10 Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 11 Third Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 12 (As a T hird Degree F elony), and POSSESSION OF LESS THAN AN OUNCE OF 13 MARIJUANA (As a Violation). Indictment (Jun. 13, 2017). 14 On March 22, 2018, Defendant tiled a Motion to Suppress. The People filed an Opposition 15 on April 2, 2018. The Court held a Suppression Hearing on December 6, 2018, and the matter was 16 taken under advisement. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from
19 unreasonable searches and seizures. The Amendment's protections are extended to Guam via the
20 Organic Act of Guam. See 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b (West 2017). Every search and seizure of a person, or their house, papers, and effects, must be reasonable to be constitutionally permissible. 21 See People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1 '][ 14. A seizure that is not authorized by a duly issued 22 warrant is presumed unreasonable. (citing Pennsylvania v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa. 23 2000)). Defendant argues that the Search Warrant used to search his home is invalid because it was 24 outdated and contained the incorrect address. Mot. to Suppress at 1. 25
27 I 28 i
CF0315-17, People vs. Naputi Page 2 of 5 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 1 a. The Search Warrant was not outdated.
2 Title 8 GCA Section 35.20 states that an authorized warrant shall be directed to a peace
3 officer and shall command the officer to conduct the search within a specified period of time not to
4 exceed ten (10) days.
5 The People concede that the warrant was originally dated March 26, 2017. Opp'n at 2. The
6 People argue that although the date listed on the warrant is incorrect, it is a technical error that
7 does not invalidate the Search Warrant. The People state that the Search Warrant was actually
8 authorized on May 26, 2017. The Search Warrant was executed on June 2, 2017, thus a Search
9 Warrant issued on May 26, 2017 would not be outdated at the time of the search.
10 The Court notes that the Affidavit is dated May 26, 2017, consistent with the People's
11 position that the March 26 date on the Search Warrant was merely a typographical error. Opp'n
12 Ex. A. The Affidavit is a sworn document signed by Officer Keane Pangelinan and a Superior
13 Court Judge. The Affidavit contains statements about events which occurred in May 2017.
14 Based upon the date of the Affidavit and the allegations contained therein, the Court finds that the
15 Search Warrant was signed on May 26, 2017, and the March 26, 2017 date originally contained in
16 the Search Warrant was a typographical error.
17 Generally spealdng, minor errors are not fatal to an otherwise valid search warrant,
18 especially when the errors are attributable to the judge or the government attorney. See United
19 States v. Smith, 720 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2013) (search warrant was not facially invalid even
20 though authorizing judge misdated the warrant); United States v. W aker, 534 F.3d 168, 171-72
21 (2nd Cir. 2008) (search warrant not invalid even though authorizing judge wrote the wrong year
22 when listing the deadline for executing the warrant). Accordingly, the Court finds the Search
23 Warrant is not fatally defective in this case where the People have demonstrated that the incorrect
24 date was merely a typographical error.
CF0315- 17, People vs. Naputi Page 3 of 5 DECISION AN D ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) \II
1 b. The search was not invalid due to the address being incorrect. 2 In the Affidavit, Officer Keane C. Pangelinan stated that the house to be searched was
3 located at 220 Chalan Kanton Masi, Merizo, Guam. Opp'n, Ex. A. Defendant argues that the
4 residence to be searched was not accurately identified, as the address of the house that was
5 searched is actually 220A Chadian Kanton Tasi Street, Merizo, Guam. Mot. to Suppress at 1.
6 In determining whether a warrant sufficiently describes a location to be searched, courts
7 consider (1) whether the description enables officers to identify the place or object with reasonable
8 effort, and (2) whether there is any probability that the officers might mistakenly search an area or
9 object outside of the scope of the warrant. United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876-77 (9th Cir.
10 2004). 'The practical accuracy rather than the technical precision governs in determining whether
11 a search warrant adequately describes the premises to be searched." United States v. Williams, 687
12 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1982).
13 In the present case, Defendant argues that the warrant was incorrect because it listed the
14 house to be searched as "220" but the house searched was "220A." Defendant has provided a
15 water bill for the property, which lists the address as "220A." Mot. to Suppress, Ex. C. Defendant
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
• do*
1 F\LED SUPERIGR COURT GF GUAM 2
3 :mere en me CLER COURT 4
5 By*
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7
8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0315-17 9 vs. 10 DECISION AND ORDER LAWRENCE REYES NAPUTI, (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 11 DOB: 05/24/1961 12 DEFENDANT. 13
14 INTRODUCTION
15 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Lawrence Reyes Naputi's
16 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Attorney John C. Terlaje represents the Defendant. Assistant
17 Attorney General Matthew A. Phelps appeared on behalf of the People of Guam ("People"). Upon
18 review of the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court
19 herebyDENIES the Defendant's Motion.
20 BACKGROUND
21 On May 26, 2017,' a Superior Court Judge authorized a search warrant ("Search Warrant")
22 on a residence located at 220 Cham Kanton Tasi in Merizo. Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A (Mar. 22,
23 2018). The items to be seized included illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, U.S. currency, drug
24 ledgers, tirearrns, and ammunition. Officers from the Guam Police Department conducted a
25 search on June 2, 2017. at 1. Inside the residence, the officers discovered methamphetamine,
6 suspected marijuana, glass pipes, and digital scales. Opp'n at 2 (Apr. 2, 2018).
28 1 This date is disputed, as discussed below.
CF0315-17, People vs. Naputi Page 1 of 5 ( .QECISION ANDORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 1 The copy of the Search Warrant provided to Defendant during execution of the search 2 states: "Dated this 26th day of March, 2017, at 3:53, in Hagatna, Guam." Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A. 3 However, during discovery the People provided another copy of the Search Warrant in which the 4 month of March was crossed out and May was written in its place. Q Ex. B. The Affidavit 5 supporting the Search Warrant ("Affidavit") is dated May 26, 2017. Opp'n, Ex, A. 6 On June 13, 2017, a Superior Court of Guam Grand Jury returned an indictment charging 7 Defendant with the following charges: POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED 8 SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF 9 A SCHEDULE I CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE WITH INTENT TO DELIVER (As a First 10 Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (As a 11 Third Degree Felony), POSSESSION OF A SCHEDULE II CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 12 (As a T hird Degree F elony), and POSSESSION OF LESS THAN AN OUNCE OF 13 MARIJUANA (As a Violation). Indictment (Jun. 13, 2017). 14 On March 22, 2018, Defendant tiled a Motion to Suppress. The People filed an Opposition 15 on April 2, 2018. The Court held a Suppression Hearing on December 6, 2018, and the matter was 16 taken under advisement. 17 DISCUSSION 18 The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from
19 unreasonable searches and seizures. The Amendment's protections are extended to Guam via the
20 Organic Act of Guam. See 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b (West 2017). Every search and seizure of a person, or their house, papers, and effects, must be reasonable to be constitutionally permissible. 21 See People v. Chargualaf, 2001 Guam 1 '][ 14. A seizure that is not authorized by a duly issued 22 warrant is presumed unreasonable. (citing Pennsylvania v. Strickler, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa. 23 2000)). Defendant argues that the Search Warrant used to search his home is invalid because it was 24 outdated and contained the incorrect address. Mot. to Suppress at 1. 25
27 I 28 i
CF0315-17, People vs. Naputi Page 2 of 5 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) 1 a. The Search Warrant was not outdated.
2 Title 8 GCA Section 35.20 states that an authorized warrant shall be directed to a peace
3 officer and shall command the officer to conduct the search within a specified period of time not to
4 exceed ten (10) days.
5 The People concede that the warrant was originally dated March 26, 2017. Opp'n at 2. The
6 People argue that although the date listed on the warrant is incorrect, it is a technical error that
7 does not invalidate the Search Warrant. The People state that the Search Warrant was actually
8 authorized on May 26, 2017. The Search Warrant was executed on June 2, 2017, thus a Search
9 Warrant issued on May 26, 2017 would not be outdated at the time of the search.
10 The Court notes that the Affidavit is dated May 26, 2017, consistent with the People's
11 position that the March 26 date on the Search Warrant was merely a typographical error. Opp'n
12 Ex. A. The Affidavit is a sworn document signed by Officer Keane Pangelinan and a Superior
13 Court Judge. The Affidavit contains statements about events which occurred in May 2017.
14 Based upon the date of the Affidavit and the allegations contained therein, the Court finds that the
15 Search Warrant was signed on May 26, 2017, and the March 26, 2017 date originally contained in
16 the Search Warrant was a typographical error.
17 Generally spealdng, minor errors are not fatal to an otherwise valid search warrant,
18 especially when the errors are attributable to the judge or the government attorney. See United
19 States v. Smith, 720 F.3d 1017, 1020 (8th Cir. 2013) (search warrant was not facially invalid even
20 though authorizing judge misdated the warrant); United States v. W aker, 534 F.3d 168, 171-72
21 (2nd Cir. 2008) (search warrant not invalid even though authorizing judge wrote the wrong year
22 when listing the deadline for executing the warrant). Accordingly, the Court finds the Search
23 Warrant is not fatally defective in this case where the People have demonstrated that the incorrect
24 date was merely a typographical error.
CF0315- 17, People vs. Naputi Page 3 of 5 DECISION AN D ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) \II
1 b. The search was not invalid due to the address being incorrect. 2 In the Affidavit, Officer Keane C. Pangelinan stated that the house to be searched was
3 located at 220 Chalan Kanton Masi, Merizo, Guam. Opp'n, Ex. A. Defendant argues that the
4 residence to be searched was not accurately identified, as the address of the house that was
5 searched is actually 220A Chadian Kanton Tasi Street, Merizo, Guam. Mot. to Suppress at 1.
6 In determining whether a warrant sufficiently describes a location to be searched, courts
7 consider (1) whether the description enables officers to identify the place or object with reasonable
8 effort, and (2) whether there is any probability that the officers might mistakenly search an area or
9 object outside of the scope of the warrant. United States v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869, 876-77 (9th Cir.
10 2004). 'The practical accuracy rather than the technical precision governs in determining whether
11 a search warrant adequately describes the premises to be searched." United States v. Williams, 687
12 F.2d 290, 292 (9th Cir. 1982).
13 In the present case, Defendant argues that the warrant was incorrect because it listed the
14 house to be searched as "220" but the house searched was "220A." Defendant has provided a
15 water bill for the property, which lists the address as "220A." Mot. to Suppress, Ex. C. Defendant
16 does not indicate whether there are two separate units labeled as "220" and "220A." Nonetheless,
17 the officers successfully located the correct residence, demonstrating that the description of "220"
18 was sufficient. Additionally, Defendant makes no argument that there was a risk of the officers
19 mistakenly searching the incorrect area. Further, the Affidavit states that officers had conducted
20 surveillance of the residence in question, providing further evidence that the officers executing the
21 residence had knowledge that they were searching the targeted residence. The Court finds that the
22 discrepancy between the address contained in the Search Warrant and the address contained in
23 Defendant's water bill does not provide cause for the Court to suppress the evidence obtained
24 during the search.
CF03l5- 17, People vs. Naputi Page 4 of 5 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress) | I
1 CONCLUSION
2 Thus, by preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court
3 DENIES the Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
6 A Criminal Triad Setting is set for $'// //' at 1 r A '
9 Z 10 SO ORDERED n/ 11
13 The Honorable Anita A. Sukola 14 Judge, Superior Court of Guam 15
16 I
20 S E R V IC E V IA C O U R T B O X I ncknowuedge that a copy of the original hsnato was placed19 the 21
Z';£A 1P /: x of:
23 r£m.:-. 7019 24 priorCourt alGuam
CF0315- 17, People vs. Naputi Page 5 of 5 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress)