I'""'!
M
1 LLt-U
I
P
&r --
P
SU?ERiG?<I COURT SUPERIOR, ••.
<:@uRT
1 C)F GI QF .:iUAMi
2 282% %€l;Y 2024 HAY 30 30
PMF 5:
S: 12
12
3 CLERKOF
OFCOURT
COURT
4
5 'c§Y= bU
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 7 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, )) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0375-22 CRIMINAL CASE
8 ) 22-13453 /22-14741 no. 22-13453
REPORT NO.
GPD REPORT I22-14741 ))
9 vs. )
))
10 10 ) 11 11 FRANKY FRANKY F. F. RUFES, )) DECISION AND AND ORDER
ORDER RE.
aka Franky Franky Aruchy,
Aruchy, ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DEFENDANT'S
12 12 DOB: 08/29/1993 or DOB:08/29/1993 02/28/1993 or02/28/1993 )) SUPPRESS )
113 Defendant. ))
w
14 14
15 15 INTRODUCTION
16 16 This matter came before matter came before the
the Honorable
Honorable Maria T.
T. Cenzon
Cenzon upon
upon Defendant Franky F.
Defendant Franky
17 Suppress").
to Suppress").
Motion to or Motion
17 Rules's Rufes's ("Defendant ("Defendant or
or Franky Rules") Motion
Franky Rufes") Motion to Suppress ("Motion to Suppress ("Motion or
18 18 The People of ofGuam
Guam ("the
("the People")
People")are
arerepresented
represented by
by Assistant General Kristine B.
Assistant Attorney General 19 19
Borja. Defendant Defendant is
is represented
represented by Terrence E.
E. Timblin.
Timblin.Defendant
Defendantand
and counsels
counsels were a
present at
were present
20 20
21 21 the suppression hearing hearing on December
December 21,
21, 2023, hearing on March and the continued suppression hearing 2023, and
22 1, 1, 2024.
2024. Following Following the
the hearings,
hearings, the
the Court
Court took
tookthe
the matter under advisement matter under pursuant toto CV advisement pursuant CVR 23 7.l(e)(6)(D)
1(@)(6)(D) of ofthe
theLOCAL
LOCAL RULES
RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTOF SUPERIOR COURT GUAMandAdministrativ OF GUAM and Administrative 24 24 Rule No. 06-001. After No. 06-001. consideringthe Afterconsidering pleadingson thepleadings fileand
onfile havingheard
andhaving oralarguments, heardoral an
arguments, and
25 26 after after reviewing reviewingthe
theapplicable
applicablestatutes
statutes and
and case law,
law, the
the Court issues this Decision now issues
Court now and Order Decision and
26
27 DENYING Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress.
Suppress.
28 28
People Rufes
v. Rules
People v.
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order
Order Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionto
toSuppress
Suppress
Page Page 1 of 11 l PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2 A. The Allegations in the the Magistrate's Complaint and Indictment Magistrate's Complaint
3 Defendant is charged
chargedwith
with the
thefollowing
following offenses: Possession of a Schedule Schedule II
II Controlled
4
Substance with Substance withIntent IntenttotoDeliver
Deliver (As
(As aa First Degree Felony), Felony), Possession
Possession of
ofaa Firearm
Firearm without
without a
5
6 6 Firearm Identification Card (As (As aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony),
Felony),Possession ofan
Possession of an Unregistered Unregistered Firearm
Firea
7 (As aa Third (As Third Degree Degree Felony),
Felony), and
and Family Violence (As
(As aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) with
with aa Special
Specia
8 8 Allegation:Possession Allegation: Possessionand and Use
Use of
ofaa Deadly
Deadly Weapon
Weaponin
in the
the Commission
Commission of
ofaa Felony,
Felony, that
that is, Family
9 Violence (As Violence (AsaaThird ThirdDegree
DegreeFelony).
Felony).See
SeeMagistrate's
Magistrate'sCon pl. (June Compl. (June3,3,2022),
2022);Indictment
Indictment (June
(Jun
10 10
11 11 14, 2022.).11 14,
12 12 The facts relevant relevant to this Motion
Motion are
are attendant to
to the
thePossession
Possessionof
of aaSchedule
ScheduleIIII Controlle
Controlled
13 1 Substance andPossession Substance and Possessionof of aa Firearm
Firearm without
without Firearm Identification Identification Card
Card and of an and Possession of a
14 14 are as
Unregistered Firearm and are as follows: On Onor
orabout
about June
June 1,
1, 2022,
2022, Defendant
Defendant was
was sitting
sitting in
in the
th
15 15 16 driver's driver'sseat seat of
ofaa silver
silverToyota
ToyotaCamry parkedat
Camryparked atthe
the Bank
Bank of
ofGuam
Guam parking lot
lot in
in Harmon.Amend
Amend.
16
117 7 Deal.
Deel. to Magistrate's 's Complaint.
Complaint. Responding to GPD GPD Dispatch
Dispatch of
ofaa possible
possible sighting
sighting of
ofaasuspect
suspec
18 18 wanted in several several active criminal investigations, police officers officers approached
approached the vehicle
vehicle and
and the
19 19 Defendant, who was was unable to produce his Dr"iver's license to driver's license to confirm confirm that he was not, in fact, the 20 20 individual the the police
police thought
thought him
him to
to be.
be. There
Therewas
wasaapassenger
passenger seated
seated next to the Defendant in in the
21 22 vehicle. When vehicle. When asked asked for
for the
the vehicle's
vehicle'sdocuments,
documents,the
the Defendant,
Defendant, using
using his
his left
lefthand,
hand, reached over
22 .u
23 23 towards the passenger towards the "while his passenger "while his right right arm
arm appeared
appeared to be
be stuck
stuck against
against the
the center
center console.
console. '
24 24 Amend Amend. Deck.
Deel. at 1.
1. Apparently finding the the maneuver
maneuver alarming, the
the officer
officer then
then ordered him to exit
25 25 his vehicle. Id;
Id.;Cont 'd Hrg.
Cont'd Hrg.ononMot.
Mot.to to
Suppress
Suppressonon3/1/24
3/1/24 at
at 9:51:16 AM to 9:53:15
9:51:16 AM AM (Mar.
9:53:15 AM
26 26
27 27
28 11 The The allegations allegations relating
relating to
to the
theFamily
Family Violence
Violence (as
(as aa Third
Third Degree
Degree Felony)
Felony) charge are not relevant to the Motion to Suppress so the factual basis for the charge is not discussed in this this Decision
Decision and Order.
People People v.v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Case Criminal Case No. CF0375-22 CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motionto
toSuppress
Suppress
Page Page 2 of 11 1 2024). 2 "When 1, 2024).2 1, suspecte containing suspected
bagcontaining
plastic bag
clear plastic
out, aa clear
stepped out,
Defendant stepped
the Defendant
"When the
2 methamphetamine dropped methamphetamine on t<;> dropped on Defendant confirmed for the officer to the pavement. The Defendant that it officer that
3 was [methamphetamine]." Deel. at [methamphetamine]." Amended Deck. Defendant was then arrested, and the suspected at 11. Defendant
4
substance tested substance presumptivelypositive testedpresumptively methamphetamine. Id for methamphetamine.
positive for Id 5
6 After Defendant's After arrest, officers Defendant's arrest, conducted a search officers conducted the vehicle, search of the during which vehicle, during the which they
7 "wedged but visible"
pistol "wedged
found a pistol console. Id and center console.
seat and
driver's seat
the driver's
between the
visible" between Id Additionally, 8 passengerfloorboard,
inside a bag located on the passenger officers found "33 floorboard, officers "33 small, small, clear,
clear,apparently use
apparently used
9 bags, two same-type bags containing a white crystalline substance to suspected to suspected be
10
methamphetamine, and aa glass pipe." Id as
11 11 These items
Id. These items tested
tested presumptively positive for presumptively positive
12 methamphetamines.
methamphetamines. InIntwo twodifferent officers also found bags, officers
different bags, found approximately $2,643.00 in U.S.
approximately $2,643.00
113 currency, as well as currency, as as another another $866.00 currency within U.S. currency
$866.00 in U.S. Defendant's wallet.
within Defendant's Defendan wallet. Defendant
14 14 allegedly allegedly admitted admitted that all the methamphetamines methamphetamine found
found in
in the Amend.
vehicle belonged to him. Amend the vehicle
15 15 Deck. Deel. at at 2.
16 16
17 17 B. Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress
Suppress
18 18 On On January
January 4,4,2023,
2023,Defendant
Defendantfiled
filedthe
theinstant
instantMotion opposed3 Over Peopleopposed.
thePeople
whichthe
Motionwhich Ove 19 19 the course course of
of two evidentiary hearings, the People hearings, the People presented ofthe testimonyof
presentedtestimony police officers thepolice officers who
20 were involved involvedin
inthe
the June 1, 2022,
June 1, incidentleading 2022,incident tothe leadingto Defendant'sarrest:
theDefendant's GPDOfficers arrest:GPD Officers Matias 21
Lizama Lizama ("Lizama"), ("Lizama"),Arthur
ArthurMunier
Munier("Munier")
("Munier")and
andJavier
Javin Cruz
Cruz ("Cruz") onDecember testifiedon
("Cruz")testified 21, December21
22
23 23 2023, andOfficer 2023, and Officer Steven StevenArceo
Arced("Arceo") and Sergeant ("Arceo") and Efrain Amaguin ("Amaguin")
Sergeant Efraim testifie ("Amaguin") testified
24 24 continued hearing at the continued hearing on on March
March 1,
1, 2024.
2024. The
The following
following account June 1, theJune ofthe
account of 2022, incident 1, 2022, inciden
25 was testified testified to
to by
by these
these witnesses:
26 26
27
2 28 28 2 The hearing on the The hearing Motion to Suppress shall the Motion be referred shall be to herein referred to as"Suppression herein as Hearing" when cited.
"Suppression Hearing"
3 On January 19, 2023, the People filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion. On 3 On January 19, 2023, the People filed its Opposition to Defendant's Motion. On February 24, 2023, Defendant filed his Reply to the People's to the People's Opposition.
People v. People Rufes
v. Rufus
Criminal Case Criminal CF0375-22 Case No. CF0375-22
Decision and Order Re. Defendant's Motion Decision and Suppress toSuppress
Motion to
Page of 11 Page 33 of ll
11
1 Officer Lizama spotted a silver Toyota Camry matching the description of . While off-duty, Officer 2 2 a vehicle belonging to Losal Phaynid, belonging to of on-going criminal Phaynid, a suspect in a number of investigations, criminal investigations,
3 at the San Jose Supermarket parking lot in Maite. of 12/21/23 at 10:53:00 AM Hrg. of]2/21/28'
Matte. Suppression Hrg. AM -
4 10:56:54 2023). He 10:56:54 AM (Dec. 21, 2023). also observed He also male who observed aa male matched Losal Phaynid's who matched Phaynid's description 5
66 vehicle and enter the vehicle enter exit the parking and exit lot onto Route parking lot 8. Id.
Route 8. 10:54:23 AM.
Id. at 10:54:23 Sometime later, Lizama AM. Sometime
77 Harmon -- the in Harmon
Guam in of Guam
Bank of
the Bank
to the
adjacent to
Route 16 adjacent
along Route
saw the same vehicle traveling along 8 officer was able to officer identify the to identify vehicle again the vehicle because itit matched again because the suspect's matched the vehicle's description suspect's vehicle's
9 and had and the same had the license plate.
same license Id at plate.Id. 10:54:30 AM
at 10:54:30 10:55:05 AM.
AM to 10:55:05 Officer Lizama AM. Officer furthe Lizamafurther
10 10
11 11 observed observed the the vehicle into the pull into
vehicle pull Bank of the Bank parking lot, of Guam parking of Precinct whil lot, so he contacted Tumon while
12 12 also pulling into the to the adjacent to
the parking lot adjacent the Bank Bank of
of Guam
Guam to to eye
continue to to continue the vehicle.
eye the vehicle. Id.
Id
13 13 10:55:10 AM. He continued to report his observations at 10:55:10 o observations to desk watch, but did not engage or 14 interact with the suspect.
with the Id at
suspect.Id. 10:55:40 AM.
at 10:55:40 Upon on-duty AM. Upon officersarriving on-duty officers the scene, giving atat the Office scene, Officer
15 15
16 Lizama left without any interaction.
interaction. Id. at 10:55:50 AM to 10:56:30 AM.
Id at
16
17 Amaguin testified Sergeant Amaguin that at testified that 1, 2022, he responded to at 8:00 p.m. on June 1, fro to aa call Hom
18 18 police dispatch about the suspected vehicle reported by Officer Lizama. Cont Hrg.
Suppression I-Irg.
Cont'd Suppression
19 19 on 3/1/24 at 9:49:00 AM - 9:49:04 at 9:45:27 AM, 9:49:00 AM (Mar.
9:49:04 AM 1, 2024).
(Mar. 1, already on 2024). Amaguin was already 20 Route 16 at the time of the call and proceeded to the 16 at parking lot in Harmon where the Bank of Guam parking
21
22 he observed towards the Harmon Loop Hotel.
facing north towards
observed the vehicle facing 9:47:15 AM. He Hotel. Id. at 9:47:15
23 testified that approached the when he approached
that when vehicle, he observed the engine running, and he observed the vehicle,
24 24 the suspect on his phone.
video on
watching aa video
seat watching
driver's seat
the driver's in the phone. Id. Amagui AM. Amaguin
9:48:05 AM.
at 9:48:05
Id at
suspect in 25 25 driver-side window and asked the driver to knocked on the driver-side roll down to roll the window, and when he down the
26 himselfas
asked the driver for identification, the driver identified himself Franky Rules.
as Franky Id at 9:48:25 AM.
Rufes. Id
27 27
28 28 was dark, He testified that it was and he dark, and could not
he could readily recognize not readily the driver.
recognize the driver. Id. at 9:49:00. When Id at
People People v.
v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Case No.
No. CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion
Motion to
to Suppress
Suppress
Page 4 ofof 11
1 for a license and registration, Defendant asked for
Amaguin asked Amaguin said that he did not have Defendant said driver's license, have a driver's
2 although he admitted that he drove to the location at the Harmon Bank of Guam. Id at.
the Harmon 9:49:49 at. 9:49:49
3 AM; 9:50:16 AM 9:50:00 AM - 9:50:16
AM, 9:50:00 ("He had AM ("He no other
had no form ofofidentification other form him that identification on him woul that would
4
5 Frankie Rufes.").
validate his claim that he was in fact Frankie Rules.").
6 time, Officers Around this time, Munier and Officers Munier Cruz arrived and Cruz on the
arrived on scene. Id the scene. 9:50:20 AM.
at 9:50:20 Id at
7 radio over the radio
report over
received aa report
he was with Officer Cruz when he received that he
Officer Munier testified that 8 Camry that was allegedly operated by Losal that Sergeant Amaguin encountered a silver or grey Camry 9 Phaynid at the Phaynid Bank of the Bank parking lot in Harmon.
of Guam parking Suppression Hearing Harmon. Suppression at 11:00:30 Hearing at AM (Dec.
11 :00:30 AM
10
11 II 2023). Upon arriving 21, 2023). theparking giving atathe lot, Munger parkinglot, observed Amaguin's Munier observed police vehicle Amaguin's police parke vehicle parked
12 adjacent to the suspect's vehicle, and Sergeant Amaguin standing next to the suspect's driver's to the
113 door and no one one else
else was
was around vehicle. Id the vehicle.
around the 11 :01:20 Id.atat11:01 Munier testified :20 AM. Munier that he heard testified that
14 14 Amaguin speaking to the speaking to driver "saying the driver something to "saying something the effect to the of 'What are effect of o are you doing?' or
15 something something like like that of the car." Id at that and he had asked him to step out of 11:02:4 to 11:02:44 AM to
11:02:35 AM at 11:02:35
16 16
17 17 AM. Munier Munier observes Defendant step out of the vehicle and notices a baggie drop immediately to Defendant step
18 18 the ground as Defendant alighted from the car. Id at testified that he could Munier testified
AM. Munier
11 :03:07 AM. at 11:03:07
19 19 easily identify the baggie as one likely to as one contain methamphetamines to contain methamphetamines because he often encounters 20 his line
the same type of container in his of work.
line of work. Id. at 11:05:20 AM.
Id at
21
22 Sergeant Amaguin testified that he testified that he had safety vehicl approaching the vehicle
safety concerns when approaching
23 23 because the officers were possibly in the the presence
presence of suspect, and burglary suspect,
ofaa burglary such scenarios and such ar
scenarios are
24 24 often volatile situations. Cont In answering the (Mar. 1, 2024). In AM (Mar.
Cont'd Suppression Hrg. at 9:50:50 AM 25 question: "Why "Why did
did you
you have [Defendant] vehicle?" Amaguin explained:
[Defendant] exit the vehicle'?"
26 26 [Defendant] was behaving in a manner alarm. He was rigid, manner that was causing me alarm.
27 27 his right forearm forearm was console, and was wedged against the console, for his and when I asked him for
28 vehicle documents,
documents, he reaches over he reaches of the over to his passenger, who was in possession of stack of documents, with his left hand, but he did so in a manner that caused even
People People v.
v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order
Order Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionto
toSuppress
Suppress
Page 5 of
of 111I
s
1 more alarm. His movement excessive while movement was excessive while still still maintaining
maintaining his
his right
right forearm
against the center console. As soon soon as he reached over, I told him stop and I ordered 2 get out of
him to get of the car. *** He car. *** He had
had to
to shift
shift his
his entire
entire body,
body, asas though trying to 3 conceal ...
... as
as though
though trying to prevent
prevent me
me from
from seeing
seeing what
what he
he had
had against
against his right
arm. I ordered him to stop what he was doing and exit exit the car.
4
Id. at 9:51:35 rd. 9:51:35 AM- 9:53: 16 AM.
AM- 9:53:16
5
6 Amaguin testified that as as the
the Defendant exited the vehicle, a small baggie of of suspected
suspecte
7 methamphetamine fell onto methamphetamine fell onto the the pavement. Id.atat9:53 pavement. Id 9:53:20 AM.
AM. When
When he
he asked
asked the
the Defendant
Defendant ififthat
8 methamphetamine, the Defendant was methamphetamine, Defendant responded, "Yes, "Yes, it is ice." Id. at 9:53:30 AM;
Id at AM, Suppression 9 Hrg. 11:06:00 to 11:06:11 AM. Hrg. on 12/21/24 at 11:06:00 10 10
1II1 Munier similarly Munier similarly testified testified that after Defendant stepped out Defendant stepped out of
of the vehicle, a baggie fell fro from
12 what he assumed to to have been Defendant's lap and so Rufes Rules was moved away from the driver's 13 side door of
of the car.
car. Munier's testimony is that he then looked through through the open
open driver
driver door
door and
14 he could see a silver pistol in the the vehicle
vehicle situated between
between the center console and the driver's driver's seat
sea
15 15
Hrg. on 12/2]/24
with the gun handle sticking out. Suppression Hrg. at 11:06:00 12/21124 at 11:06:00 AM to 11:06:44 11:06:44 AM
16
17 17 ("It was very visible."). Defendant if "). At that point, Munier asked the Defendant if he possessed possessed aa firearms ID,
18 18 to which the Defendant replied that that he
he did not.
not. Id.
Id at
at 11:07:20
11 :07:20 AM. Based
Based upon
upon the
the Defendant
Defendan
19 admitting to the contents of the fallen baggie containing methamphetamine and and admitting
admitting to not
20 owning owning aa firearms ID despite having having a firearm in the car, Officer Officer Munier
Munier then
then placed the Defendan
Defendant
21
Hz 22 under arrest. Id. under arrest. Id. at 11:07:40 11:07:40 AM.
AM. Following his arrest, arrest, Defendant was placed in the backseat of
23 23 Munier's patrol Munier's patrol vehicle,
vehicle, and
and Munier
Munier testified
testified that
that it was then that he advised the Defendant of of his
24 24 4 Mirana'a4rights, Miranda rights, which the Defendant acknowledged and waived. Id at waived. Id. at 11:07:50
11 :07:50 AM.
AM. Munier
Murrie
25 25
26
27 44 Miranda
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 (1966) (Under the Fifth Amendment, any statements that a defendant in custody 28 makes during an interrogation are admissible as evidence at a criminal trial only if law enforcement told the of the right to remain silent and the right to speak with an attorney before the interrogation defendant of interrogation started, started, and the
rights were either exercised or waived inin a knowing, knowing, voluntary, and intelligent manner.).
People People v,
v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order
Order Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
MotiontotoSuppress
Suppress
Page 6 of 11
1 that Defendant testified that indicated to him Defendant indicated that there him that were more there were methamphetamine bags more methamphetamine th bags in the
2 1 . | .
vehicle and vehicle substantial amount of and aa substantial the Defendant of cash -- the indicated that also indicated
Defendant also he owned that he drugs.
the drugs.
owned the
3 3 at11:08:00
Id. at AM.According 11 :08:00 AM. SergeantAmaguin, AccordingtotoSergeant theentire Amaguin,the incidenton entireincident June1, onJune 2022, occurred 1, 2022,
4 5 quickly and very quickly transpiredover and may have transpired the course over the of five
courseof minutes. Cont'dSuppression five minutes.Cont'd a Suppression Hrg. at
5
6 10:04:50 AM 10:04:50 1, 2024).
AM (Mar. 1,
7 suppression of seeks suppression
Defendant seeks
Motion, Defendant
his Motion, th resulting from the
seized resulting
evidence seized
By his By of all evidence 8 events described above, events described arguingthat above, arguing the singular that the purpose of singular purpose the stop ofthe at the Bank of stop at Guam parking ofGuam
9 lot Phaynid was whether Losal Phaynid
lot was to determine whether within the was within vehicle,and the vehicle, upon determining andupon that the determining that
10 10
11 driver nojustification was not Losal Phyanid, there was no driver was thepolic justification for the prolonged encounter with the police
12 12 subsequentdiscovery any subsequent and any of contraband discoveryof bythe contrabandby police should thepolice besuppressed.
shouldbe The People suppressed.Id.Id The
13 13 argue that the stop that the stop was
wasjustified
justified -- the
the Defendant
Defendant did
did not any identification have any
not have despite verbally identification despite
14 14 identifying himself himselfas
as Franky
Franky Rules to confirm
Rufes to that he confirm that was not
he was suspect in several crimes for the suspect
not the
15 15 16 whom police were looking. People People's Opp.
Opp. at 3.
3. Further, the fact
Further, the thatRufes fact that did not
Rules did have aadriver's not have driver's
16
17 17 license and license thathe and that haddriven
hehad locationwas thelocation
driventotothe wasaaviolation violationof
of 16
16GCA
GCA §§§ 3101
3101 (a), (c),
(c),and
and 9108
9108
18 18 (Operation of Motor Vehicle (Operation of Vehicle Without Without aa Valid
Valid License),
License), justifying
justifying the
the officer's prolonge
officer's prolonged
19 19 the Defendant
encounter after the identified himself.
Defendant identified himself. Id.
Id
20 20 DISCUSSION DISCUSSION
21 The Fourth Amendment to
to the
the United
United States
StatesConstitution
Constitutionprovides "the right of the people provides"the
22
23 23 to be be secure secure in
intheir
theirpersons,
persons,houses,
houses, papers,
papers, and
and effects, unreasonable searches againstunreasonable
effects,against an searches and
24 24 seizures, seizures, [and]
and] shall
shall not warrants shall nowarrants
and no
violated, and
be violated,
not be issue, but shall issue, upon probable but upon cause, probable cause,
25 supported by oath supported by oath or affirmation, and and particularly
particularly describing be searched, describing the place to be and the searched, and
26 26 persons or things persons or things to to be
be seized."
seized." U.S. Const.
Const. Amend. W.
IV.In
Inshort,
short,the
the Fourth
Fourth Amendment
Amendment protects
27 27
28 against against unreasonable searches and unreasonable searches andseizures seizuresand
andisismade
madeapplicable
applicableto
toGuam
Guamby
by48
48U.S.C.A.
U.S.C.A. §§ 1421
1421
People People v.
v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Suppress MotiontotoSuppress
Defendant's Motion Page Page 7 of
of 111l
1 the Organic ofthe
b(c) of Act of Organic Act Guam. People v.
ofGuam. 2021 Guam 8 ~1]17 v. Yerten, 2021 17((citing Johnson, v. Johnson,
People v.
citing People
2 1997 Guam 99 ~1]4)4)(internal 1997 citationsomitted).
(internalcitations omitted).
3 I. Defendant were not of Defendant
arrest of
seizure and arrest
the seizure
and the
stop and
investigatory stop
initial investigatory
The initial
4 because police had probable unconstitutional because unconstitutional that the Defendant believe that to believe
cause to
probable cause
had committed a crime.
5
6 Seizures can take Seizures can the form of take the both investigative of both stops and investigative stops formal arrests, and formal as in arrests, as eithe
in either
7 otherwis requests or otherwise
situation reasonableperson situation aa reasonable wouldnot personwould feelable notfeel to decline
able to the Officer's decline the Officers requests 8 8 immediately terminate terminate such
such encounters. See People encounters. See v. Chargualaf, People v. ~ 17.
2001 Guam 11 1]
Chargualaf, 2001 Fo 17. For
9 investigative investigative stops, police may stops, police may briefly detain they have a reasonable someone if they
detain someone suspicion of reasonable suspicion
10 10
11 11 unlawful unlawful activity.See See Terry
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, arrests, police For formal an'ests,
1, at 10 (1968). For must have police must
12 12 "probable cause cause to believe
believe that
that the
the suspect committed a crime."
has committed
suspect has 10. Both at 10.
crime." Id. at "reasonabl Both "reasonable
113 suspicion" suspicion" and "probable cause"
cause" are
are judged by aa totality totality of circumstances, and thecircumstances, ofthe those beliefs and those
14 must be bebased
basedon
on"specific
"specific reasonable inferences"
inferences" supported articulable facts by articulable
supportedby rather than merely facts rather
15 15
16 inadequate guesswork. Id. at 27.
inadequate guesswork. 27.
16
17 17 The Guam Guam Supreme Court has
Supreme Court hasdeclared declaredthat
thata atraffic
tragic stop
stop isis valid
valid if officers had a
officers had
18 18 reasonable of criminal conduct.People reasonable suspicion of conduct. People v. Mansapit, 2016 Guam 30 ~1]13 v. Mansapit, 13((citing v.
Terry v.
citing Terry
19 19 Ohio, Ohio, 392 U.S.
U.S. 1, 21). In Marzsapit, instructed:
Mansapit, the Guam Supreme Court instructed:
20 Reasonable suspicionentails Reasonable suspicion entails"some "someminimal of objective justification"
level of
minimallevel justification" for 21 making making a stop,
stop, but
but considerably
considerably lessless than than the
the level
level ofof suspicion
suspicion required
required for
22 probable cause.
cause. United
United States
States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 490 U.S. 1, 7 (1989)
(1989) (quoting
(quoting INS v.
INS v.
Delgado, 466 U.S. 210, 217 (1984)).
210, 217 (l984)). This
Thisdetermination
determination "is "isdependent dependent uponupon both
23 23 the content of of information possessed
possessedby bypolice
policeand
anditsitsdegree
degreeofreliability."
of reliability."People
People
v. v. Johnson,
Johnson, 1997
1997 Guam
Guam 99 11 ~ 55 (quoting Alabama Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325, v. Write, 330 325, 330
24 24 (l990)). "An officer is entitled to rely on his training and experience in in drawing
drawing
(1990)). "An officer is entitled to rely on his training and experience 25 25 inferences from
from the
the facts
facts he
he observes, but
but those inferences must also 'be grounded must also
in objective
objective facts
facts and bebe capable
capableof ofrational
rationalexplanation.'
explanation'""United
UnitedStates
States v.
v. Lopez-
26 26
27
28
People People v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Case
Case No.
No. CF0375-22
Decision Decisionand
and Order
Order Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionto
to Suppress
Suppress
Page Page 88 of
of 11
1 Soto, 205 F.3d 1101, 1105 (9th Cir.
Cir. 2000)
2000) (quoting United
United States v.
v. Michael R.,
R., 90
1996)). 5
F.3d 340, 346 (9th Cir. 1996)).5 2
3 Here, Sergeant Amaguin had reasonable reasonable suspicion
suspicion to
to perform an
an investigative
investigative stop
stop at
at the
44 of the incident. GPD received reliable information time of information from from Officer
Officer Lizama
Lizama that a vehicle and an 5 individual matching the description individual description of of Losal
Losal Phaynid
Phaynid .-- a suspect in several several active
active criminal
crimina
6 investigations -- were were seen at the the Harmon Bank the San Jose Supermarket and later was parked at the 7
8 of Guam parking lot. Suppression Hrg. of at 10:53:50 Hrg. at 10:53:50 AM to 10:55:10 10:55:10 AM (Dec.
(Dec. 21, 2023). GPD
9 dispatch then relayed the information and Sergeant Amaguin responded responded to
to the
the call
call to investigate
10 whether a suspect in an active criminal investigation could be in the the vehicle,
vehicle, thus
thus justifying the
11 11 investigative stop. investigative stop. Although Although the
the Defendant
Defendant identified
identified himself
himself as
as Franky
Franky Rufes Losa Rules and not Losal
12 provide identification
Phaynid, the Defendant failed to provide identification to confirm his identity.
identity. The failure
failure to
13 1
14 14 provide identification further further justified
justified Sergeant
Sergeant Amaguin's
Amaguin's continued encounter with Defendant
15 15 since Amaguin could not confirm Defendant's Defendant's identity
identity was
was not that of
not that ofLosal
Losal Phaynid.
16 Additionally, Additionally, Officer
Officer Munier
Munier had
had probable cause to
probable cause fo1mally arrest to fonnally arrest the Defendant. As 17 17 stated above, the Defendant identified himself Defendant identified himselfas as Franky
Franky Rules
Rufes but
but was unable to provide Sergeant 18 18 19 Amaguin with Amaguin with a driver's license, meaning meaning he
he operated
operated the vehicle
vehicle without
without a valid license. Althoug Although
19
20 20 of itself not in and of itself an arrestable attestable offense,
offense, when the Defendant Defendant was ordered to and stepped out of
21 the vehicle due to his suspicious actions, actions, aa small
small baggie
baggie of
of suspected
suspected methamphetamine methamphetamine fell on the 22 pavement, which the pavement, the Defendant Defendant himself
himselfconfirmed
confirmedasasrnethamphetamines.
methamphetamines. Furthermore, Furthermore, after
afte
23 23 Defendant was moved away away from
from the
the vehicle,
vehicle, Munier
Munier observed
observed through the open car car door the
24 24
25 25 of a pistol which was
handle of was wedged between the driver's driver's seat
seat and the middle console, console, and the
26
27 55 People People v. Mansapit, 2016 GuamGuam 30, ,r 1[ 13._The
13..The outcome
outcome in Mansapit is distinguishable from from here because there was no evidence presented by the People during the suppression hearinghearing in in that case and Mansapit submitted a recording 28 of the of the 9-1-1 9-1-1 call,
call, the contents of which did not support support the officers'
officers' actions
actions in
in that
that case.
case. Here,
Here, the
the Court
Court finds
finds the
testimony of the officers of the officers to
to be
be reasonable
reasonable and
and their
their actions
actions founded
founded upon
upon reliable
reliable information
information that
that an
an illegal
illegal act
act had
occurred which was the subject of of an active investigation.
People People v.v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No.
No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Re. Defendant's Defendant's Motion
MotiontotoSuppress
Suppress
Page Page 9 of 11 1 that he Defendant confirmed that did not he did have a valid firearms identification not have permitting him to identification card permitting 2 the firearm. Therefore,
possess the upon the totality based upon
Therefore, based ofthe totality of circumstances: Defendant the circumstances: was unable Defendant was
3 confirm that to confirm not the that he was not suspect in active criminal the suspect investigations that criminal investigations the officers that the officers were
4
looking for, looking he did for; he not possess
did not license to drive possess a valid driver's license the vehicle, drive the his furtive vehicle; his an
furtive and
5
6 suspicious movements alarmed the movements alarmed police officers thepolice such that they officers such compelled to they were compelled command him to command
7 th onto the
methamphetamines falling onto containingrnethamphetamines baggiecontaining
thebaggie
safety;the
officersafety,
forofficer
vehicle for
the vehicle
of the out of 8 ground as ground he alighted as he the vehicle;
alighted from the possession of and the possession
vehicle, and without a valid of a pistol without firearm valid firearms
9 identification officershad card, officers
identification card, sufficientprobable had sufficient cause to probablecause arrest the Defendant.
to arrest
10
11 11 II. 11. The The search following Defendant's Defendant'sarrest
arrestwas
wasconstitutional to the exception to anexception
as an
constitutionalas
constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches. constitutional prohibition 12 12 Like Like seizures,
seizures, searches must too searches must be reasonable too be under the reasonable under Fourth Amendment.
the Fourth Searches Amendment. Searches
13
14 14 an individual's Fourth Amendment rights when they cover implicate an areas in which the individual cover areas
15 15 "reasonableexpectation has aa "reasonable has privacy." See ofprivacy."
expectationof See Oliver US. 466 Oliver v. US. U.S. 170, 466 U.S. 170, at 171 (1984). lfth 171 (1984). If e
16 individual does have a reasonable reasonableexpectation
expectationof privacy, police officers of privacy, must generally officers must obtain a generally obtain
17 17 warrant before conducting warrant before conducting a valid valid search.
search. See Chargualaf, People v.v. Ch
See People Guam 1111 2001 Guam
argualaf, 2001 14.
,i 14.
18 18 Warrantless searches are otherwise otherwise presumed
presumed unreasonable. See Katz v, unreasonable. See US., 389 v. US., 347,35
U.S. 347,357
389 U.S.
19 19
20 20 (1967).
(1967).
21 However, there there are
are several
several situations
situations where police
police may
may conduct
conduct aa search firs without first
search without
22 obtaining a warrant.
warrant. One
One such
suchexception
exceptionisis aa "search incident to "search incident arrest." See Arizona to a lawful arrest."See v.
Arizona v.
23 23 Gant, 556 U.S. 332, (2009). Under 338 (2009).
332, 338 thatexception, Under that "police may search a vehicle exception, "police to a vehicle incident to
24 24
25 recent recent occupant's arrestonly occupant's arrest only if if the
the arrestee
arrestee is
is within
within reaching
reaching distance
distance of passenge
thepassenger ofthe
26 26 compartment atthe compartment at thetime timeof
of the
the search
searchor
oritit is tobelieve reasonableto is reasonable the vehicle contains evidence believe the
27 27 of of the ofarrest."
the offense of Id. at arrest." Id. 351.
at 351.
28
People v. People Rufes
v. Rufus
Criminal Criminal Case
Case No. CF0375-22
CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order
Order Re. Defendant's
Defendant's Motion
Motionto
toSuppress
Suppress
Page 10
10 of
of1111
1 Here, Here, the arrest was Defendant's arrest
followingDefendant's
vehicle following
the vehicle
search of the
the search lawful under was lawful Gant.
under Gant.
2 Officers Officerscould couldhave searched the vehicle have searched "search incident to a lawful arrest." SeeId. GPD as a "search
vehicle as ma GPD may
3 the first
not invoke the prong of first prong because the Gant because of Gan! Defendantwas the Defendant securedininOfficer wassecured Munier's vehicle OfficerMunier's
4
5 at the time of the search.
the search.
6 However, prong of the second prong
However, the Gant is satisfied ofGan! because GPD had developed satisfied because caus probable cause
developed probable
77 Mirand Defendant's Miranda
reading of Defendant's
Following the reading
vehicle. Following
thevehicle.
in the
was in
methamphetamine was
that more methamphetamine 8 rights, Officer testifiedthat Muniertestified
Officer Munier Defendant waived that the Defendant those rights waived those and confirmed rights and the existenc confirmed the existence
9 of more of bags of more bags methamphetamine in the ofmethamphetamine Suppression Hrg. at the vehicle. Suppression 11:08:00 AM at 11:08:00 21
(Dec. 21, AM (Dec.
10 10
11 11 2023. Therefore, given 2023. Therefore, giventhat thatDefendant
Defendantwas
was arrested possession ofofmethamphetamine, forpossession
arrested for and the methamphetamine, and
12 12 Defendant confirmed to Defendant confirmed to officers officers that
that more
more methamphetamines couldbe methamphetamines could be found found in
in the
the vehicle,
13 13 GPD's GPD's search search of the vehicle was lawful.
14 14 CONCLUSION
15 For For the
the reasons
reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion Suppress. GPD'
to Suppress.
Motion to GPD's 16
17 17 initial investigatory investigatorystop
stopand
and Defendant's
Defendant'sseizure arrest were both and arrest
seizureand because GPD both constitutional because
18 18 had probable probable cause causeto
tobelieve
believe Defendant had committed thesearch Further, the
committed a crime. Further, ofDefendant's searchof Defendant's
19 1 vehicle constitutes a "search incident to vehicle constitutes lawful arrest"
to aa lawful and physical arrest" and seized during physical evidence seized th during the
20 20 search is therefore therefore admissible.
admissible.
21 SO ORDERED this e=»aAy 3029211 MAY 302924 < . , 22
23 23
24 24 HONO 7 LE MARIA T. CENZON 25 Judge,,Superior Court of Guam 26 26
27 27
28 28
People People v.
v. Rules
Rufes
Criminal Criminal Case CF0375-22 Case No. CF0375-22
Decision Decision and
and Order Defendant's Motion Order Re. Deflendant's Suppress to Suppress
Motion to
Page Page 11 of111I
11 of