I'""'! M 1 LLt-U I P &r -- P
SU?ERiG?
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
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 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 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
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
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 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
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 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
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