People v. San Nicolas

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, )

)

3 "S. )

4 )

)

5 ) DECISION AND ORDER BRANDON JAMES SAN NICOLAS, 6 )

Defendant. )

7 )

8 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on October 3,2012 10 for Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Assistant Public Defender Suresh Sampath represented 11 Defendant who was present. Assistant Attorney General James Collins appeared on behalf of 12 the Government. The Court took the motion under advisement. After hearing the Parties' 13 arguments, reviewing the record and considering the Parties' pleadings, the Court now issues

14 the following Decision and Order. 15 BACKGROUND 16 On December 11, 2011 Defendant called the police to respond to a threat of violence by 17 another motorist. The police arrived at the scene at approximately 9:47p.m. Defendant 18 explained that there was no collision, but he was threatened by the other motorist. The police 19 suspected Defendant of drinking and requested to do a field sobriety test. Officer Perez arrived 20 at approximately 10:00p.m. and conducted the FSTs with Defendant. At approximately 21 10: 16p.m., Defendant was arrested and transported to the police precinct. Defendant filed a 22 Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress on August 31, 2012. On October 3, 2012, the COUli 23 heard the matter. This Decision and Order will only address Defendant's Motion to Suppress.

24 DISCUSSION 25 Defendant moves to suppress any and all evidence obtained by Officers as a result of an 26 unlawful detention of his person in violation of 8 Guam Code Annotated §§ 30.10-30.60, 27 Guam's Stop and Frisk statute. Guam law provides, "[n]o person shall be detained under the 28 provisions of § 30.10 longer than is reasonably necessary to effect the purposes of that section,

People v. San Nicolas, Decision and Order and in no event longer than 15 minutes ... " 8 GCA § 30.30. Defendant argues that he was 2 detained for more than the permitted 15 minutes, therefore, the remedy for a Stop and Frisk

3 violation should be suppression of any and all evidence seized. 4 The purpose for Guam's Stop and Frisk Act is for investigatory stops where the police 5 officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has or is about to commit a criminal offense. 8 6 G.C.A. § 30.10. A police officer has 15 minutes to ascertain the identity of the person detained 7 and to determine the circumstances surrounding his presence which lead the officer to believe 8 that he committed, was committing or was about to commit a criminal offense. 8 G.C.A. § 9 30.20. If probable cause arises any time after the onset of the detention, the person shall be 10 arrested. 8 G.C.A. § 30.40. The time limitation under Section 30.10 is no longer applicable 11 once probable cause has been formed or a defendant is arrested. 12 Moreover, during the investigatory stop, officers had probable cause to arrest Defendant 13 based on his admission to having had alcoholic beverages. Defendant admitted to drinking a six 14 pack well before 15 minutes elapsed. Once probable cause is formed during the investigatory 15 stop, the 15 minute time limit for the purposes of Section 30.1 0 no longer governs. The 16 investigatory stop then becomes a detention and need only pass a constitutional analysis against 17 unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. 18 Although Defendant is correct about the law on investigatory stops, here, the Defendant 19 was the person who called the police and the police only discovered Defendant's potential 20 intoxication while responding to the alleged incident he was reporting. Initially, there was no 21 investigatory stop to begin the clock. Furthermore, Defendant agreed to take the FSTs and 22 consented to the questioning by the police once they suspected him for driving while under the 23 influence. The Court does not find that Defendant revoked his consent to speak with the police 24 when the police did not desire Defendant to return to his home for his driver's license. 25 Furthermore, the entire process lasted only 16 minutes. In the event that Defendant was not free 26 to leave and then made to wait for 15 minutes without arrest, the Court would be limited in its 27 suppression to that one minute in excess of the rule. The Court has viewed the submissions by

28

People v, San Nicolas, Decision and Order Criminal Case No, CM 1246-11 - Page 2 of 4-

the Defendant and by the Government and believes that denial of the Motion to Suppress is

2 proper. 3 The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the application of a bright-line 4 time limit for Fourth Amendment detentions. See United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 5 (1985). Although having a 'bright-line' rule would be helpful in evaluating whether an 6 investigative detention is unreasonable, a police officer's common sense and judgment must 7 ultimately govern their conduct. In United States v. Place, the court reasoned, "[s]uch a limit 8 would undermine the equally important need to allow authorities to graduate their responses to 9 the demands of any particular situation." Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983). The Guam 10 legislature has provided a clear framework for stops for the purposes of Sections 30.30-40, 11 which at any time probable cause appears, the person shall be arrested. The 15 minute 12 limitation was inapplicable in this case since officers had probable cause to make the arrest. 13 Accordingly, the Court does not agree with Defendant's assertion that any and all 14 evidence from a detention should be suppressed. A "detention" is limited to ascertaining the 15 identity of the person and the circumstances surrounding his presence which lead the officer to 16 believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. 8 17 G.C.A. § 30.20. A request for identification and investigation does not generally constitute as 18 seizure and, most importantly, does not trigger Fourth Amendment protections. In Terry, a 19 "detention" occurs when a "police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to 20 walk away." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 16 (1968). The Michigan Court of Appeals suggests 21 the determining factor in assessing whether a detention is too long in duration is "whether the 22 police were diligently pursuing a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel 23 their suspicions" People v. Chambers, 489 N.W. 2d 168, 125 (1992). Thus, probable cause 24 existed to arrest Defendant within 15 minutes of his detainment. 25 Even if Section 30.30 was violated, the Court finds suppression of all evidence obtained 26 is not an appropriate remedy. The 15 minute limitation is a statutory right prescribed by the 27 Guam legislature, not a constitutional right. The Fourth Amendment protects against 28 unreasonable search and seizures is applicable pursuant to §1421b(c) of the Organic Act of

People v. San Nicolas, Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM 1246-11 Page 3 of4

Guam. However, nothing in the Act incorporates the 15 minute limitation as a constitutionally 2 afforded right to the people of Guam. As a result, the Court believes that had a violation of the 3 15 minute rule occurred, the appropriate remedy would be to place a limited suppression of the

4 evidence obtained during the excess time over 15 minutes to eventual arrest. Finally, no fruit of 5 a poisonous tree argument could apply in this case as there was no 15 minute rule violation and 6 if there was a violation; the police would have inevitably discovered Defendant's intoxication as 7 the evidence for that was bountiful. l See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Therefore, 8 Defendant could not have the remedy he desires even in the event that a violation of 8 GCA §

9 30.40 occurred, which it did not. 10 CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DE S Defendant's Motion to Suppress 12 So ORDERED this

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 21

23 24

28 probable cause existed to find that Defendant was while under the influence as his pers:onal appearance and rlv;nlr;nn indicated such.

v. San Nicolas.

Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM1246-11 4 of4-