People v. Santos

Opinion

2 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 3 PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) 4 ) CASE NO. CF0047-13 5 ) v. ) 6 DECISION AND ORDER ) ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS 7 ) JAY DIAZ SANTOS, ) 8 ) Defendant. ) 9

10 INTRODUCTION 11 This matter came before the Honorable Alberto C. Lamorena III on May 2, 12 2013 on Defendant's Motion to suppress evidence. Assistant Attorney General 13 James Collins represented the People of Guam. Defendant Jay Diaz Santos was 14 represented by Attorney Howard Trapp. Having considered the arguments and the 15 applicable law, this Court now issues its Decision and Order. 16 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17 On February 5, 2013, a grand jury returned a true bill against Defendant 18 Santos based on his January 25, 2013 arrest. Defendant is charged with 19 "Possession of a Schedule I Controlled Substance with Intent to Distribute, in that 20 he knowingly possessed, with intent to deliver ... marijuana." (Indictment). On 21 March 5, 2013, Defendant moved to suppress the evidence collected from his home 22 at 735 Santa Cruz Drive in Chalan Pago. 23 The People filed their Opposition to the motion on April 9, 2013. The People 24 countered Defendant's assertion made in his moving papers that property was 25 seized without a warrant. Government notes that although there was a warrant, 26 the address listed on the application for the warrant was "733 Santa Cruz." See 27 Opposition Ex. 1 at 1 (emphasis added). 28 Decision and Order Case No. CF0047-13

Defendant filed his Reply on April 29, 2013. In it, he challenges the validity 2 of the search where the search took place at 735 Santa Cruz instead of 733 Santa 3 Cruz as specified in the warrant. In addition, he challenges the validity of the 4 search where the warrant was for methamphetamines and what was seized was 5 manJuana. For the reasons below, this Court shall deny the motion. 6 DISCUSSION 7 The Fourth Amendment states that "no warrants shall issue, but upon 8 probable cause, ... and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

9 persons or things to be seized." U.S. Const. amend. IV. The test for determining

10 the sufficiency of the warrant description is "whether the place to be searched is described with sufficient particularity to enable the executing officer to locate and II identify the premises with reasonable effort, and whether there is any reasonable 12 probability that another premise might be mistakenly searched." U.S. v. Turner, 13 770 F.2d 1508, 1510 (9th Cir. 1985) (quoting U.S. v. McCain, 677 F.2d 657, 660 (8th 14 Cir. 1982). Thus, an incorrect address on the warrant is not, in itself, fatal to a 15 search's constitutionality. See Turner 770 F.2d 1508; see also McCain 677 F.2d 657; 16 U.S. v. Mann, 389 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 At the motion hearing, the People relied on the affidavit used in applying for 18 the search warrant, attached to the Opposition as Ex. 1. The affiant stated that 19 following an arrest of another individual, that individual cooperated with 20 authorities in showing how he came to possess methamphetamine. See Ex. 1 at 2. 21 Thereafter, affiant stated: 22 1. The owner of the . . . where the methamphetamine was found is 23 referred to as a source ofinformation (SOI). 2. SOI stated that he/she has been assisting Santos in packaging and 24 distributing methamphetamine for the past 6 years. 3. The SOI also directed detectives to Santos' residence off Santa Cruz 25 Street in Chalan Pago. 26 4. Mfiant made a check with the Department of Motor Vehicle trims and noted that the information was the same information as 27 provided by the SOL 28

-2- Decision and Order Case No. CF0047-13

5. Affiant was also informed by detectives who made a check on Santos' residence that the description of the residence was the same 2 as the description provided by the SOL 3 Ex. 1 at 2-3. 4 Taken together, the circumstances found here do not destroy the 5 constitutionality of the search. There was a description from a police informant. 6 There was verification of the informant's information via government records. 7 There was also an on-site visit made by detectives prior to the application of the 8 warrant. As such, the risk that another premise might mistakenly be searched is 9 sufficiently curbed. 10 Defendant's second argument, that a warrant for amphetamine 1s not II sufficient where the property seized is marijuana, is entirely without merit. "When 12 an article subject to lawful seizure properly comes into an officer's possession in the 13 course of a lawful search it would be entirely without reason to say that he must 14 return it because it was not one of the things it was his business to look for." Abel

15 v. U.S., 362 U.S. 217, 238 (1960). If an officer encounters illegal drug B while

16 performing a lawful search for illegal drug A, is he to ignore it? Of course not.

17 CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Defendant's motion to Suppress is hereby 18 DENIED. A Criminal Trial Setting is set for August 13, 2013 at 2:00p.m. 19

21 It is SO ORDERED this 8th day of July, 2013. 22 Original Signed By: 23 Hon. Alberto C. Lamorena III 24

25 HONORABLE ALBERTO C. LAMORENA, III Presiding Judge, Superior Court of Guam 26

-3-