C; g 1* ; t"II:":i?."3 1 -Pvf..',i=.;'é ,r » Linn .\
2 2UI9H PH 3 I CLER 4 By' 5
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8
9 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0087-18 i
10 vs. 11 DECISION AND ORDER ALLEN JAMES LIZAMA SIMITARA, (Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Burden 12 DOB: 08/04/1988 of Proof) 13 DEFENDANT. 14
15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Allen James Lizarna Simitara's
17 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Attorney Karlo Dizon represents the Defendant. Assistant
18 Attorney General Matthew A. Phelps represents the People of Guam ("People"). Upon review of
19 the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court hereby
20 DENIES the Defendant's request that the burden of proof in this suppression matter be placed on
21 the People.
22 BACKGROUND 23 On February 2, 2018, a Superior Court of Guam Judge authorized a search warrant for
24 Defendant's residence. Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A (Jan. 2, 2019). The search warrant was based upon
25 confidential information provided to Guam Police Department officers. The search warrant
26 authorized the search of Defendant's residence for cellular phones or electronic devices, illicit Q' 27 drugs, drug paraphernalia, currency, and ledgers. On or about February 9, 2018, members of E cs28
in: Q CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 1 of 4 ""CISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress; Burden of Proof) |
• 1 the Guam Mandala Drug Task Force and Guam SWAT executed the search warrant on
2 Defendant's residence in Talofofo. Magistrate's Complaint (Feb. 10, 2018). The search returned a
3 small amount of suspected methamphetamine, as well as packaging materials, a digital scale, US
4 currency, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant subsequently admitted to possessing and selling
5 methamphetamines Ii On January 2, 2019, Defendant tiled a Motion to Suppress Evidence,
6 seeking to exclude all physical evidence seized from Defendant's residence ding the February 9,
7 2018 search, Mot. to Suppress.
On March 15, 2019, a Motion Hearing was held on Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
9 During the Hearing, the Court determined that there was an outstanding dispute as to which party
10 bore the burden of proof in this motion and that arguments could not be heard on the merits of the
11 Motion to Suppress until such issue was resolved. The Court then took the matter under
12 advisement and instructed the parties to provide additional briefs regarding this issue .
DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from
15 unreasonable searches and seizures. The Amendment's protections are extended to Guam via the
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.
See People v. Charguadaf, 2001 Guam l '][ 14. A seizure that is not authorized by a duly issued
warrantis presumed unreasonable. 1 (citing Pennsylvania v. Striclder, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa.
2000)).
"The defendant bears the burden of proof when a search or seizure is conducted pursuant to
a warrant, however, the People bear the burden of proof when a warrantless search or seizure
22 occurs." People v. Santos, 1999 Guam l 'll 51. "The difference in the two situations can be
23 explained by the fact that if a search is made pursuant to a warrant therein lies a presumption of
legality, without which the necessity to obtain warrants would be obviated." at fn 10. In the
present case, there is no dispute that a valid search warrant was issued to authorize the search of
Defendant's residence. However, the parties dispute 1) whether the search warrant was properly
presented to Defendant during the search 2) whether the search was conducted in a reasonable
CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 2 of 4 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion ro Suppress; Burden of Proof) l l
manner, and 3) in the event the Court finds that the executing officers failed to properly present the
2 search warrant to Defendant, the parties dispute the effect of such failure. The Court finds that these disputes have no bearing as to which party bears the burden of proof in this matter. The Guam Supreme Court has made clear a defendant bears the burden of proof in a suppression matter based upon the execution of a search warrant. Here, the search of Defendant's residence was conducted pursuant to a search warrant signed by a judge of the Superior Court of Guam on February 2, 2018. Defendant argues that the officers' entry into his home without presenting a valid and 8 lawful warrant is tantamount to a warrantless search. Mot. to Suppress at 5. The Court disagrees. 9 Defendant relies on United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1347 (9th Cir. 1978). In Prescott, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a home occupant can refuse admission to an officer who demands entry but presents no warrant, but limited its holding to "passive" refusals rather than forcible resistance. at 1350-1351. The Ninth Circuit ruled that refusal to allow entry to an officer who does not present a warrant cannot be deemed evidence of a crime, but the Prescott decision does go as far as to say that a search in such manner is equivalent to a warrantless search. Further, the Prescott decision does not contemplate the effect of such failure on the burden of proof at a subsequent suppression hearing. Defendant further argues that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, and
17 that whenever the reasonableness of a search warrant's execution is in question, the People bear the burden to prove that the execution was reasonable. Def's Response to People's Surreply (Mar. 19, 2019). To support this argument, Defendant cites United States v. W arren, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1242 (D.Kan. 2001). "The government bears the burden to prove that the execution of the search warrant was reasonable." L; Defendant further cites United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96, 97 (10"' Cir. 1996). "The central issue in this appeal is whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that state law enforcement officers were excused from the "knock and announce" requirement." l The Court notes that neither of these cases is controlling in our jurisdiction, and FUrther that neither of these cases actually involves a dispute as to which party bears the burden of 25 e proof in any given situation. The Court finds that these federal decisions cannot be reconciled with the Guam Supreme Court's broad holding in Santos that a defendant bears the burden of proof in suppressing evidence obtained during a each pursuant to a warrant.
CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 3 of 4 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress; Burden of Proof) H
I • 1 Defendant fails to provide sufficient legal authority to persuade the Court to deviate from
2 the plain language of Santos, which states that a defendant bears the burden of proof when a search
3 or seizure is conducted pursuant to a warrant.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
C; g 1* ; t"II:":i?."3 1 -Pvf..',i=.;'é ,r » Linn .\
2 2UI9H PH 3 I CLER 4 By' 5
7 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 8
9 PEOPLE OF GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE NO.: CF0087-18 i
10 vs. 11 DECISION AND ORDER ALLEN JAMES LIZAMA SIMITARA, (Defendant's Motion to Suppress, Burden 12 DOB: 08/04/1988 of Proof) 13 DEFENDANT. 14
15 INTRODUCTION 16 This matter came before the Honorable Anita A. Sukola on Allen James Lizarna Simitara's
17 ("Defendant") Motion to Suppress. Attorney Karlo Dizon represents the Defendant. Assistant
18 Attorney General Matthew A. Phelps represents the People of Guam ("People"). Upon review of
19 the written and oral arguments and legal authorities presented by the Parties, the Court hereby
20 DENIES the Defendant's request that the burden of proof in this suppression matter be placed on
21 the People.
22 BACKGROUND 23 On February 2, 2018, a Superior Court of Guam Judge authorized a search warrant for
24 Defendant's residence. Mot. to Suppress, Ex. A (Jan. 2, 2019). The search warrant was based upon
25 confidential information provided to Guam Police Department officers. The search warrant
26 authorized the search of Defendant's residence for cellular phones or electronic devices, illicit Q' 27 drugs, drug paraphernalia, currency, and ledgers. On or about February 9, 2018, members of E cs28
in: Q CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 1 of 4 ""CISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress; Burden of Proof) |
• 1 the Guam Mandala Drug Task Force and Guam SWAT executed the search warrant on
2 Defendant's residence in Talofofo. Magistrate's Complaint (Feb. 10, 2018). The search returned a
3 small amount of suspected methamphetamine, as well as packaging materials, a digital scale, US
4 currency, and drug paraphernalia. Defendant subsequently admitted to possessing and selling
5 methamphetamines Ii On January 2, 2019, Defendant tiled a Motion to Suppress Evidence,
6 seeking to exclude all physical evidence seized from Defendant's residence ding the February 9,
7 2018 search, Mot. to Suppress.
On March 15, 2019, a Motion Hearing was held on Defendant's Motion to Suppress.
9 During the Hearing, the Court determined that there was an outstanding dispute as to which party
10 bore the burden of proof in this motion and that arguments could not be heard on the merits of the
11 Motion to Suppress until such issue was resolved. The Court then took the matter under
12 advisement and instructed the parties to provide additional briefs regarding this issue .
DISCUSSION
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects individuals from
15 unreasonable searches and seizures. The Amendment's protections are extended to Guam via the
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.
See People v. Charguadaf, 2001 Guam l '][ 14. A seizure that is not authorized by a duly issued
warrantis presumed unreasonable. 1 (citing Pennsylvania v. Striclder, 757 A.2d 884, 888 (Pa.
2000)).
"The defendant bears the burden of proof when a search or seizure is conducted pursuant to
a warrant, however, the People bear the burden of proof when a warrantless search or seizure
22 occurs." People v. Santos, 1999 Guam l 'll 51. "The difference in the two situations can be
23 explained by the fact that if a search is made pursuant to a warrant therein lies a presumption of
legality, without which the necessity to obtain warrants would be obviated." at fn 10. In the
present case, there is no dispute that a valid search warrant was issued to authorize the search of
Defendant's residence. However, the parties dispute 1) whether the search warrant was properly
presented to Defendant during the search 2) whether the search was conducted in a reasonable
CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 2 of 4 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion ro Suppress; Burden of Proof) l l
manner, and 3) in the event the Court finds that the executing officers failed to properly present the
2 search warrant to Defendant, the parties dispute the effect of such failure. The Court finds that these disputes have no bearing as to which party bears the burden of proof in this matter. The Guam Supreme Court has made clear a defendant bears the burden of proof in a suppression matter based upon the execution of a search warrant. Here, the search of Defendant's residence was conducted pursuant to a search warrant signed by a judge of the Superior Court of Guam on February 2, 2018. Defendant argues that the officers' entry into his home without presenting a valid and 8 lawful warrant is tantamount to a warrantless search. Mot. to Suppress at 5. The Court disagrees. 9 Defendant relies on United States v. Prescott, 581 F.2d 1343, 1347 (9th Cir. 1978). In Prescott, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a home occupant can refuse admission to an officer who demands entry but presents no warrant, but limited its holding to "passive" refusals rather than forcible resistance. at 1350-1351. The Ninth Circuit ruled that refusal to allow entry to an officer who does not present a warrant cannot be deemed evidence of a crime, but the Prescott decision does go as far as to say that a search in such manner is equivalent to a warrantless search. Further, the Prescott decision does not contemplate the effect of such failure on the burden of proof at a subsequent suppression hearing. Defendant further argues that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner, and
17 that whenever the reasonableness of a search warrant's execution is in question, the People bear the burden to prove that the execution was reasonable. Def's Response to People's Surreply (Mar. 19, 2019). To support this argument, Defendant cites United States v. W arren, 181 F. Supp. 2d 1232, 1242 (D.Kan. 2001). "The government bears the burden to prove that the execution of the search warrant was reasonable." L; Defendant further cites United States v. Moore, 91 F.3d 96, 97 (10"' Cir. 1996). "The central issue in this appeal is whether the government met its burden of demonstrating that state law enforcement officers were excused from the "knock and announce" requirement." l The Court notes that neither of these cases is controlling in our jurisdiction, and FUrther that neither of these cases actually involves a dispute as to which party bears the burden of 25 e proof in any given situation. The Court finds that these federal decisions cannot be reconciled with the Guam Supreme Court's broad holding in Santos that a defendant bears the burden of proof in suppressing evidence obtained during a each pursuant to a warrant.
CF0087-18, People vs. Simitara Page 3 of 4 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress; Burden of Proof) H
I • 1 Defendant fails to provide sufficient legal authority to persuade the Court to deviate from
2 the plain language of Santos, which states that a defendant bears the burden of proof when a search
3 or seizure is conducted pursuant to a warrant. Detemlining whether the warrant was properly presented to Defendant does not have any bearing on whether or not the search was conducted 4 pursuant to a valid warrant, but may be probative in a determination of whether the search was 5 conducted in a reasonable manner. The issue of whether the search was conducted in a reasonable 6 manner may be relevant in determining whether the evidence will ultimately be suppressed, but it 7 does not provide grounds to shift the burden of proof to the People. i 3 | 8 CONCLUSION 9 Thus, by preponderance of the evidence and based on the foregoing reasons, the Court 10 finds that the burden of proof at the suppression hearing is on Defendant. 11
13 A Motion Hearing is set for /71 4?/, z0/7 at at- - 14
16 SOORDERED 3 ze /f 17
20 The Honorable Anita A. Sukola Judge, Superior Court of Guam 21
22 SERVIGE Vin COURT ?OX i I acknowledge that a copy pf the 23 original hereto was placed in the
25 i¥A%J.6 2019 §m.~33 0 a
26 M/6 our Court of Guam
CF0087- 18, People vs. Simitara Page 4 of 4 DECISION AND ORDER (Defendant's Motion to Suppress; Burden of Proof)