People v. Susuico

Opinion

I FiI ~_ ED LED CLERK CLERK OF OF COURT COURT 2 2825 DCT 23 me 8: 37 3 SUPERIOR COURT u 4 OF QUAM 5

6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT COURT OF OF GUAM GUAM 7

8 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CASE CRIMINAL CASE NO. CF0492-22 9 9 vs. 10 DECISION DECISION AND AND ORDER II FREDDY CUEVAS CUEVAS SUSUICO, 12 Defendant. 13 13

14 INTRODUCTION 15 15 This matter came before the the Honorable Honorable Vernon Vernon P. P. Perez Perezon onJune June 24, 24, 2025, 2025, July July 2, 2025, 16 16 and July 7, 2025, July 7, 2025, for hearing hearing on on Defendant Defendant FREDDY CUEVAS CUEVAS SUSUICO's SUSUICO's ("Defendant") ("Defendant") 17 Motion Motion to to Suppress. Suppress. Present Present were Assistant Attorney Attorney General General Grant Grant Olan on behalf behalf of of the the People People 18 of ofGuam Guam ("the ("the Government") Government")and and Defendant Defendant with with counsel, counsel, Heather Martinez Martinez Quitugua. Quitugua. Having 19 19 reviewed the the pleadings, pleadings, the the arguments arguments presented, and the presented, and the record, record, the the Court now issues issues the the 20 20 following following Decision Decisionand and Order. Order. 21 21 BACKGROUND 22 22 Defendant Defendant isis charged chargedwith withseveral severalcounts countsofofTheft Theftby by Receiving Receiving (As aa Second Second Degree 23 23 Felony), Felony); Burglary Burglary (As aa Second Second Degree Degree Felony), Felony); Possession Possession of of aa Schedule Schedule IIII Controlled Controlled 24 24 Substance (As aa Third Substance (As Third Degree Degree Felony); Felony), Assault Assault Against Against aa Peace PeaceOfficer Officer (As (As aa Third Third Degree Degree 25 25 Felony), Felony); and and Criminal Criminal Mischief (As Misdemeanor). 1See (As aa Misdemeanor).' SeeSuperseding SupersedingIndictment, Indictment, Oct. Oct. 29, 29, 26 26

27 27 l1 Defendant Defendant was initially charged with several counts of Theft of a Motor Motor Vehicle (As a Second Degree Felony) and Theft of of Property Property (As a Second Degree Felony). Felony). See See Indictment, Indictment, Aug. 4, 2022. The TheGovernment Government subsequently subsequently 28 28 obtained a Superseding Indictment against Defendant, changing the First and Second Charges to to Theft by by Receiving

People v. v. Susuico Susuico Case No. CF0492-22 Case No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 11 of of 10 1 2024. 2024. The The charges charges stem stem from various various locations and dates locations and datesthroughout throughout 2021 2021 to to 2022.Id.Id On 2022. 2 2 January6,6,2025, January 2025,Defendant Defendantfiled filed the the instant instantMotion. Motion. On January 17,2025, January 17, 2025,the theGovernment Governmentfiled filed

3 its Opposition. Opposition. No Reply was filed. filed.

4 On June June 24, 24, 2025, the Court heard 2025, the heard sworn testimony testimony from Guam Guam Police Police Department Department 5 ("GPD") ("GPD")Officer OfficerNate NateLorenzo. Lorenzo.OnOn July 2,2,2025, July 2025,the theCourt Courtheard heard sworn sworn testimony testimony from GPD 6 Sargent SargeantChristopher Christopher Dawson, Dawson, and on July July7, 7,2025, 2025,GPD GPDOfficer Officer Donny Domly Pangelinan. Pangelinan. The Court

7 ascertained thefollowing ascertained the following facts from witness testimony: testimony: .

8 1. Onororabout l. On July26, aboutJuly 26, 2022, 2022, Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzopulled pulledinto intothe the NCS NCSGas Gas Station Station when when he 9 observed a motorcycle without without aa rear license plate by the the exit.

10 10 2. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzowas wasinina aGPD GPDuniform uniformand andwas was driving drivingaa marked patrol vehicle. marked GPD patrol vehicle.

11 3. 3. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzoactivated activatedhis his lights lights and and siren siren to to effectuate effectuate aa traffic traffic stop, stop, but but the the 12 12 operator took off off and and drove away on Route 3. 13 1 4. Officer Lorenzotestified OfficerLorenzo testified madeaaradio thathehemade that radiocall callas as he he was was leaving NCS NCS Gas Gas Station Station 14 to report the incident. incident.

15 15 OfficerLorenzo 5. Officer Lorenzofollowed followed themotorcycle the motorcyclenorthbound northboundon onRoute Route33to to Chalan Chalan Ramirez 16 16 (Zero (Zero Down Down area) area) in in Yigo. Yigo.While Whileininpursuit, pursuit,Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzoobserved observedthe theOperator operator 17 17 look look back back at him, overtake multiple cars cars on the road and and travel travel on the the wrong wrong portion

18 18 of of the roadway. roadway. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzotestified testifiedthe theoperator operatorwas was driving driving over over the the speed limit 19 19 and weaving in and weaving in and out of traffic trafficwithout withoutusing usingtum turn signals signals. 20 6. Eventually, Eventually, the the operator operator of ofthe the motorcycle motorcycle either either fell off offthe the bike bike or orcrashed crashed by the the 21 entrance to Chalan Ramirez entrance to Ramirez and and took took off off running. running. 22 7. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzostopped stoppedhis hispatrol patrolcar carand and chased the operator chased after the operatoron onfoot. foot. It It was was 23 dark and and itit was was raining. raining.

24 24 OfficerLorenzo 8. Officer Lorenzoyelled yelled thethe forfor operator stopbut stop to to operator butthe theoperator operatorcontinued continuedrunning running and and 25 25 ran into into the the jungle. jungle.

27 (As (As aa Second Second Degree Degree Felony). Felony). See SeeSuperseding Superseding Indictment, Indictment, Oct. 29, 2024. 2024. Charge Charge One - Counts Counts One, One, Two, and and Four, and Charge Charge Two Two - Counts Counts One, One, Two, Two,Three, Three,Four, Four,and andFive Fiveininthe theSuperseding Superseding Indictment Indictment were were dismissed dismissed by 28 the Court in April April 2025. 2025. See See Dec. && Order, Order, Apr. Apr. 23, 23, 2025. 2025.

People v. People v. Susuieo Susuico Case No. No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 22 of of 10 1 9. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzochased chasedafter afterhim himinto intothe thejungle jungleand and eventually eventually tackled tackled him to stop stop 2 him from running. running. ,

3 10. While pursuing 10. While foot, Officer pursuing on foot, OfficerLorenzo Lorenzodid didnot nothear hear the the operator say say or yell yell anything,

4 but saw saw the theoperator operatorreach reachinto intohis hisjacket jacketand andlook lookback. back.Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzo testified testified that that 5 he thought thought there there might might be be aa weapon weaponand andwas wasininfear fearfor forhis hislife. life.

6 ll. Officer 11. OfficerLorenzo Lorenzotestified testifiedthat thatafter afterhe hetackled tackledthe the operator operator from the the back, they fell back, they fell to

7 the ground. ground. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzomounted mountedthe theoperator operatorand andthe theoperator operatorpunched punched his his arms arms 8 and was and was struggling. OfficerLorenzo struggling. Officer Lorenzoordered orderedthe theoperator operator to to stop stop resisting resisting and and gave 9 him a closed fist to his abdominal abdominal area area to to make makehim himcomply. The operator comply. The operator continued continued 10 to resist and Officer Lorenzofelt Officer Lorenzo felthis hisarm armreach reacharound around his his waist waist near near his firearm so he II 11 struck him struck himagain, again,this thistime timeininhis hisface. face. Officer Officer Lorenzo testified testified the the operator still did 12 comply so not comply so he he picked picked up up the the operator, operator, threw threw him him and and mounted him again. again. 13 12. Officer Lorenzo 12. Officer Lorenzo forced forced the the operator operator to turn his stomach tum on his stomachand andcuffed cuffedhim. him. Officer Officer

14 14 Lorenzo Lorenzo testified testifiedthat that the the operator operator was still resisting resisting up up to this point. 15 15 13. After the 13. After the operator operator was was handcuffed, handcuffed, he was picked up and escorted out and escorted out of of the the jungle. jungle.

16 16 Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzotestified testifiedthat thatthe theoperator operatorwas was compliant compliant at at this point. 17 17 14. Officer Lorenzo 14. Officer Lorenzodid didnot nothave haveaalaser taser on on him him at at that time, time, only his firearm. firearm.

18 18 15 15. .Officer Officer Lorenzo brought brought the operator back to the marked patrol car and marked patrol and waited waited for

19 other units unitsto to arrive. am've. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzohad hadnot not identified identifiedthe the operator operator at at this this point. 20 16. Officer Lorenzo patted 16. Officer patted the the operator down for weapons operator down weapons and asked him and asked him if he he had had 21 anything his pockets. anything in his pockets. The The operator operator responded thathe responded that hehad had"ice." "ice."

22 17. Officer Lorenzo 17. Officer Lorenzo field field tested tested the the "ice" "ice" which which tested tested presumptive presumptive positive positive for for 23 methamphetamine. methamphetamine. 24 24 18. Officer Lorenzo 18. Officer Lorenzochecked checkedthe the Vin vin number number for the motorcycle and identified it it as as being 25 25 stolen. stolen. 26 19. Officer Lorenzo 19. Officer Lorenzotestified testifiedthat thatDefendant Defendantdid didnot notappear appear to to be be injured injured and and that he did 27 not receive receive medical medical treatment. treatment. 28

People v. People v. Susuico Case No. CF0492-22 Decision and Decision and Order

Page Page 33oflO ofl0 1 20. Officer Pangelinan 20. Officer Pangelinan arrived on scene scene a little after after 7:00 7:00 p.m. p.m. and and saw saw the the motorcycle motorcycle 2 abandoned abandoned ininthe themiddle middleof ofthe theroadway roadwayininfront frontof ofYJ YJMart. Mart. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan did did 3 not notice notice any any damage damagetotoOfficer Officer Lorenzo's Lorenzo's patrol patrol vehicle. 4 21. Officer Pangelinan 21. Officer Pangelinan met met with with the the operator who was already operator who already secured secured in Officer Officer 5 Lorenzo's Lorenzo's patrol patrol vehicle vehicle and and identified him as Defendant. Officer as Defendant. Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan told told 6 Defendant that he he needed needed to to speak speakwith with him him regarding regarding open open cases. cases. Defendant said said he he 7 was willing to to talk talk to him. 8 22. Officer Pangelinan 22. Officer Pangelinan testified that there were that there were 24 open cases he wanted cases he to interview wanted to 9 Defendant about. about. 10 10 23. Officer Pangelinan 23. Officer transferredDefendant Pangelinan transferred Defendantfrom fromOfficer Officer Lorenzo's Lorenzo's patrol patrol car to his his II patrol andbrought patrol car and broughtDefendant Defendantotothe theDededo DededoPrecinct. Precinct. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan could 12 12 not recall ififDefendant Defendantmade made any any statements statements during the the transit transit to to the the Dededo Dededo Precinct.

13 13 Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinananiseed arrived at at the Dededo Precinct Precinct at at 7:30 p.m. p.m. 14 24. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan testified testifiedthat that Defendant Defendant complained complained of ofpain pain to to his his rib rib cage cage and and his 15 15 right middle finger finger was was injured. injured. Defendant Defendantcomplained complainedthat that he he could could not not use use his right right

16 16 hand. hand. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinantestified testifiedthat that Defendant Defendant told told him him the the pain pain was from when 17 the motorcycle spilled spilled on on the the road. 18 18 25. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinantestified testifiedthat thatGuam GuamFire FireDepartment Departmentmedics medicsassessed assessed him him but but they they 19 did not transport him to the hospital transport him because the hospital because the injuries injuries were were not life life threatening. threatening. 20 20 They advised Defendant to advised Defendant to seek seek medical medical attention attentionatataalater latertime, time,ififneed needbe. be. The

21 medics examined examined Defendant Defendantbefore before Officer Officer Pangelinan interviewed him.

22 26. Officer Pangelinan 26. Officer advised Defendant Pangelinan advised Defendant of his his Miranda Miranda rights rights at 9:07 9:07 p.m. p.m. and and 23 proceeded with the the interview shortly shortly thereafter. 24 24 27. Defendantwaived 27. Defendant waived his hisMiranda Miranda rights rightsby bysigning signingaawritten writtenform. form. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan 25 25 acknowledged acknowledged that that Defendant Defendant isis right-handed right-handed and and that he had hadto to sign sign the the form form with his his 26 left hand. hand. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan testified testified that that he he reminded reminded Defendant Defendant of his his Miranda Miranda 27 rights verbally verbally every everytime timethey theystarted started talking talking about about aa new case. 28 28

People v. Susuico Case No. No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 4 of 10 1 28. Defendantspoke 28. Defendant spokewith with Officer Pangelinan about Officer Pangelinan the open aboutthe GPD cases. open GPD Defendant cases. Defendant

2 admitted and gave openly admitted gave information some of information about some the cases. of the For some of cases. For the cases, ofthe

3 Defendant initially initiallydenied butthen deniedbut later recanted then later and admitted to them. recanted and 4 29. Defendant never askedOfficer never asked the interview Officer Pangelinan to stop the an attorney. for an interview or for

5 30. Officer Lorenzo 30. Officer Lorenzoadvised Defendant of advised Defendant Miranda rights around 9:41 ofhis Miranda p.m. Defendant 9:41p.m.

6 signed a written waiver of his rights. written waiver OfficerLorenzo rights. Officer interviewedDefendant Lorenzointerviewed about Defendant about

7 the incident that night. night.

8 31. At At some during the interview, point during some point Defendant stated interview, Defendant did not stated he did to answer not want to any answer any

9 more more questions and the questions and stopped. Prior to was stopped. the interview was stopping the to stopping interview, the interview,

Io 10 that he statements that made statements Defendant made had run he had becausehe run because was on parole and he was had and he had

11 smoked the"ice" smoked the "ice" earlier.

12 12 32. Defendantwas 32. Defendant nothandcuffed wasnot duringhis handcuffedduring interviewswith hisinterviews bothOfficer withboth and Officer Lorenzo and

113 Officer OfficerPangelinan, Pangelinan, and neither officer and neither had their officerhad weapons drawn during their weapons theinterview. during the interview.

14 14 33. presentwhen 33. No one else was present Officer Lorenzo interviewed whenOfficer Defendant. interviewed Defendant.

15 34. whenOfficer present when 34. No one else was present interviewed Defendant. Officer Pangelinan interviewed

16 16 35. Defendant was arrested at 10:00 p.m.

17 17 36. Officer Lorenzo 36. Officer that he testified that Lorenzo testified acted in he acted accordance with m accordance and policies and with GPD policies

18 18 procedures on procedures theuse on the of force. useof force.

19 19 37. Officer Pangelinan testified Officer Pangelinan that the use testifiedthat of force is permissible when an use of officer is faced anofficer

20 20 with imminent danger. Pangelinan indicated OfficerPangelinan danger. Officer that it could indicated that permissible to could be permissible

21 up off pick someone up the ground off the and throw ground and they are throw them if they in danger, are in and it would danger, and

22 permissible for an officer also be permissible draw aa service to draw officer to weapon when service weapon pursuing a fleeing when pursuing fleeing

23 23 individual at night and theindividual and the looking back individual isis looking atthe back at officer while reaching into theofficer

24 their jacket.

25 25 DISCUSSION

26 26 Defendant made statements throughout made several statements hisencounter throughouthis withGPD encounterwith on the GPDon night of the night of

27 July 26, 2022. July 26, Defendant made 2022. Defendant statementadmitting madeaastatement having"ice" admittingtotohaving onhim "ice"on Officer Lorenzo himtotoOfficer Lorenzo

28 at the the scene scene and made several subsequently made and subsequently statements during several statements his interviews duringhis with Officer interviews with

People v. Susuico People Case No. No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 5 oflO Page of 10 1 Pangelinan and Officer Pangelinan and Officer Lorenzo at at the the Dededo Dededo Precinct. Precinct. Defendant that the arguesthat Defendantargues statement the statement

2 made the scene must made at the be suppressed must be becausehe suppressedbecause wasnot hewas advised of notadvised and the his Miranda rights and of his

3 3 statements made at statements made at the the precinct must suppressedbecause be suppressed must be theywere becausethey not voluntarily made were not but made but 4 as as "the product of physical product of intimidation." Defendant physical intimidation." also moves Defendant also the statements moves for the to be statements to 5 suppressed becausethey suppressed because werenot theywere audioor notaudio video recorded. orvideo recorded.

6 The Fifth Amendment States Constitution Amendment of the United States providesthat Constitutionprovides "[n]o that person... "[n]operson ...

7 againsthimself," in any criminal case to be a witness against shall be compelled in amend. V, himself," U.S. Const. amend. V,

8 and is applicable and is Guamthrough applicabletotoGuam throughthe the Organic Organic Act.See Act. See4848U.S.C.A. U.S.C.A.§§1421b(d). l421b(d). "The "The main main

9 of Miranda is to ensure that an accused purposeof is advised of accused is and understands of and theright understands the to remain right to

10 the right silent and the to counsel." right to Berghuis v. counsel." Bergnuis Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370, v. Tnompkins, 383 (2010). 370, 383 burden The burden (2010). The

1II1 is on the Government "to the Government demonstrate that "to demonstrate Defendant knowingly that Defendant and intelligently knowingly and his intelligently waived his

12 privilege privilege against self-incrimination and his against self-incrirnination right to his right retained or to retained appointedcounsel." or appointed counsel." Miranda v.

113 Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 475 U.S. 436, (1966). "Generally, 475(1966). statements elicited "Generally, statements by law elicited by enforcement officials law enforcement officials

14 while while aa defendant in custody is in defendant is must be preceded by Miranda reamings custody must are inadmissible." warnings or they are inadmissible."

15 15 People v. v. Farata, 2007 Guam Farata, 2007 ,i 20 Guam 8 1[ "the special 20 (citation omitted). However, "the procedural special procedural

16 16 safeguards outlined in Miranda are required not where aa suspect is simply taken into custody, but Miranda are 17 rather where a suspect rather where suspect in custody interrogation." Farata, 2007 Guam subjected to interrogation." custody is subjected ,i 22 Guam 88 1]

18 18 (quoting Rhode Island Island v. 300 (1980)). Innis, 446 U.S. 291,300 v. Innis, (1980)).

19 19 A. A. Statement Scene atScene Statementat 20 20 Courtfirst The Com turnstotothe firsturns statement Defendant thestatement made at Defendant made admitted to at the scene where he admitted 21 having "ice" his person. on his "ice" on "Miranda ... holds that an person. "Miranda individual is in custody when he or she is an individual

22 'taken into custody or into custody otherwise deprived or otherwise of his deprivedof freedom of his freedom in any action in of action significantway.'" any significant way."'

23 23 Farra, Farata, 2007 Guam 8 ,i1]23 (quoting People 23 (quoting Peoplev.v. Muritok, Muritok,2003 2003Guam Guam21 21 'H ,i 12). 24 The Miranda safeguards come into play whenever The person in whenever aa person in custody is subjected either express to either questioning or its functional express questioning equivalent. That is to say, functional equivalent. the term say, the 25 25 interrogation' only to under Miranda refers not only 'interrogation' under express questioning, to express also to questioning, but also 26 26 the police any words or actions on the part of the (otherthan police (other those normally than those attendant normally attendant and custody) to arrest and thatthe custody) that police should thepolice know are shouldknow arereasonably likely to reasonablylikely an to elicit an 27 incriminating response. response. 28

People v. People Susuico v. Susuieo Case No. No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page Page 6 of 10 1 Farata, 2007 Guam 8 ,r i136 (internal citations citations and and quotation marks omitted).

2 Here, although Here, Defendant was although Defendant was handcuffed handcuffed and and in custody, Defendant was custody, Defendant was not not being being 3 interrogated at this interrogated at this point point in in time. time. Officer Officer Lorenzo asked Defendant if he had anything anything in in his his 4 pockets as he was being being patted patted down down for for weapons. weapons. Prior Prior to to this, this, Defendant fled fled from from Officer Officer 5 Lorenzo and continued continued to to resist resist arrest arrest after they made physical physical contact, contact, and Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo 6 while pursuing Defendant on foot, he saw Defendant reach into his jacket and look testified that while look

7 back, which he thought indicated Defendant Defendant might might have have aa weapon. weapon. The The Court Court finds finds that that Officer Officer 8 Lorenzo asked Defendant if he had anything on his person for his protection. protection. See, See, e.g., e.g., United United 9 States v. v. Webster, Webster, 162 F.3d 308,332 332 (5th (5th Cir. Cir. 1998) 1998) ("the ("the police police acted acted constitutionally constitutionally when when they they

10 asked [the defendant] whether whether he had any needs needs in in his pockets that could injure them during their 11 II pat down; down, such questioning, needed needed to to protect protect the officers, does not constitute interrogation under 12 12 Miranda."); Miranda."), United States v. Lester, Lester, 98 F. 4th 772, 774-75 (6th Cir. Cir. 2024) 2024) (finding no Miranda

113 violation where the officer, before patting patting down a suspect, asked whether there suspect, asked there was was "anything "anything 14 14 else on you, any other other drugs, anything that would stick or harm harm me."); me."), People v. Martinez, Martinez, 53 53 15 15 A.D.3d 508, (N.Y. 2008) 508, 50 (N.Y. 2008) ("The ("The officer's officer's question question did not have to be preceded by Miranda by Miranda 16 16 warnings because it was asked to to ensure ensure the the officer's officer's safety while he searched the defendant and and 17 17 wass not not aan n inter oga tion aaimed interrogation imed a at t eliciting eliciting a nanincr imina ting sta incriminating tement. "). statement."). Accordingly, Accordingly, 18 18 Defendant's Defendant's response response that that he had "ice" "ice" on on him him was was not not obtained obtained in in violation of of Miranda, and the and the 19 Court finds no basis to grant the Motion to Suppress on this ground.

20 B. Statements Statements at at Precinct 21 The Court next turns Mrs toto the thestatements statements made made by by Defendant Defendant during during his his interviews interviews with with 22 Officers Pangelinan and Lorenzo. At At this this time, Defendant Defendant was clearly in custody and was was subject subj et

23 to interrogation interrogation by by the the officers. officers. Defendant was advised of of his Miranda rights by both Officers 24 24 Pangelinan and Lorenzo and subsequently made incriminating statements. Defendant Defendant argues argues that that 25 25 "[i]t was only because he had been been brutalized brutalized and held held at at gunpoint gunpoint that [he] waived his rights and 26 gave incriminating statements." statements." (Mot. (Mot. Suppress Suppress at 3). Defendant Defendant further further argues argues that that "[p]olice 27 brutality does brutality does not not need need to to be 'life threatening' threatening' to to demonstrate demonstrate aa supposed supposed waiver waiver is is involuntary, involuntary; 28 even verbal threats can be sufficient." (Deft. Proposed FFCL at 8). indeed, even

People v. v. Susuico Susuico Case No. CF0492-22 Case No. CF0492-22 Decision and and Order

Page 7 of 10 1 "Involuntary "Involuntary or or coerced coerced confessions confessions are are inadmissible inadmissible atat trial, trial, because their admission admission is is aa 2 violation of of a defendant's right to to due due process process under under the the Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendment. Amendment. A A confession confession is is 3 involuntary if it is not 'the product product of of aa rational intellect and a free free will.'" will. "' Brown Brown v. v. Howell, Harell, 644 4 F.3d 969, 969, 979 979 (9th (9th Cir. Cir. 2011) 2011) (internal (internal citations citations omitted). omitted). "[C]oercive "[C]oercive police police activity is aa activity is 5 necessary predicate predicate to to the the finding finding that that aa confession confession isis not not 'voluntary' 'voluntary' within the the meaning meaning of the of the 6 Due Process Clause Clause of of the the Fourteenth Fourteenth Amendment." Amendment." Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, v. Connelly, 157, 167 167 7 (1986).

8 Coercive cive police police activity ctivity can ca n be the the rresult esult ofof either either physica physicall intimida tion or intimidation or psychological pressure. psychological pressure. Whether Whether aa confession is involuntary confession is involuntary must be analyzed analyzed 9 within the totality of the circumstances. factors to circumstances. The factors to be be considered include the 10 10 of police coercion; the length, degree of length, location location and and continuity continuity of of the the interrogation, interrogation; l1 11 and the defendant's maturity, education, physical condition, mental health, and age.

112 - Brown, 644 F.3d at 979 979 (internal (internal citations citations and and quotation quotation marks marks omitted). omitted). "[A]ny "[A]ny criminal criminal trial trial

13 1 use against a defendant of of his involuntary statement statement is a denial of due process oflaw, law, even even though

I4 14 there is ample evidence aside from the confession to support the the conviction." conviction." Mincey Mineey v. v. Arizona, Arizona,

15 15 437 U.S. 385, 398 (1978) (1978) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

16 16 Here, Defendant's Defendant's physical physical altercation altercation with Officer Officer Lorenzo occurred occurred two hours hours prior to

17 17 his interviews with Officer Pangelinan and Officer Lorenzo at the Dededo Dededo Precinct, Precinct, and and after after

18 18 Defendant failed to comply Defendant comply with with aa traffic stop. stop. Defendant Defendant refused refused to to stop his motorcycle and pull

19 over even though Officer Officer Lorenzo had had activated activated his lights and siren in his marked patrol vehicle 19

20 to effectuate effectuate a traffic traffic stop. stop. Eventually, Defendant either fell fell off the the bike or crashed it by the I r

21 entrance to entrance to Chalan Chalan Ramirez Ramirez and and took off running. running. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo stopped stopped his his patrol patrol car and

22 chased after Defendant Defendant on foot. foot. Defendant Defendant continued continuedmmaing running into into the jungle, jungle, even even though"Officer

23 23 Lorenzo yelled for him to stop. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo observed observed while while in in pursuit pursuit that that Defendant stuck

24 his hand into his jacket jacket as as if he he was was reaching reaching for for aa weapon. weapon. Officer Officer Lorenzo eventually tackled 24

25 Defendant to stop stop him him from from running. running. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo ,ordered .ordered Defendant Defendant to to stop stop resisting, resisting,

26 however, Defendant continued to resist and and punched Officer Lorenzo's arms and at one point

27 reached around reached around Officer Officer Lorenzo's Lorenzo's waist waist near near his his firearm. firearm. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo testified testified that his

28 28 physical actions actions against against Defendant Defendant (punching (punching Defendant in the stomach, striking Defendant in

People v. v. Susuico Susuico Case No. CF0492-22 Case No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page 8 oflO 10 1 the face, and and throwing Defendant) were were because because Defendant Defendant continued to to struggle with with him him and and 2 2 refused to to comply. Defendant Defendant was was not not compliant compliant until until he was handcuffed. handcuffed. Although Although Defendant Defendant 3 complained of pain pain to his right finger finger and and rib cage to to Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinan and and ultimately ultimately had had to 4 4 sign his his waiver waiver form form with withhis hisnon-dominant non-dominant hand, hand, the the medics medics called called to to evaluate evaluate Defendant Defendant 5 determined that that he he did did not not have have life life threatening threatening injuries injuries and and did did not transport him to the the hospital.

6 Further, Officer Further, Pangelinan testified Officer Pangelinan testified that that Defendant Defendanttold told him him the the pain pain was when the was from when the 7 motorcycle spilled spilled on on the road. road. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinan verbally verballyreminded reminded Defendant Defendant of his Miranda 8 rights before questioning about each questioning him about eachopen openGPD GPD case. case. Defendant also also initially denied denied some 9 of the of the accusations accusations against against him, him, and and later later recanted. recanted. Defendant's interviews Defendant's interviews with Officers Officers Io 10 Pangelinan and Lorenzo at Pangelinan at the Dededo Precinct Precinct were were less less than than an hour hourcombined. Defendant was combined. Defendant

11 11 handcuffed during not handcuffed during his his interviews, and neither neither officer had their officer had their weapon weapon drawn drawn during during their 12 12 respective interview. Once OnceDefendant Defendant told told Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzohe hedid didnot notwant wantto to answer answer any any more 13 13 questions, the questions, the interview interview was stopped. stopped. Defendant was formally arrested shortly after the formally arrested the interview interview

14 concluded. concluded. Based Based on on the the totality totalityofofthe thecircumstances, circumstances, the the Court Court does does not not find find that that Defendant's 15 15 physical altercation with Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzoover overtwo twohours hoursprior priortotohis hisinterviews interviewsatatthe the station station was 16 objectively coercive objectively coercive or or the the crucial crucial motivating motivating factor factor in Defendant's Defendant's decision decision to his to offer his

17 17 statements. Accordingly, statements. Accordingly,the theCourt Courtfinds findsno nobasis basistotogrant grantsuppression suppression on on this this ground. ground. 18 18 C. Audio/Video AudioNideo Recording Recording 19 Lastly, Lastly, Defendant Defendant argues argues that that his his statements statements should should be be suppressed suppressed because because his his 20 20 interrogation was was not not recorded recordedby by audio/video audio/videomeans. means. (Mot. (Mot. Suppress at4). Suppress at 4). Defendant Defendant moves 21 the the Court to adopt adopt the the standards set forth in Stephan standards set Stephan v. State, State, 711 711 P.2d 1156 (Alaska 1985) 1156 (Alaska 1985) and and 22 State State v. Scales, Scales, 518 518 N.W. ad 2d 587 (Minn. 1994). 1994). Id Id.The TheSupreme SupremeCourt CourtofofMinnesota Minnesotamandated mandated 23 the electronic the electronic recording recording of of custodial custodial interrogations interrogations in in Scales, holding that Scales, holding that "all "all custodial custodial 24 interrogation includingany interrogation including any information informationabout aboutrights, rights,any anywaiver waiver of of those those rights, rights, and and all all 25 questioning shall be questioning shall be electronically electronically recorded where feasible recorded where feasible and and must must be be recorded recorded when when 26 questioning occurs questioning occurs at ataaplace placeof of detention." 518 N.W. ad detention." 518 2d at 592. The Supreme 592. The Supreme Court of of Alaska

27 27 held in Stephan that "an unexcused Stephan that unexcused failure failure to electronically record to electronically record aa custodial custodial interrogation interrogation 28 conducted in conducted ofdetention in a place of detention violates violates aasuspect's suspect's rights rights to to due due process, process, under under the Alaska

People v. v. Susuico Susuico Case No. CF0492-22 Case No. CF0492-22 Decision Decision and and Order

Page of 10 Page 9 of Constitution." 711 P·.2d at 1158. While recording interviews may be good investigative practice, 2. the Court notes there is no duty to record in this jurisdiction. In the absence ofsuch a requirement,

the Court finds no basis to suppress the statements on this ground. 4 CONCLUSION

s For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress.·

Parties shall return for Further Proceedings on October 27, 2025 at 2:30 p.m. 7 al .. ' 8 IT IS SO ORDERED this 2~ day of October, 2025. 9

11 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12

-19

23 SERVICE VOA E-MAIL 24 I acknOwledge that an electronic copy of the original was e-mailed to: 25 Ati, l:l-ti'u;~ 26 Date:lo{?-3/;iime: 8:

People v. Susuico ·case No. CF0492-22 Decision .and Order

Page 10000