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.
26
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
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
10
11 HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ Judge, Superior Court of Guam 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
-19
20
21
22
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:<fllillvt 27 An .~
28
People v. Susuico ·case No. CF0492-22 Decision .and Order
Page 10000