People v. Tereas

• Court: Superior Court of Guam
• Decided: October 30, 2012
• Docket: CM1162-11
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM

2 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) CRIMINAL CAgItZNO]dMlf62-9:1 3 ) VS. ) 4 ) ) 5 ) DECISION AND ORDER SHAOLIN SYLVESTER TEREAS, 6 ) Defendant. ) 7 )

8 9 This matter came before the HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ on October 4,2012 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 November 19, 2011, Defendant was charged with driving while under the influence 17 of alcohol, operating a motor vehicle while license suspended and reckless driving. Preceding 18 his arrest, Defendant was discovered at approximately 9: 15p.m. on the roadway in a vehicle 19 with multiple flat tires. Defendant's Motion to Suppress at 2. At approximately 9:35p.m., 20 Officer Andrew arrested Defendant and transported Defendant to the Dededo precinct. Id. 21 Defendant filed a Notice of Motion to have his Motion to Suppress heard before the Court on 22 September 14,2012. On October 4,2012, the Court heard the matter. This Decision and Order 23 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. Tereas, Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM J 162-11 Page I of 4 1 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 all evidence seized. 4 The purpose for Guam's Stop and Frisk Act is to set guidelines for investigatory stops 5 where the police officer has reasonable suspicion that a person has or is about to commit a 6 criminal offense. 8 G.c.A. § 30.10. A police officer then has 15 minutes to ascertain the 7 identity of the person detained and to determine the circumstances surrounding his presence 8 which lead the officer to believe that he committed, was committing or was about to commit a 9 criminal offense. 8 G.C.A. § 30.20. If probable cause arises any time after the onset of the 10 detention, the person shall be arrested. 8 G.C.A. § 30040. The time limitation under Section 11 30.10 is no longer applicable once probable cause has been formed or a defendant is arrested. 12 Moreover, during the investigatory stop here, Officers had probable cause to arrest 13 Defendant based on his admission to having had alcoholic beverages. Very early into the police 14 interactions with Defendant, well before 15 minutes elapsed, Defendant admitted to drinking 15 three cans of Bud Light. Once probable cause is formed during the investigatory stop, the 15 16 minute time limit for the purposes of Section 30.10 no longer governs. The investigatory stop 17 then becomes a detention and need only pass a constitutional analysis against unreasonable 18 searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Defendant was placed in 19 handcuffs almost immediately after being discovered by the police. The Court easily finds that 20 the police made a lawful arrest simultaneously as developing probable cause for driving while 21 under the influence. Under the People v. Cundiff decision, "[a]n arrest may also occur even if 22 the police have not formally arrested the person". 2006 Guam 12 ~~20-21. Thus, the police 23 could not have violated the 15 minute rule as Defendant was arrested immediately after his encounter with the police began. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected the application of a bright-line time Fourth Amendment detentions. United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 685 (1985). Although having a 'bright-line' rule would be helpful investigative detention is unreasonable, a police officer's common sense and judgment must

v, Tereas. Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM 1162·11 2 of4- ultimately govern their conduct. In United States v. Place, the court reasoned, "[s]uch a limit 2 would undermine the equally important need to allow authorities to graduate their responses to 3 the demands of any particular situation." Place, 462 U.S. 696, 709 (1983). The Guam 4 legislature has provided clear framework for stops for the purposes of Sections 30.30-40, which 5 at any time probable cause appears, the person shall be arrested. The 15 minute limitation was 6 inapplicable in this case since officers had probable cause to arrest. 7 Accordingly, the Court does not agree with Defendant's assertion that any and all 8 evidence from a detention should be suppressed. A "detention" is limited to ascertaining the 9 identity of the person and the circumstances surrounding his presence which lead the officer to 10 believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a criminal offense. 8 11 G.C.A. § 30.20. A request for identification and investigation does not generally constitute a 12 seizure and, most importantly, does not trigger Fourth Amendment protections. In Terry, a 13 "detention" occurs when a "police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to 14 walk away." Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1,16 (1968). The Michigan Court of Appeals suggests 15 the determining factor in assessing whether a detention is too long in duration is "whether the 16 police were diligently pursuing a means of investigation that was likely to confirm or dispel 17 their suspicions" People v. Chambers, 489 N.W. 2d 168, 125 (1992). Here, probable cause 18 existed to arrest Defendant within 15 minutes of his detainment. 19 Even if Section 30.30 was violated, the Court finds suppression of all evidence obtained 20 is not an appropriate remedy. The 15 minute limitation is a statutory right prescribed by the 21 Guam legislature, not a constitutional right. The Fourth Amendment protects against 22 unreasonable search and seizures and is applicable pursuant to § 1421 b(c) of the Organic Act of 23 Guam. However, nothing in the Act incorporates the 15 minute limitation as a constitutionally 24 afforded right to the people of Guam. As a result, the Court believes that had a violation of the 25 15 minute rule occurred, the appropriate remedy would be to place a limited suppression of the 26 evidence obtained during the excess time over 15 minutes to eventual arrest. Finally, no fruit of 27 a poisonous tree argument could apply in this case as there was no 15 minute rule violation and 28 if there was a violation; the police would have inevitably discovered Defendant's intoxication as

People v. Tereas, Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM] 162-11 - Page 3 of 4 - the evidence for that was bountiful.! See Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984). Therefore,

2 Defendant could not have the remedy he desires even if a violation of 8 GCA § 30.40 occurred, 3 which it did not. 4 CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress. Parties

6 will return on November 6, 2012 at 9:00a.m. for ~iminal Trial Setting. 7 So ORDERED this day of October, 2012.

9 //~- HONORABLE VERNON P. PEREZ 10 JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 11

20 21

22 23

24 25

26 27

28 1 Clearly. probable cause existed to find that Defendant was driving while under the influence as the condition of his vehicle and

person provided several indicators of a violation of the vehicle code.

People v. Tereas. Decision and Order Criminal Case No. CM1162-II - Page 4 of 4-