FILED 1 CLERK OF CLERK COURT OF COU 2 2[l2l: 202~NOV PH2:2: 06 NOV2626 PM 3 SUPERIOR SUPE~lOR COURT 4 QF .GUAM~ O UAM 64 5
6 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM COURT OF GUAM 7
88 PEOPLE OF GUAM, GUAM, CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CASE CASE no.
NO. CFoll8-24 CF0118-24 9 vs.
10 DECISION DECISION AND AND ORDER
11 JOSEPH MANIBUSAN MANIBUSAN VILLORIA VILLORIA aka aka 12 Joseph Manibusan Viloria Joseph Manibusan Viloria aka aka Joe, 13 13 Defendant.
14
INTRODUCTION 15
This This matter matter came before before the theHonorable Honorable Vernon Vemon P.
P. Perez Perez on on October October 7, 7, 2024 2024 and October 16 16
17 9, 2024, 2024, for for hearing hearing on Defendant JOSEPH MANIBUSAN on Defendant MANIBUSAN VILLORIA VILLORIA aka aka Joseph Joseph
18 Manibusan aka Joe's ("Defendant") Manibusan Viloria aka ("Defendant") Motion Motion to to Suppress.
Suppress. Present Present were Assistant Assistant Attorney General Sean E.
General Sean E. Brown on behalf behalf of ofthe the People People of ofGuam Guam("the ("the Government")
Government"). and and 19 19
Defendant with counsel, Defendant with counsel, Deputy Deputy Public Public Defender John P. Morrison.
Defender John Morrison. Having Having reviewed reviewed the the 20 pleadings, the arguments presented,and arguments presented, andthe therecord, record,the theCourt Courtnow nowissues issuesthe the followingDecision following Decision 21 21
22 22 and Order.
23 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND On On March March l,1,2024, 2024,Defendant Defendant was was indicted indicted with with the the following followingcharges:
charges: (1)
(1) Possession Possession 24 24 with with Intent Deliver aa Schedule II Controlled Intent to Deliver Controlled Substance Substance (As a First Degree Felony); (2)
(2)Expired Expired 25 Registration Registration (As (As aa Violation);
Violation); (3)
(3) Mandatory Insurance (As (As aViolation);
Violation); (4) Defective Headlights 4) Defective 26 (As (As aa Violation);
Violation); and and (5)
(5) Operating Operating aa Vehicle Vehicle without without aa Valid License License (As aa Violation).
Violation).
27 27 (Indictment, Mar. 1, (Indictment, Mar. 1, 2024).
2024). These These charges charges stem stem from from the the discovery discovery of ofsuspected suspected 28 28
People v.
v. Villoria Case No.
No. CF0l CFol 18-24 Decision and Order
Page l1 of9f
l methamphetamine anddrug methamphetamine and dog paraphernalia paraphernaliaduring duringthe theeffectuation effectuationof of aa traffic traffic stop on on or or about about z2 February 23,2024.
February 23, 2024. (Deel.
(Decl. of Gloria Gloria A.L.
A.L. Rudolph, Rudolph, Magistrate's Magistrate's Con pl., Feb.
Compl., Feb. 24, 24, 2024).
3 On September 13, 2024, 2024,Defendant Defendantfiled filed the instant Motion, Motion, moving movingthe the Court Courtto to suppress suppress 4 4 all evidence evidence seized seized in in this this matter matter because no exception to the warrant because no requirementapplies.
warrant requirement applies. On
5 September 18, 18, 2024, 2024,the theGovernment Governmentfiled filed its its Opposition, arguing arguing that thatthe theplain plainview view exception
6 6 applies.
applies.
7 On October October 7, 2024, 2024, the the Court Court heard swam testimony heard sworn from GPD testimony from GPD Officers Officers Roque Roque 8 Pangelinan ("Officer Pangelinan")
Pangelinan ("Officer Pangelinan") and andNate NateLorenzo Lorenzo("Officer ("Officer Lorenzo").
Lorenzo"). On OnOctober October9, 9, 2024, 2024, 9 the Court heard heardsworn sworntestimony testimonyfrom fromDefendant.
Defendant.The The witnesses witnessestestified testifiedto tothe thefollowing:
following:
10 10 l.
1. Around Aroundone oneorortwo twoa.m.
a.m.on onFebruary February 23, 23, 2024, Officer Lorenzo 2024, Officer Lorenzo observed observed a vehicle 11 passing by (a passing by (a 1995 19954-Runner)
4-Runner)with withaadefective defectiveheadlight.
headlight. Officer Officer Lorenzo was was in in aa 12 12 patrol vehicle operated by by Officer Officer Pangelinan.
13 13 2.
2. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinan conducted conducted a U-tum.
U-turn. Officers Officers Pangelinan Pangelinan and and Lorenzo also also 14 observed defective tail observed defective tail lights on the vehicle and and conducted conducted aa traffic traffic stop stop along along Y
Y
15 15 Sengsong Road.
Road.
16 16 3. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinan testified testified the the vehicle vehicle was was old old and and rusty, rusty, faded faded white.
white. Officer 17 17 Pangelinan Pangelinan testified testifiedthat that the the vehicle vehiclewas wasnot notadapted adapted too too much much from from aa stock 4-Runner.
4-Runner.
18 18 Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinan indicated indicated it it was was possible possible that the vehicle may have been elevated that the 19 19 two inches.
inches.
20 20 4. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzotestified vehicle thethe testified was vehicle a white was a white 4-Runnerthat Toyota4-Runner 1995Toyota 1995 thathad had about about 21 21 a two-inch lift.
lift.
22 5.
5. Defendant Defendant testified testified he he was was driving driving along along YYSengsong Sengsong Road Road heading heading towards towards NCS 23 when he was was pulled pulled over.
over.
24 6. Officers OfficersPangelinan Pangelinanand and Lorenzo Lorenzo did did not not know know who who the the operator operator of the the vehicle was was 25 prior prior to conducting the the traffic traffic stop.
stop.
26 26 7. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzotestified that testified thathehesaw sawmovement movementininthe thevehicle vehicleprior priorto totheir theirapproach, approach, 27 27 which which made him feel unsafe unsafe at the the time.
28 8.
8. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzomade madecontact contactwith withthe theoperator operatorthrough through the the passenger window.
passenger window.
People v.
v. Wlloria Villoria Case No.
No. CF0118-24 CF0l 18-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 2 of9 of 1 9. Officer OfficerPangelinan Pangelinanwas wasstanding standing near the driver's window observing.
near the 2 10.
10. The operator of the the vehicle vehicle was later identified identified as Defendant.
Defendant. Officers Officers Pangelinan Pangelinan and and 3 Lorenzo testified testified that that Defendant did not have have a driver's license, nor was he able to
4 provide the registration or insurance for the insurance for the vehicle.
vehicle.
5 ll.
11.Officer OfficerPangelinan is 6'3".
Pangelinan is 6'3".
6 12. Officer Lorenzo is 12. Officer is 5' 10".
7 13. Defendantisis55'6".
13. Defendant '6".
8 14.
14. Officer Pangelinan testified testified that thathe hecould couldsee seeOfficer Officer Lorenzo's Lorenzo's face face looking looking across across 9 the vehicle through the window.
through the window.
10 15. Officer Lorenzo 15. Officer Lorenzo testified testifiedthat that the the vehicle vehiclewas was below belowhis hishead head and and the top of the door 11 11 at his was at his chest.
chest. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo testified testified that that the vehicle was not lifted high where 12 12 he could not not see seeinside insidethe thevehicle.
vehicle. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzodenied denied having having to to peek peek inside inside the 13 13 vehicle to see the the floor board.
board.
14 14 16. Officer Lorenzo 16. Officer Lorenzo testified testified that that the the area they were in area they in was not lit very well well and and that that he 15 was using using a flashlight flashlight to help him see.
16 17.
17. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzoobserved observedaaglass glasspipe pipewith withaabrown brownburnt burntsubstance substance sticking out of an an 17 17 open tool bag on the the front frontpassenger passengerfloor floorboard.
board. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo could could not recall the 18 18 brand of the brand of the tool tool bag.
bag. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzothought thought there there could could be be aa weapon weapon in the the tool 19 bag based on on the themovements movementshe heobserved observed before before approaching approaching the thevehicle.
vehicle.
20 18. Officer Lorenzo testified that 18. Officer that the thetool tool bag bagwas wasabout abouthalf halfway wayfull fullof oftools.
tools. Officer
21 Lorenzo Lorenzo testified testifiedthat that the the glass pipe was sitting on top of wrenches.
22 19. Officer Lorenzo 19. Officer Lorenzo testified testified that that in in his his experience, experience, glass glass pipes pipes with with brown brown residue residue are are 23 23 used for methamphetamine.
methamphetamine.
24 20. Officer Lorenzo 20. Officer Lorenzo then then asked asked Defendant to to step step out outof of the the vehicle.
vehicle. Defendant Defendant was not 25 under arrest at under arrest atthis this time.
time. Officer Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan conducted conducted a pat down and and repositioned 26 Defendant in the the front front of of the the vehicle away from from the the roadway.
27 21. Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzosearched searched the the bag.
bag.
28
People v.
v. Vittoria Wlloria Case No. CF0l 18-24 CF0118-24 Decision and Decision and Order
Page 3 of Page of9
1 22. Officer 22. Lorenzoplaced Officer Lorenzo placeditems itemson onthe thepassenger passenger seat seat and asked asked Officer Officer Pangelinan to
2 confiscate the confiscate the items items within within the the tool tool bag. OfficerPangelinan bag. Officer Pangelinan confiscated confiscated multiple multiple 3 baggies containing plastic baggies containing aa while while crystallized crystalized substance;
substance; the the pipe;
pipe, a digital scale; and digital scale, and 4 currency in various bills.
U.S. currency bills. The Thesubstance substance was was field fieldtested testedand and tested tested presumptive 5 positivefor positive formethamphetamine.
methamphetamine. The Thetotal totalamount amountofofmethamphetamine methamphetamine was was about about 13
13
6 grams.
grams.
7 23. Officer Lorenzo later Officer Lorenzo later on on cross-examination cross-examination could not recall ififthe the cash cash found found came came 8 from the wallet.
the tool bag or Defendant's wallet.
9 OfficerPangelinan 24. Officer Pangelinandid didnot notsee seethe the glass glass pipe pipeuntil until ititwas wason onthe the passenger passenger seat.
10 10 OfficerPangelinan 25. Officer Pangelinanwas wasilluminating illuminatingDefendant's Defendant'shands handsduring during the the encounter.
encounter.
11 26. Officer OfficerLorenzo Lorenzodid didnot notask askDefendant Defendant for for consent consent to to search the vehicle.
search the vehicle.
12 12 27. Officer Pangelinan 27. Officer Pangelinan acknowledged acknowledged that that glass pipes are available for for legal legalsale sale at at stores stores 13 island. Officer on island. Officer Pangelinan Pangelinan testified testified that that there there would be be nothing nothing to to arrest arrest an an 14 14 individual for ififfound found with with aa clean clean pipe pipe with with nothing nothing inside 15 15 28. Defendant testified 28. Defendant testified he he was was driving driving an old Toyota Toyota 4-Runner.
4-Runner. Defendant Defendant testified testified that that 16 16 he walked to his friend Jerry Jen'y Bias's Blas's house house to to get get aaride rideback backhome.
home. Defendant's Defendant's friend
17 17 told told him him he could use the the vehicle vehicle and he would pick it it up later.
18 18 29. Defendant testified testified that that he he was was at at Jenny's house about Jerry's house abouttwenty twenty minutes minutesprior prior to to being
19 19 pulled over.
20 20 30. Defendant 30. Defendant testified testified that that before before he he got into into the the vehicle, vehicle, he he and and Jen'y Jerry checked all the the 21 vehicle lights vehicle lights and and they were all all working.
working. Defendant Defendantindicated indicatedthat that because because it it was an an 22 vehicle there off-roading vehicle there were were also also flood floodlights lightson onthe thebottom bottomand and spot spot lights lights on on the the 23 top.
top.
24 24 31. Defendant testified he asked Jerry testified he Jerry whether whether the thevehicle vehicle had had any any"tricks"
"tricks" because it was
25 25 an off-roading vehicle vehicle and and he he had never never driven it before.
26 26 32. Defendant testified that the 4-Runner was lifted testified that lifted very veryhigh highand andthat that he he had had to reach reach up 27 inside the door inside the door to to grab grab a handle handleto to get get into into the the vehicle.
vehicle. The The 4-Runner 4-Runner did not not have 28
People v.
v. Villoria Vittoria Case No.
No. CF0118-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 4 of9 of 1 running boards or side steps steps to to assist assist with with getting getting into into the the vehicle.
vehicle. The 4-Runner had
2 bigger off-roading tires.
bigger
3 33. Defendant testified that he he was was pulled pulled over coming out ofDededo.
Dededo.
4 34. Defendant testified that another vehicle vehicle had been pulled over over by by the the officers officers prior to 5 him being pulled over.
6 35. Defendant Defendant testified that the bigger bigger police police officer (Pangelinan) came to to the the driver's driver's side
7 questions, including aa request door and asked him questions, driver's license, request to produce his driver's license, 8 registration and registration and insurance. Defendant testified he produced a driver's license which insurance. Defendant
9 expire till didn't expire till 2025 2025 and and an an expired expired car car registration registration from from the middle middle console.
console.
10 10 Defendant did Defendant did not not provide provide any any car insurance.
111 36. Defendant 36. Defenda nt did did not not know know the ca carr rregistration egist t ion was expired wa s expir ed until unt il he pa passed tthe 12 12 registration to the Officer.
13 13 37. Defendant 37. Defendant indicated indicated he he was concerned about was not concerned about the the vehicle's vehicle's registration registration and and 14 insurance because he was tired tired and and he he had had walked walked to to his his friend's friend's house from Yigo.
15 15 38. Defendant testified only only the the driver's driver's window was open in the vehicle.
16 of the vehicle, go to 39. Defendant testified that Officer Pangelinan asked him to step out of
17 17 the front of the the vehicle vehicle and and put put his his hands hands on on the thehood.
hood. Defendant complied.
18 18 40. Defendant not see Officer Defendant did not Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo until until he he was was asked to step out of the vehicle by asked to 19 19 Officer Pangelinan. Defendant Defendant then then observed observed Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo hop hop into into the passenger 20 of the vehicle and look around.
side of
21 41. Defendant looking up at him testified the taller officer (Pangelinan) was looking Defendant testified him when he stood
22 next to the driver's side window.
23 23 42. Defendant Defendant testified that the first first officer went to officer went to the the driver's side, pulled out his wallet
24 24 and counted the money that was inside it. Defendant Defendant testified testified he he had had $260 $260 in cash in 25 25 the wallet but that that only only $168 $168 was was logged logged into evidence.
26 26 43. Defendant testified that after after the the officers officers counted counted the the money, money, he was handcuffed and
27 brought to the police vehicle.
28 28
People v.
v. Villoria Villoria Case No. CF0118-24 CF0l 18-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 5 of9 of l 44. Defendant Defendant testified that he he did did not not see see the the tool toolbag bagon onthe thepassenger while driving passenger floor while driving
2 the vehicle, nor did he put the tool bag in the vehicle. 3 45. Defendant denied telling Defendant denied telling Officer Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo that that he he found found the the tool tool bag bag at at the gas station.
4 indicated he told Officer Pangelinan Defendant indicated Pangelinan that that he he found found a small empty pouch
5 which he while he was walking which he had had near near his his wallet in the vehicle.
6 46. Defendant acknowledgedhe Defendant acknowledged hehad hadatat least least four four prior prior drug convictions, convictions, but but stated he had 7 been out of the the system system for for 11 years.
ll years.
8 DISCUSSION
9 The issue before the Court is is whether whether the plain view view exception to the warrant requirement requirement
10 10 The Fourth applies. The Fourth Amendment Amendmentto to the the U.S.
U.S. Constitution Constitution "protects "protects against unreasonable searches 11 Guam via and seizures and is made applicable to Guam via section section 142 1421l (b )( c) of (b)(c) of the the Organic Organic Act Act of of Guam."
Guam."
12 People v. Chargualaf, Chargualaf, 2001 ,r 14 (internal 2001 Guam l1 1114 (internal citations citationsomitted).
omitted). "[T]he "[T]he Fourth Fourth Amendment Amendment
13 13 proscribes all unreasonable proscribes all unreasonable searches searches and and seizures, seizures, and it is aa cardinal cardinal principle principle that that searches searches 14 conducted conducted outside outside the the judicial judicial process, without prior process, without prior approval approval by by judge judge or or magistrate, magistrate, are per Se are per se 15 15 unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment...." People v.
Fourth Amendment.. v. Camacho, ,r 1616(quoting Camacho, 2004 Guam 6 11 (quoting
16 16 United States v. Ross, United Ross, 456 U.S. 798, 825 825 (1982)).
(l982)). "The "Thegeneral generalrule rule that that warrantless warrantless searches are 17 17 presumptively unreasonable, however, is subject et to to certain certain well established established exceptions, such as 18 18 'good 'good faith'
faith' and and 'plain 'plain view,'
view,' which which find find their their roots in Fourth Fourth Amendment Amendment jurisprudence."
jurisprudence." Id.
Id
19 (citations omitted). "[W]arrantless "[W]arrantless seizures are permissible pursuant to the the plain plain view view doctrine."
doctrine."
20 ,r "If Id. atat 1120. "Ifan anarticle article isis already already in in plain plain view, view, neither neither its its observation observation nor nor its seizure would 21 of privacy." Horton v.
involve any invasion of v. California, California, 496 U.S. 128, 133 133 (1990).
(1990). Vehicles are
22 also covered by the the plain plain view exception. See Texas v. Brown, view exception. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 730 (1983).
(1983). "While the
23 23 interior of an automobile is not subject et to the same same expectations expectations of of privacy privacy that exist with respect 24 to one's home, a car's car's interior interior as as aawhole whole isisnonetheless nonetheless subject subj et to to Fourth Fourth Amendment Amendment protection 25 25 from unreasonable unreasonable intrusions intrusions by by the the police." Class, 475 U.S. 106, 114-15 (1986).
police." New York v. Class, (1986).
26 26 For the plain view exception exception to apply, three elements must be elements must be satisfied:
satisfied: (1)
( 1) the officer officer must arrive 27 27 place from which at the place which the the evidence evidence could could be be plainly plainly viewed viewed without without violating violating the the Fourth Fourth 28 Amendment, Amendment; (2)
(2) the the evidence evidence must must be be in in "plain "plain view"
view"and andits its incriminating incriminating character character must also
v. Wlloria People v. Villoria Case No. CF0118-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 6 of9 of
I be immediately immediately apparent, apparent; and (3)
(3) the officer must also have a lawful right of access access to to the the object obi et
2 Camacho, 2004 Guam 6 ,ri120.
itself. Camacho, 20. "[A]ll three prongs of the the test test must must be be satisfied."
satisfied." Id Id at at 27.
3 "[T]he People bear bear the burden of of proof proof when when aa warrantless warrantless search or seizure occurs." People v.
4 Santos, 1999 Santos, ,r 1999 Guam l11151.
5 In this case, Officers Pangelinan and Lorenzo conducted conducted aa traffic traffic stop after observing a 6 Toyota 4-Runner on the road with a defective defective headlight headlight and defective taillights late at at night.
night. This
7 provided the officers with probable cause to believe that that aa traffic traffic violation had occurred and a 8 basis to valid basis to be be standing next to standing next to Defendant's vehicle to ask him for for his his driver's driver's license, license, car car 9 registration, and insurance.
registration, and insurance'1 See See 16 16 G.C.A.
G.C.A. §§ 3201.
3201. Although AlthoughDefendant Defendant testified testified that that he he and and 10 10 Jerry tested Jena tested the the lights lights prior prior to him him driving driving the the vehicle vehicle away, away, the the Court Court is is not not convinced convinced that that 111 Defendant would Defendant would test test all the vehicle lights but not also check if if the vehicle had valid registration 12 12 insurance. Officer or insurance. Officer Lorenzo Lorenzo testified testified that he was able able to see the the glass glass pipe from outside the 13 13 vehicle and that his body did not enter the the vehicle at all all in in order order for for him him to to see see the the pipe.
pipe. Officer
14 Lorenzo testified that he observed the glass pipe inside an open tool bag on the front passenger
15 15 side floor while speaking Defendant. The speaking with Defendant. The officer officer "must "must discover discover incriminating incriminating evidence 16 'inadvertently' ... he may not 'know 'know in in advance advance the the location location of of [certain]
[certain] evidence and intend to 17 17 seize it,' relying on the the plain view doctrine only only as as aa pretext." Brown, Brown, 460 U.S. at 737 (quoting
18 18 Coolidge v. New Hampshire, Coolidge v. Hampshire, 403 403 U.S.
U.S. 443, 443, 470 470 (1971))
(1971)) (alterations (alterations in in original).
original). Although Although 19 19 Defendant Defendant testified that the 4-Runner was lifted and it would not have been possible for Officer 20 Lorenzo to see the the passenger passenger floorboard, floorboard, both Officer Lorenzo and Officer Officer Pangelinan testified 21 21 to see that they were able to see inside inside the the vehicle vehicle and that the the vehicle vehicle was was not not lifted lifted so so high.
high. Thus, the
22 Court finds that from finds that from the vantage point of of an an individual individual looking looking through through the the passenger passenger side 23 1 Brief investigative detentions are permitted under the Fourth Amendment "when a police officer has reasonable 1 Brief investigative detentions are permitted under the Fourth Amendment "when a police officer has reasonable 24 thatan suspicion that anindividual individualwaswasengaged engagedin inororisisabout aboutto tobe beengaged engagedin inillegal illegal conduct."
conduct." People People v.v. Johnson, Johnson, 1997 1997 Guam 9 i'H4 (citing Terry 4 (citing Terryv. v. Ohio, 392 U.S. l (l968)). As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile U.S. 1 (1968)). As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile without 25 a warrant warrant isis reasonable reasonablewherewherethe thepolice police have haveprobable probablecause causetotobelieve believe that thataatraffic traffic violation violation has occurred. Further, has occurred. Further, it is reasonable to stop a car car where where the thepolice police merely have a reasonable suspicion to to believe thethe driver driver has has committed 26 a traffic violation."
violation." Chargualaf, Chargualaf, 2001 Guam1l ii 17 2001 Guam 17 (citations (citationsomitted).
omitted). "In order order to determine whether an determine whether anofficer officer had reasonable reasonable suspicion suspicionsufficient sufficient to warrant warrant a traffic stop, the the court court must look at the must look the totality ofofthe the circumstances, circumstances, 27 taking into account the the facts factsknown knownto tothe theofficers officers from personal personal observation." Johnson, Johnson, 1997 1997 Guam 9 iii 6 (citation (citation and quotation marks marksomitted).
omitted). Furthermore, Furthermore, thethe reasonable reasonable suspicion must must exist exist at at the the time time the the stop was was initiated.
28 Id. (citation (citation omitted).
omitted).
v. Wlloria People v. Villoria Case No.
No. CFol CF0l 18-24 18-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page 7 of9 of 1 window from outside the vehicle, the pipe inside the tool bag was window from in plai.n was in view. Officer Lorenzo plain view.
2 also testified to observing the driver of the to observing vehicle make movements the vehicle prior to movements prior their approach to the to their
3 vehicle. The Court finds TheCourt plausible that finds itit plausible the pipe that the was placed pipe was in the placed in bag prior the bag officers'
prior to the officers'
} 4 approach to approach the vehicle.
to the vehicle. While testified that Defendant testified While Defendant he did that he not notice did not the tool notice the car tool bag in the car
5 and that he did not bring the tool bag the car, bag into the the Court car, the does not Court does find itit likely not find thatDefendant's likely that Defendant's
6 friend would have allowed him to friend borrow the to borrow vehicle and the vehicle drive away and drive with thirteen away with of thirteen grams of
7 methamphetamine in the front methamphetamine floorboard area.
front passenger floorboard Accordingly, the area. Accordingly, Court finds the Court that finds that
8 Officer Lorenzo plainly viewed the pipe without violating the Fourth Amendment.
the Fourth Amendment.
9 The Court next mms he C whether turns t oto whet incriminating the incr her t he er of the evidence character imina t ing cha was evidence wa
10 10 apparent. Defendant immediately apparent. immediately argues that Defendantargues the observation that the of aa glass pipe alone does not give observation of
11 rise to a finding of probable cause. (Mot. Suppress at 4).
probable cause. Officers "who 4). Officers seize an "who seize article must be an article
12 12 presently aware of some specific and articulable fact from rational link from which a rational between the item link between
13 13 (Meyers), 598 P.2d 877, seized and criminal behavior can be inferred." People v. Superior Court (Meyers),
14 1979).
(Cal. l979).
880 (Cal. of the "extension of The "extension original justification the original is legitimate justification is only where legitimate only is where it is
15 15 immediately apparent immediately the police apparent to the that they police that have evidence they have before them;
evidence before the 'plain them, the view' doctrine 'plain view'
16 16 general exploratory may not be used to extend a general from one exploratory search from to another one object to until something another until something
17 17 incriminating at last emerges." Horton, 496 U.S. at 136.
emerges." Horton, Court acknowledges The Court 136. The that aa clean acknowledges that
18 18 or plain glass pipe, on its own, could be used for legal activity, e.g., legal activity, to smoke or ingest a legal e.g., to
19 19 as tobacco substance such as or marijuana.
tobacco or However, Officer marijuana. However, Lorenzo testified Officer Lorenzo that the glass pipe testified that
20 was used he saw had brown residue, which in his experience, indicated it was for methamphetamine.
used for methamphetamine.
21 Further, Lorenzo testified Further, Officer Lorenzo he never thought about the pipe being used for anything but testified he
22 methamphetamine. "In methamphetamine. considering whether "Inconsidering evidence was whether evidence apparent to was apparent the executing to the officers, executing officers,
23 23 courts should courts duly mindful should be duly theexecuting mindful ofofthe officers'particular, executingofficers' subjective training particular, subjective and training and
24 United States experiences." United Szymkowiak, 727 F.2d States v. Szymkowiak, 95, 98 F.2d 95, (6th Cir.
98 (6th 1984) (citations Cir. 1984) and (citations and
25 quotation marks omitted).
quotation marks cause is a flexible, "[P]robable cause omitted). "[P]robable common-sense standard.
flexible, common-sense standard. It merely
26 26 facts available requires that the facts to the available to of reasonable caution in the the officer would warrant a man of
27 27 belief that certain items may be contraband or stolen property or useful as evidence of belief crime, it of a crime;
28 does not demand any showing that such belief be any showing or more correct or be correct likely true more likely than false.
true than false. A
People v. Villoria v. I/Ylloria Case No. CFO! 18-24 No. CF0118-24 Decision Decision and Order
Page 8 of9
1 practical, nontechnical practical, nontechnical probability that that incriminating incriminating evidence is involved involved is is all that is required."
2 Brown, 460 U.S. at 742 Brown, 742 (internal (internal citations citations and and quotation quotation marks marks omitted).
omitted). Therefore, Therefore, the Court 3 finds that the incriminating finds incriminating character of the character of the evidence was was immediately immediately apparent apparent to Officer Officer 4 Lorenzo. .
5 Lastly, the Court turns to to whether the officers had a lawful right of of access to the object at 6 issue. The issue. The Court Court finds finds that that this element element is is also also met met because because Officer Lorenzo believed the pipe 7 was evidence of of methamphetamine. See See Brown, Brown, 460 460 U.S.
U.S. at at 739 739 ("our decisions have come to 8 reflect the rule that if, if, while lawfully engaged engaged in in an an activity activity in in aa particular particular place, police officers 9 perceive a suspicious object, they may seize it immediately.").
immediately."). Therefore, Therefore, the the Court Court finds that that the 10 seizure was authorized by the the "plain-view"
"plain-view" doctrine.
11I CONCLUSION 12 12 For the foregoing reasons, the the Court hereby hereby DENIES DENIES Defendant's Defendant's Motion Motion to to Suppress.
Suppress.
13 1
14 IT IS Is so SOORDERED 1,[pTH day of November, 2024.
ORDERED thisQM"
15 15
16
17 17 AfJt- ~ HONORABLE HONORABLE VERNON VERNON p.
P. PEREZ PEREZ \
Judge, Superior Court of Guam 18 18
19 19
20
21
22
23 23 seovlce Sl!RVICI! vIA VIA I-MAIL 1!-MAIL |, acknowledge ackriowiectge the!that an ar'I elecuonlL elect,on1t 24 Cony (opv ofof tt'le the org-na'
orig,r,a1was wa\ e e mauled to malled to
25 25 if, /It.FDIC fPJ'C
26 26 Date f/// I /Ut /4'/r,me.
/ZYfnme 7 Wt#-\.
1 Y1JfJ6 27 1/lhe,r (;(ckv ~; A7/A 7*f 04044) Deputy Deputy clerk . Superucv clerk. Super,or Court Court Q? Guam of Guam
28 28
People v.
v. Villoria Vittoria Case No. CF0l CF0118-24 18-24 Decision Decision and and Order
Page Page 9 of9