People v. Walter

Opinion

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GUAM 2

3 THE PEOPLE OF GUAM, ) (

) CRIMINAL CASE NO. CM0677-11 4 vs. )

5 ) DECISION AND ORDER JACK KATNAT WALTER, )

6 )

Defendant. )

7

8 INTRODUCTION

9 This matter came before the Honorable James L. Canto II on Defendant's motion to 10 dismiss, filed June 5, 2012. Oral arguments were heard on October 8, 2012. Assistant Attorney 11 General James C. Collins, Esq. appeared on behalf of. the Government and Assistant Public 12 Defender Suresh Sampath, Esq. represented the Defendant. Having considered the parties'

13 briefs, oral arguments, and the applicable law, the Court now issues the following Decision and 14 Order.

15 BACKGROUND

16 On June 11, 2011, the Government filed a complaint and affidavit to charge Defendant 17 with driving under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter "DUI") and reckless driving. The 18 accompanying affidavit states Defendant was arrested on June 10,2011 after he was involved in 19 a traffic accident and refused to take a standardized field sobriety test. The affidavit supporting 20 the complaint further alleges that police observed Defendant's eyes to be bloodshot and watery, 21 his breath and person to smell of an intoxicating beverage, and that he admitted to drinking 22 beer.

23 The affidavit also describes the traffic accident. One witness heard Defendant's tires 24 squeal and saw his car approach at a high rate of speed before it slid across the road, 25 overcorrected multiple times, lost control and hit another vehicle. (Complaint, "Declaration", 26 Jun. 11, 2011.) Another witness saw Defendant's vehicle swerve with smoking tires. Id.

27 Defendant told police officers that his brakes gave out and his steering wheel locked. !d. Police 28 officers inspected Defendant's car and found that his steering wheel spun freely. !d.

Page 10f6

On June 11, 2011, Defendant appeared before a Magistrate Judge and was confined 2 subject to a $1,000.00 cash bond. On June 15, 2011, Defendant was arraigned by the 3 Magistrate Judge and released on the basis ofa $1,000.00 personal recognizance bond. 4 On June 5, 2012, Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it lacks the 5 probable cause to believe that he committed an offense. In particular, the Defendant argues the 6 affidavit corroborates his mechanical failure explanation and that his alcohol odor and red, 7 watery eyes alone are insufficient to constitute sufficient probable cause to believe he was 8 impaired more than a prudent, sober person in his circumstances. The Government opposes and 9 argues that the affidavit supports both possibilities of alleged mechanical failure or alleged 10 reckless driving and that the Defendant further admitted that he drank beer. II DISCUSSION 12 1. Elements of DUI and Reckless Driving 13 Under Guam law, a person commits a DUI offense when he operates a motor vehicle 14 while under the influence of alcohol, defined as being impaired to the degree that he cannot 15 drive, "with the caution characteristic of a sober person of ordinary prudence, under the same or 16 similar circumstances." 16 GCA § 18101(a). See also 16 GCA §18102(a) and People v. 17 Manila, 2005 Guam 6 ~ 40. Guam law defines reckless driving as follows: "Every person who 18 drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or 19 property is guilty of reckless driving." 16 GCA § 9107(a). See also Manila, 2005 Guam 6 at ~ 20 40. 21 In this case, Defendant is charged with DUI and reckless driving based upon allegations 22 he lost control of his vehicle at a high rate of speed, swerved multiple times, hit another vehicle, 23 smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, and admitted to drinking beer. Defendant 24 contends a mechanical failure caused the collision, but it is also possible that the influence of 25 alcohol impaired his ability to drive with the caution characteristic of a sober person and equally 26 caused him to operate his automobile with a wanton and reckless disregard for the safety of 27 others. Indeed, although Defendant maintained his brakes failed and his steering locked to 28 cause the collision, this claim is disputed by (1) an observer who reported witnessing Defendant able to overcorrect his steering multiple times; and (2) a police officer at the scene of the 2 collision who "checked [Defendant's] steering wheel and found it to spin freely without 3 tension." (Complaint, "Declaration", Jun. 11,2011.) For probable cause to arrest, police must 4 have "at that moment the facts and circumstances within their knowledge and of which they had 5 reasonably trustworthy information ... sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the 6 defendant had committed or was committing an offense." People v. Cundiff, 2006 Guam 12 ~ 7 26, quoting Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 91 (1964). The reasonably trustworthy information 8 supporting probable cause in the instant case is the aggregate of the following facts and 9 circumstances: Defendant smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, admitted to 10 drinking multiple beers, lost control of his vehicle at a high rate of speed, swerved multiple II times, and hit another vehicle. (Complaint, "Declaration", Jun. 11, 2011.) Defendant informed 12 police the vehicle collision was caused by his steering wheel seizing or locking up; however, 13 police reported they were able to tum his steering wheel, and an eyewitness reported to police 14 observing Defendant "overcorrect" his steering multiple times, indicating his ability to 15 manipulate the steering wheel. l Id. The Court fmds police possessed sufficient probable cause 16 to arrest Defendant, thus the Court declines to exercise its discretion to dismiss the charges sua 17 sponte under 8 GCA § 80.70(c) and 9 GCA § 7.67. See People v. Perez, 2004 Guam 4 ~~ 8-12. 18

19 2. Probable Cause in the Complaint 20 Under Guam law, "where a person IS arrested without a warrant ... the prosecuting 21 attorney shall file a complaint. .. and affidavits showing probable cause to believe that an offense 22 has been committed and that the defendant has committed it." 8 GCA § 4S.20(a). If the court 23

24

25

26 I Police may not disregard facts tending to dissipate probable cause. us. v. Lopez, 482 F.3d 1067, 1073 (9th 27 Cir.2007). However, here police investigated Defendant's exculpatory claim and found it to be unsubstantiated and controverted by other evidence. Even if evidence at trial later reveals a genuine mechanical failure of Defendant's 28 automobile, this does not invalidate the arrest given sufficient probable cause which existed at the time of arrest.

See Krause v. Bennett, 887 F.2d 362, 370 (2d Cir.1989)

finds no probable cause to believe that the defendant committed an offense, it must dismiss the 2 complaint and discharge the defendant at or before his first appearance. 8 GCA § 45.20(b).2 3 The judicial review of probable cause was added to 8 GCA § 45.20 in order to satisfy 4 the Fourth Amendment requirement that a judge determine probable cause promptly after a 5 warrantless arrest and as a condition of pretrial detention. See 8 GCA § 45.20, NOTE (citing 6 Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)). This probable cause inquiry is limited to the 7 prevention of unjustified pretrial custody, and 8 [t]he perspective taken in Gerstein is clearly from the post-arrest position. While an arrest and, therefore, a possibly unconstitutional invasion might be a "fait 9 accompli," the Fourth Amendment's protection extends beyond the initial seizure 10 to continuing detention, and post-arrest review serves to prevent continued violation.

11 us. v. Fernandez-Guzman, 577 F.2d 1093, 1097-1098 (7th Cir. 1978), cert. denied 439 12 U.S. 954 (1978). See also Gerstein 420 U.S. at 123 ("The Fourth Amendment probable cause determination is addressed only to pretrial custody.").

13

14 For these reasons, a post-arrest complaint that is carelessly drafted without probable

15 cause risks immediate dismissal with the discharge of a defendant and further serves as

16 impeachment evidence in the suppression of an illegal arrest. Fernandez-Guzman, 577 F.2d at

17 1100. See also 8 GCA § 45.20(b).

18 In this case, Defendant was arrested without a warrant and brought before the Magistrate

19 Judge by the complaint and affidavit of the Attorney General. The Magistrate Judge confined

20 Defendant subject to a cash bond of $1,000.00. The Magistrate Judge did not dismiss the

21 complaint or discharge Defendant for the lack of probable cause under 8 GCA 45.20(b).

22 Defendant provides no authority to reconsider the first judicial determination of probable cause

23 for pretrial custody, and the Court is averse to exercise its discretion to do so absent clear error,

24 changed circumstances, or manifest injustice. See People v. Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 ~ 13.

25

26

27 2 Defendant advises dismissal under 8 GCA § 15.20, which is the pre-arrest standard of probable cause to obtain a warrant and does not provide for the dismissal of a complaint. Section 15.20 is not applicable to this case where a 28 complaint based upon a warrantless arrest may be dismissed for the lack ofprobabJe cause under 8 GCA § 45.20.

The parties do not allege and the Court does not find clear error, changed circumstances 2 or manifest injustice after the Magistrate's decision to confine Defendant. The Magistrate's 3 finding of probable cause that Defendant committed DUI and reckless driving is plausible in 4 light of the allegations that Defendant lost control of his vehicle at a high rate of speed, swerved 5 multiple times, hit another vehicle, smelled of alcohol, had bloodshot and watery eyes, and 6 admitted to drinking beer. See Hualde, 1999 Guam 3 at ~ 16 (citing Us. v. Alexander, 106 F.3d 7 874, 876-877 (9th Cir. 1997) ("for clear error, we must not reverse as long as the findings are 8 plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety.")). Furthermore, no manifest injustice 9 results from the Magistrate's decision to confine and later release Defendant under a personal 10 recognizance bond and without a significant restraint on his liberty. See Gerstein, 420 U.S. at 11 114 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3146). For these reasons, the Court shall not reconsider the 12 Magistrate's determination of probable cause and the complaint shall not be dismissed on this

13 basis. 14 The Court is mindful of the jurisdictional issues which may be raised by a less-than- 15 skillfully drafted criminal complaint. See e.g. State v. Boyd, 214 A.2d 1125, 1127 (Conn. 1990) 16 (insufficiency of evidence at a probable cause hearing deprives trial court of personal 17 jurisdiction). However, the Court is not convinced that jurisdiction is lost on the basis of an 18 imperfect complaint when the law holds jurisdiction is not lost even in the event of a 19 warrantless arrest made without sufficient probable cause. See Us. v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463, 20 474 n. 20,100 S.Ct. 1244, 1251 n. 20, 63 L.Ed.2d 537 (1980) (an illegal arrest is not a bar to 21 prosecution but it may be effectively foreclosed by excluded evidence). For this reason, the 22 Court shall not dismiss the complaint sua sponte for a lack of jurisdiction. 23 III

24 III 25 III 26 2 CONCLUSION 3 Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant's motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED. 4

5 SO ORDERED this day of December, 2012. 6

7

8

9

10 c.:::i.~--

Judge, Superior Court of Guam

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page 60f6