People of Guam v Mansapit [2016] GUSC 30 (14 October 2016)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM,
Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

RAYMOND SIGUENZA MANSAPIT,
Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court Case No.: CRA15-037
Superior Court Case No.: CM1264-11

OPINION

Filed: October 14, 2016

Cite as: 2016 Guam 30

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
Argued and submitted on May 18, 2016

Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Defendant-Appellant: Suresh Sampath, Esq. Public Defender Service Corp. MVP Sinajana Commercial Bldg., Unit B 779 Route 4 Sinajana, GU 96910

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee: Yoav S. Sered, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Prosecution Division 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 706 Tamuning, GU 96913

BEFORE: ROBERT J. TORRES, Chief Justice; F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Associate Justice; KATHERINE A. MARAMAN, Associate Justice.

MARAMAN, J.:
[1] Defendant-Appellant Raymond Siguenza Mansapit appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained as the result of a traffic stop. Police received a tip regarding a man with weapons, and after continued contact with the tipster who remained in pursuit, the officers pulled over Mansapit’s vehicle. Following the stop, police subjected Mansapit to sobriety tests, finding him intoxicated. Mansapit maintains that neither the tip nor the observation of one vehicle following another on the roads of Guam provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and therefore the stop was unjustified. Mansapit moved to suppress evidence obtained as a result of the stop, which the trial court denied. Plaintiff-Appellee People of Guam (“the People”) argue that the trial court’s denial should be affirmed because the tipster and Mansapit were engaged in a chase-like situation sufficient to justify a stop.
[2] We hold that there was no reasonable suspicion justifying the traffic stop, and all evidence obtained therefrom should have been excluded. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s denial of Mansapit’s motion to suppress, vacate Mansapit’s guilty plea and sentence, and remand this matter to the trial court.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[3]