{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f172\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols;}{\f175\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f176\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}{\f178\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;} {\f179\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f180\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f181\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}{\f182\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;} {\f183\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255; \red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{ \s16\ql \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pndec }\faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 Quick I.;}{\*\ts17\tsrowd\trbrdrt\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrl \brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrb\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrh\brdrs\brdrw10 \trbrdrv\brdrs\brdrw10 \trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \sbasedon11 \snext17 \styrsid267616 Table Grid;}}{\*\listtable{\list\listtemplateid0\listsimple{\listlevel\levelnfc1\levelnfcn1\leveljc0\leveljcn0\levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0 {\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}\b \s16\jclisttab\tx720 }{\listname ;}\listid1}}{\*\listoverridetable{\listoverride\listid1\listoverridecount1{\lfolevel\listoverridestartat\listoverrideformat{\listlevel\levelnfc1\levelnfcn1\leveljc0\leveljcn0 \levelfollow0\levelstartat1\levelspace0\levelindent0{\leveltext\'02\'00.;}{\levelnumbers\'01;}}}\ls1}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid267616\rsid360439\rsid2239452\rsid5458716\rsid7106821\rsid9437834\rsid9508377\rsid13243727}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;} {\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min2}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy15\hr11\min47}{\version7}{\edmins7}{\nofpages14}{\nofwords5650}{\nofchars32206}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam} {\nofcharsws37781}{\vern16391}}\paperw11905\paperh16837\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot360439 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid360439 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid360439 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid360439 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid360439 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid360439\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9025\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 People of Guam v. Melvin Santos}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 , 1999 Guam 1, Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 PAGE } }{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\langnp2057\insrsid13243727 5}}}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 of 20 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-19\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid13243727 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10465\shpbottom19\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}} {\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9025\dpysize19\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-258\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \fi-5040\li5040\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin5040\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 PEOPLE OF GUAM,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid2239452 Plaintiff-Appellant, \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 vs.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \fi-4320\li4320\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin4320\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 MELVIN ROSARIO SANTOS,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid2239452 Defendant-Appellee. \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452\charrsid5458716 OPINION}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid2239452 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452\charrsid5458716 Supreme Court Case}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452\charrsid5458716 CRA97-005}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452\charrsid5458716 Superior Court Case}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452\charrsid5458716 CF0243-95}{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid2239452 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Filed: February 1, 1999 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cite as:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 1999 Guam 1}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Submitted without oral argument December, 1997 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts17\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4620\clshdrawnil \cellx4512\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4621\clshdrawnil \cellx9133\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid267616\yts17 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant:}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 \par Gerad E}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 gan, Assistant Attorney General}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 \par Office of the Attorney General \par Prosecution Division \par 2-200E, Judicial Center Building \par 120 West O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5458716\yts17 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 \cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid267616\yts17 { \ul\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 Counsels for Defendant-Appellee:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 \par Michael Bordallo, Esq. \par Marcele}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 ne Santos, Esq., (On the Brief)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 \par Phillips and Bordallo, P.C. \par 410 West O}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616\charrsid5458716 Brien Drive \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid5458716\yts17 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 \cell }\pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts17\trgaph108\trleft-108\trftsWidth1\trftsWidthB3\trautofit1\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tbllkhdrrows\tbllklastrow\tbllkhdrcols\tbllklastcol \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4620\clshdrawnil \cellx4512\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrtbl \clbrdrl\brdrtbl \clbrdrb\brdrtbl \clbrdrr\brdrtbl \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4621\clshdrawnil \cellx9133\row }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid267616 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 BEFORE: PETER C. SIGUENZA, Chief Justice, JANET HEALY WEEKS and BENJAMIN J.F. CRUZ, Associate Justices.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\caps\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid2239452 Siguenza, C.J.: \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [1]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The People of Guam appeal the lower court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s decision to suppress drug evidence found d uring the warrantless search of the home of Melvin Santos, the Defendant-Appellee.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The People specifically appeal the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s finding that Santos}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent was obtained by coercion.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 They also appeal the trial court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s failure to find that exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716\charrsid5458716 \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [2]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The evidence presented at the suppression hearing shows the consent obtaine d by the police was voluntarily given by Santos.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, our review of the record indicates that probable cause, a prerequisite to a finding of exigent circumstances,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 was never established by the prosecutor.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, we reverse the lower court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s suppression of evidence based on its finding that the consent was coerced.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Because probable cause was never established, we do not reach the issue of whether exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 I.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid13243727 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [3]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab On May 8, 1995, the Guam Police Department conducted a warrantless search of the}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 home of Melvin Santos.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 They acted based on a tip indicating Michael Gimenez, an escaped prisoner, was hiding in a shack located behind Santos}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 residence.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The information received by the police indicated Santos was also providing firearms to the escapee.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [4]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Acting upon the information, the police assembled in the late morning of May 8, 1995 near Santos}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Mangilao residence.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The participating officers were then briefed on the general layout of the residence and given specific assignments as to the search.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The briefing took place during a five to ten minute time period.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [5]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The police, wearing their regular black battle dress uniforms, entered upon the property with weapons drawn.}{ \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 See}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Plaintiff-Appellant}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 s Excerpt of Record, P. 62. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The officers encountered Santos and another male individual.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The police then informed Santos they were looking for the escaped prisoner and requested Santos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent to search a structure consisting of an office, paint shop, and garage.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 The residence was also searched after consent was obtained. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Santos verbally consented and a search followed.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Immediately upon entering the structure, the police observed a weapon on a table.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Because the structure was not yet secure, the police began searching for other weapons and found another behind a door.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Santos himself, upon police request, retrieved a weapon for inspection.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In addition, a gun case was also found with Santos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 name on it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The gun case was closed and Santos was asked if the case could be opened.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 He consented and opened the case himself.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 When Santos did this, both crystal methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia were found.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [6]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Based on the discovered drugs, both a Magistrate}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s Complaint and an arrest warrant were issued on May 13, 1995.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The police apprehended and arrested Santos on May 13, 1995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 On May 22, 1995, the Grand Jury indicted Melvin Santos for Possession of a Controlled Substance, a third degree felony. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [7]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Santos filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 He asserted that his consent was obtained by police coercion rather than his voluntary assent.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 As support, Santos signed and attached an affidavit to his motion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Through the affidavit, he asserted the police had pointed guns at him and told him to put his hands in the air.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The affidavit further indicated that the police told Santos he could either be detained until a search warrant was obtained or he could consent to the search.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [8]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab As a result of Santos}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 motion, the trial court held a suppression hearing on December 13, 1996.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Santos did not testify, nor was his affidavit introduced or otherwise admitted into evidence during the hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Instead, only officer Manuel A. Chong, the People}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s witness, testified at the hearing. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [9]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In a Decision and Order issued on February 26, 1997, the trial court suppressed}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 evidence obtained in the search.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Although the Decision and Order was filed in Superior Court case CF243-95, we treat the appeal as one arising from CF245-95. Both the r ecord and the Decision and Order clearly address the factual and legal issues arising from this latter case. Alternatively, Superior Court case CF243-95 is such a closely related matter involving Santos that the trial court tracked it together with CF245 -95. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Essentially, the trial court first held that exigent circumstances did not exist justifying the warrantless search because speed was not essential to the police action.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court emphasized the police had more than a short time to obtain a search warrant as evidenced by their ability to meet and conduct a briefing before the search.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [10]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The trial court also found the other warrant exception submitted by the People was not present in this matter.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Voluntary consent to search his home, the court held, was not given by Santos.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court wrote }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 regardless of what was said by Officer Chong, the Defendant was asked if police could search the area while several guns were pointed at him.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Thus,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 the evidence was a product of coercion.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [11]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The People consequently filed this timely appeal. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 II. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [12]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab As a threshold issue, the court must consider whether the trial judge properly used and relied upon the affidavit attached to the defendant}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s motion in deciding to suppress the evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This is an evidentiary issue and we begin our review by examining Title 6 of the Guam Code Annotated entitled the Guam Rules of Evidence.}{ \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Although codified as sections of the Guam Code Annotated, we refer and identify the provisions of Title 6 as the Rules of Evidence. }}} {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [13]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The applicability of the rules of evidence to lower court proceedings is addressed in Rule 1101.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The pertinent sections read as follows:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (b) }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 General Applicability}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . These Rules apply generally to civil actions and proceedings, to criminal cases and proceedings, to contempt proceedings except those in which the court may act summarily.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (c) }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rule of privilege}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . The Rule with respect to privileges applies at all stages of all actions, cases, and proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (d) }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rules inapplicable}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . The Rules (other than with respect to privileges) do not apply in the following situations:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (1) Preliminary questions of fact. The determination of questions of fact preliminary to admissibility of evidence when the issue is to be determined by the court under 104.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . . .}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li1440\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin1440\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (3) Miscellaneous proceedings.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Proceeding for extradition or rendition; p reliminary examinations in criminal cases; sentencing, or granting or revoking probation; issuance of warrants for arrest, criminal summonses, and search warrants; and proceedings with respect to release on bail or otherwise.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 6 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 1101 (1994).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [14]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Rule 1101(b) broadly applies the Rules of Evidence to all civil actions and proceedings, to criminal cases and proceedings, and to contempt proceedings except those in which the court acts summarily.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, Rule 1101(d)(1)}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Rule 1101(d)(3) limits the applicability of the rules in specific proceedings. } }}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 limits this general statement by excluding certain determinations from the application of Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s evidentiary rules.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Specifically, the rules are inapplicable to a court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s preliminary determination of a question of fact made prior to the admissibility of evidence and pursuant to Rule 104.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [15]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Likewise, Rule 104 reiterates the court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s responsibility to make determinations as to the existence of a condition upon which the admissibility of evidence rests.}{\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Rule 104 states:}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin720\itap0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 (a) }{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Questions of admissibility generally}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 . Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making its determination i t is not bound by the Rules of Evidence except those with respect to privileges. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 (b) }{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Relevancy conditioned on fact}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 . W hen the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfilment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfilment of the condition. \par (c) }{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Hearing of jury}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 . ... Hearin gs on preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require or, when an accused is a witness, if he so requests. \par (d) }{\b\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Testimony by accused}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 . The accused does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, subject himself to cross-ex aminations to other issues in the case. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 6 GCA 104(a), (c) & (d) (1993). }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This rule also specifically and unequivocally frees the trial judge from the strictures of the Rules of Evidence in making such a determination.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [16]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Rule 104 and Rule 1101(d)(1) govern the scope and use of the rules of evidence in suppression hearings}{ \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Using the rules of evidence as authority to assert that the very same rules do not apply at a suppression hearing obviously creates what appears to be a problematic analysis. A l iteral reading of Rule 1101(d) would exclude its own application, as well as the application of Rule 104, to proceedings which these rules were intended to apply. For example, Rule 1101(c) specifically states that privileges shall apply to all stages of all cases. Rule 1101(d), if read literally, would nullify this language by making the entire rule inapplicable to proceedings surrounding preliminary questions of fact. This construction is absurd and such a result is clearly an unintended result. Con sequently, we construe these rules in a manner that gives meaning to the legislative intent. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 .}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 When read together, these statutes indicate the Rules of Evidence do not apply to suppression hearings.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 By filing a motion to suppress, a defendant essentially asks a trial court to exclude evidence he asserts was improperly obtained by the police.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A proceeding conducted for this purpose is one that necessarily requires the court to determine the existence or nonexistence of specific facts prior to the admission of evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This type of determination falls outside the scope of the Guam}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s evidentiary rules.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [17]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The United States Supreme Court has previously addressed the same issue in }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Matlock}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 415 U.S. 164, 94 S.Ct. 988 (1974).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The Court, discussing Federal Rules of Evidence 104 and 1104, reversed decisions of the lower courts suppressing evidence obtained from a warrantless search.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Hea rsay evidence was presented at the suppression hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . at 994.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The Court stated }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 it should be recalled that the rules of evidence normally applicable in criminal trials do not operate with full force at hear ings before the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 994.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rules applicable to trials versus evidentiary rules applicable to other types of proceedings were distinguishable because the matters to be proved at these proceedings were different.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id. citing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Brinegar v. United States}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 338 U.S. 160, 69 S.Ct. 1302 (1949) (discussing the distinct differences in a determination of probable cause}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 and a determination of guilt in a criminal trial).}{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 There is a large difference between the two things to be proved, as well as between the tribunals which determine them, and therefore a like difference in the quanta and modes of proof required to establish them.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [18]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In discussing the then recently submitted Rule 104(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Matlock}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid13243727 Court wrote:}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [t]hat the same rules of evidence governing criminal jury trials are not generally thought to govern hearings before a judge to determine evidentiary questions was confirmed . . . when the Court transmitted to Congress the proposed Federal Rule of Evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rule 104(a) provides that preliminary questions concerning admissibility are matters for the judge and that in performing this function he is not bound by the Rules of Evidence except those with respect to privileges.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Essentially the same language on the scope of the proposed Rules}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 is repeated in Rule 1101(d)(1). }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716\charrsid5458716 \par }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 173-174, 94 S.Ct. at 994.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, in proceedings where the judge considers the admissibility of evidence, the rules, aside from those governing}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 privilege, are not applicable, and the judge should receive and properly weigh evidence based on his judgment and experience.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 . at 995.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See United States v. Lee}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 541 F.2d 1145 (5}{\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1976); and }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 State v. Wright}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 843 P.2d 436 (Or. 1992).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [19]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab We hold that the Guam Rules of Evidence do not apply to suppression hearings.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The trial courts should be free to c onsider all evidence, including affidavits and other reliable hearsay, when making determinations of preliminary facts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Lee}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 541 F.2d at 1146.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A trial judge, based on his or her experience, is in the best position to weigh and determine the credibility of evidence received at a suppression hearing. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [20]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Our pronouncement should not be read to say that procedural safeguards that may be embodied in the Rules of Evidence cannot be employed during a suppression hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In many instances, due process standards would require these procedural safeguards to be used.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 For example, in }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Brewer}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 947 F.2d 404, 409 (9}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit held that the exclusion of witnesses from the courtroom, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 615, was required during a suppression hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rule 615 was a procedural rule designed to enhance the search for the truth and went directly to the fairness of the proceeding.}{ \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 The}{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Brewer}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 court also announced that the Rules of Evidence would be applied to hearings on motions to suppress evidence. For the reasons stated in this opinion, we do not adopt the Ninth Circuit}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 s pronouncement. }}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, in order to protect the integrity and fairness of the proceedings, trial courts may employ the procedural safeguards of the Rules of Evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 We believe this pronouncement will enhance the search for truth without hindrance by considerations of admissibility.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [21]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab While a trial judge may use an affidavit when deciding factual disputes at a suppression hearing, the affidavit nevertheless must first be introduced at the hearing and placed before the court for its consideration.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 When material facts are disputed, conflicting assertions should be resolved by evidence taken during the hearing.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See eg. United States v. Gardner}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 611 F.2d 770, 774 n.2 (9}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1980).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Receiving evidence allows the trial court to use its judgment and experience to properly weigh that which has been placed before it.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Matlock}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 415 U.S. at 175, 94 S.Ct. at 988. }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [22]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Conversely, an affidavit in the court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s file but not introduced during the hearing, is not evidence for purposes of a suppression hearing.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 An affidavit used in this context serves a different purpose.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Specifically, it is used to help a trial court decide whether, in its discretion, to hold an evidentiary hearing.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See, e.g. United States v. Walczak}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 783 F.2d 852 (9}{\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1986).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 An evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress ordinarily is required if the moving papers are sufficiently definite, specific, detailed, and nonconjectural to enable the court to conc lude that contested issues of fact going to the validity of the search are in issue.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 857.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 After reviewing the motion, opposition, and the attached affidavits, if any, the court must determine if material facts surrounding the search are in dispute.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 If it so finds, a hearing should be held, the court should receive evidence, pro and con, and resolve the dispute.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [23]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Use of an affidavit without notice or presentation calls into question the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Obviously, all parties are placed at a severe disadvantage when information, not placed before the court during a hearing, is later considered in a decision.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Without proper notice or introduction of the information, neither party can properly address critical issues nor questions that may otherwise be explained, clarified, or confirmed by receiving the evidence during the hearing.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [24]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Even if introduced for the court}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s consideration, an affidavit should be given little weight, if any, when government witnesses testify at suppression hearings and a defendant, who originally submitted the affidavit, does not.}{ \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 { \cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Both Gu am law and case authority support the notion that a defendant can testify on his or her own behalf at a suppression hearing without sacrificing his or her personal rights. Guam Rule of Evidence 104(d);}{ \i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Simmons v. United States}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 , 390 U.S. 377, 88 S.Ct. 967 (1968); }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 United States v. Batiste}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 , 868 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 th}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Cir. 1989)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 .}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Gardner,}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 611 F.2d 774, n.2.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Obviously, giving weight to an affidavit under these circumstances would allow assertions contained in the document to be considered without complete scrutiny as to disputed facts.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 At the same time, the credibility of the proponent would escape the close investigation that only examination by the opponent could bring.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This appears to be the concern behind the long established principle of evidence }{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [t]hat if weaker and less satisfactory evidence is offered, when it appears that stronger and more satisfactory evidence was within the power of the party, the evidence offered should be viewed with distrust.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 6 GCA }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 8101 (1994).}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [25]}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Our review of the record indicates the affidavit attached to the motion was never introduced at the hearing.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In addition, notice was not given that the trial court was considering the document for purposes of the decision.}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Although introduction of an affidavit is absent from the record, it is clear from the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s written decision that the document was considered and used as the basis to suppress the evidence.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, the trial court}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s factual findings will be disregarded to the extent the affidavit was relied upon.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Moreover, we give no weight to the assertions contained in the affidavit.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Finally, because no evidence was received to contradict the People}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s position, our decision on the merits is based solely on the testimony of the government}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s witness and the undisputed facts.}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid5458716 }{\i\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Garcia}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 890 F.2d 355, 359 (11}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1989) }{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (finding that the trial court acted properly by relying on evidence of consent introduced solely by the government witnesses while the defendant }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 did not testify.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Thus, the trial court was compelled to rely on uncontradicted testimony of the government witnesses).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 III.}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [26]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Under 8 GCA }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 20.15(a)(4)(1993), a warrantless arrest is permitted when a person escapes}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 from jail or lawful custody.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, this warrantless arrest provision does not apply to searches of a third party}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s home when agents of the government are looking for the escapee.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Either a warrant must be obtained or a recognized exception must be applicable.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [27]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The United States Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Steagald v. United States}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 451 U.S. 204, 101 S.Ct. 1642 (1981).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 DEA agents entered the home of the defendant, with an arrest warrant, looking for another named individual.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Although the named individual was not found, in the course of searching the home, the DEA agents found cocaine and other evidence of illegal activity.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 206-207, 101 S.Ct. at 1644-45.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [28]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Steagald}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 court held the search to be unreasonable.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 1653.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 An arrest warrant naming one individual did not permit a search of another individual}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s home.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Thus, for purposes of the search, the intrusion into the home was warrantless and absent consent or exigent circumstances, it was improper.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 1648-50.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [29]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Two distinct interests are implicated under these circumstances.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 First, the named individual}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s interest in being free from an unreasonable seizure; and second, the homeowner}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s interest in being free from an unreasonable search of his home. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The arrest warrant only addressed the former interest and did not cover the homeowner}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s residence. }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Thus, the government}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s conduct was equivalent to a search without a warrant. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [30]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The matter before this court is quite similar.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Guam police entered Santos}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 residence in search of a different person.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 They did so, not pursuant to a warrant, but under the legal authority of 8 GCA }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 20.15(a)(4).}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 As in }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Steagald}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , during the search for the other individual, evidence of illegal activity was found and formed the basis of charges later filed against him.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 We similarly hold 8 GCA }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 20.15(a)(4) does not permit a warrantless search of a third party}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s home while looking for an escaped prisoner.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The third party}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s interest in being free from an unreasonable search in his or her home is separate and distinct from the interest implicated in 8 GCA }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 20.15(a)(4).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, in order to search the home of another person, we hold that either a search warrant must be obtained or a recognized warrant exception must be applicable to the search.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 IV.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [31]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The factual findings relied upon by the trial court are generally reviewed for clear error.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 People of the Territory of Guam v. Johnson}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 1997 Guam 9, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 3.}{\i\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, the trial court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s application of the facts to the law is reviewed }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 de novo}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 .}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.; United States v. Garcia}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 890 F.2d 355 (11}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1989)(finding consent voluntary although the defendant was handcuffed and after police initially refused to accept a defendant }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s conditional search of his home).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [32]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Normally deference is given to a judge}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s findings of fact because credibility issues are involved.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Garcia}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 890 F.2d 355, 358 (11}{ \super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1989).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, when a defendant does not introduce evidence contradicting the government}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s evidence regarding the circumstances under which the agents elicited consent,}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 neither credibility nor veracity is at issue.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 360.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consequently, the matter becomes an issue of law, rather than fact, and }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 de novo}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 review is appropriate.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [33]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Voluntary consent to search is a recognized exception to the warrant requirement.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See Schneckloth v. Bustamonte}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 412 U.S. 218, 93 S.Ct. 2041 (1973); }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Rothman}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 492 F.2d 1260 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1973).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Police may search an area, without probable cause, over which the person possesses adequate authority.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Matlock}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 415 U.S. at 171, 94 S.Ct. at 993. Moreover, consent need not amount to a waiver; it can be voluntary without being an }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Schneckloth}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 412 U.S. at 235, 93 S.Ct at 2052 (quoting }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Johnson v. Zerbst}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 1023 (1938)).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The prosecution has the burden of proving the voluntary nature of the consent by a preponderance of the evidence.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Matlock}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 415 U.S. at 177, 94 S.Ct. at 996.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [34]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The test for consent is voluntariness and is determined from all the circumstances of a particular case.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rothman}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 492 F.2d at 1264 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A court is required to carefully sift through the unique facts and circumstances of each case. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id. }{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Thus, a balance can be struck between the defendant}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s right to be free from coercive conduct and the government}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s legitimate need to conduct lawful searches. }{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Schneckloth, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 412 U.S. at 227, 93 S.Ct at 2048.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [35]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The federal circuits consider different factors when deciding the issue of voluntariness.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 For example, the Ninth Circuit in }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Castillo}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 866 F.2d 1071 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1988) listed several factors for consideration: 1) Whether the defendant was in custody; 2) Whether the arresting officers have their weapo ns drawn; 3) Whether Miranda warnings have been given; 4) Whether the defendant was told he has a right not to consent, and 5) Whether the defendant was told a search warrant could be obtained. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 1072 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [36]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Likewise, the Eighth Ci rcuit has also listed factors for consideration including: 1) Whether the consenting person was detained and the length of time of the questioning; 2) Whether the consenting person was threatened, physically intimidated, or punished by the police; 3) Whet h er the person relied upon promises or misrepresentations made by the police; 4) Whether the person was in custody or under arrest when the consent was given; 5) Whether the person was in a public or a secluded place; or whether the person objected to the search or stood by silently while the search occurred.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Chaidez, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 906 F.2d 377, 381 (8}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [37]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab This court views the listed factors as potential considerations to be used to ascertain the facts and circumstances that determine the voluntariness of consent given in a particular case.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 While helpful, the above factors are not exhaustive.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 One factor alone is not dispositive of a particular situation. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Castillo}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 866 F.2d at 1082.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 These factors should not be applied mechanically, because }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [t]he concept of reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Chaidez}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 906 F.2d at 381. }{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [38]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In suppressing the evidence, the judge failed to consider the totality of the circumstances when ruling Santos}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent was coerced.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court seemed to completely disregard both the law and the officer}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s testimony by writing}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [i]t is clear from the evidence that regardle ss of what was said by Officer Chong, the Defendant was asked if police could search the area while several guns were pointed at him.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Based on the case law presented, this Court must find that Defendant}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s consent was not voluntary and was a product of coercion by the Guam Police Department.}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [39]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab We disagree with this blanket conclusion.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The lower court focused upon one factor only when deciding the consent issue -- th e manner in which weapons were displayed to the defendant while consent was sought.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 While this show of force should be properly considered, }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 see United States v. Chan-Jimenez}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 125 F.3d 1324, 1328 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1997), this, in and of itself, is not a controlling or determinative factor as to voluntary consent. }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Childs}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 944 F.2d 491 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1991)(finding voluntary consent although weapons were drawn during the encounter; nothing in the record supported assertion that weapons were drawn at the time of requesting consent); }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Al-Azzawy}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 784 F.2d 890 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1985)(finding involuntary consent only after several factors were present: forcing the defendant to his knees, handcuffing defendant, and pointing weapons at the defendant).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [40]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab We acknowledge that a drawn weapon is an unsettling situation that could intimidate and create apprehension in an individual as to the authority of the police.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, we note that no evidence admitted into the hearing indicates that weapons were }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 pointing}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at Santos at the time consent was obtained.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This information was placed before the trial court only via the supporting affidavit which accompanied the motion.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [41]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Even if weapons were pointed at the defendant at the time of consent, this single factor alone does not make the consent coerced.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The totality of the circumstances test mandates that all relevant circumstances be considered in determining the voluntariness of the consent.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 For example, ot her facts that should also be considered include: 1) Santos was told that the search was for the escaped prisoner; 2) Santos was neither handcuffed nor arrested; 3) Santos, upon police request, was willing to retrieve weapons the police had not yet found; and 4) Finally, Santos himself opened the gun case when asked if it could be searched.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [42]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab While these facts appear to cut against a finding of coercion, even when balanced against the fact of drawn weapons, we will defer to the trial court and require a second suppression hearing consistent with the standards set forth above.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Specifically, the trial court shall use the totality of the circumstances test, balancing relevant factors surrounding consent and the credibility of those witnesses presenting evidence.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 V. }{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [43]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab For the reasons expressed in the text of this opinion, we need not and do not reach the merits as to whether exigent circumstances existed at the time of the search.}{\i\insrsid5458716 \par }{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 VI.}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [44]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab We therefore }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 REVERSE}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 the order suppressing the discovered evidence and }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 REMAND}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 the matter back to the trial court for a new suppression hearing conducted consistent with the guidelines set forth above. }{ \insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 JANET HEALY WEEKS\tab \tab \tab \tab PETER C. SIGUENZA}{\insrsid5458716 \par }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Associate Justice\tab \tab \tab \tab \tab }{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Chief Justice}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 CRUZ, J.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , concurring in part, dissenting in part.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [45]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab I concur in the court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s finding that the trial court failed to establish probable cause for the warrantless search, a prerequisite to the admissibility of evidence under the exigent circumstances or hot pursuit exception.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, as to the holding that the Rules of Evidence do not apply, or rather that only certain Rules apply to suppression hearings on a piecemeal basis, I disagree and accordingly dissent.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Additionally, I do not agree with the court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s characterization of Santos}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent as voluntary.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court has chosen to i gnore key facts which not only directly put at issue the voluntariness of the consent, but also exhibit the existence of actual coercion by the police.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [46]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Unless Guam has become the world}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s newest neo-Nazi regime in the Pacific, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at the end of the barrel of at least four (4) pistols being wielded by men wearing }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 black dress uniforms . . . flack jackets, . . . helmets, goggles . . . so you couldn}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 t see [their] eyes,}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at high noon, can only be }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 voluntary}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 in a Robocop sequel but not in a civilized democratic society.} {\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Excerpts of Record at page 62.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [47]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The trial court correctly concluded that the consent was obtained by coercion.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 That conclusion was wel l founded in the trial court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s decision, which should have been affirmed by this court.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The only error committed by the trial court was allowing defense counsel to prevail in restricting those who could testify at the suppression hearing.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [48]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The trial court and the People should remember that the proper standard for determining the validity of a warrantless search based upon consent is that the government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the ev idence, that the consent was freely and voluntarily given.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Schneckloth}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 412 U.S. at 222, 93 S.Ct. at 2045; }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Matlock}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 415 U.S. at 177, 94 S.Ct. at 996.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 That standard can be met only if the People are given the opportunity to present as witnesses those indivi duals with personal knowledge of what has transpired.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The People undermined their own case when they failed to call Officer Arthur G. Cruz who allegedly recovered the narcotics and Sergeants Jude Remotigue and Ben Acfalle who allegedly supervised this operation.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Plaintiff-Appellant Excerpts of Record at pages 45, 47.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par {\pntext\pard\plain\s16 \insrsid5458716 \hich\af0\dbch\af0\loch\f0 I.\tab}}\pard\plain \s16\qc \fi-720\li720\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\jclisttab\tx720{\*\pn \pnlvlbody\ilvl0\ls1\pnrnot0\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent360\pnsp120 {\pntxta .}} \faauto\ls1\rin0\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Suppression Hearings}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard\plain \qj \fi-709\li709\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin709\itap0\pararsid5458716 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [49]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In making a motion to suppress, the defendant must identify the items sought to be suppressed and state }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 with particularity the grounds upon which the motion is based,}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 evidence was obtained through a Fourth Amendment violation.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 State v. Johnson}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 519 P.2d 1053 (Or. 1974).}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A motion to suppress is, in effect, a pleading to the extent that it frames the issues to be determined in a pretrial hearing on the motion.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The fundamental role of a pleading is to give an opposing party notice of the pleader}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s position concerning the facts and law so that the opposing party can begin to prepare his defense.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A pleading thus both defines and limits the areas of consideration at trial or other evidentiary hearing.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Furthermore, the pleading assists the court in the conduct of the trial, for example, by enabling the court to determine the relevance of offered evidence.}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 1057.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Simply stated, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 a motion to suppress should be as reasonably specific as pos sible under the circumstances in order to give the state as much notice as possible of the contentions it must be prepared to meet at the suppression hearing.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 LaFave, 5 Search & Seizure (3d Ed.) }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 11.2.}{\i\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [50]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Some jurisdictions require accompanying affidavits in support of the defendant}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s allegations presenting a factual basis to sustain the motion.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 ; }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 see State v. Miller}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 521 P.2d 1330 (Or. 1974).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Such affidavit, if made by the defendant, also affords the same protection from being introduced at trial against the defendant.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [51]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The defendant bears the burden of proof when a search or seizure is conducted pursuant to a warrant; however, the People bear the burden of proof when a warrantless search or seizure occurs.}{\cs15\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 The difference in the two situations can be explained by the fact that if a search is made pursuant to a warrant therein lies a presumption of legality, without which the necessity to obtain warrants would be obviated.}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at p. 3.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Accordingly, the Court in }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Bumper v. North Carolina}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 391 U.S. 543, 549, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 1792 (1 968), noted that, in a search based upon consent, the burden is always on the People and such burden cannot be borne }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In the situations of warrantless searches, it is incumbent upon the People to justify their position.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [H]istory shows that the police acting on their own cannot be trusted.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 And so the Constitution requires a magistrate to pass on the desires of the police before they violate the privacy of the home.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 We cannot be true to that constitutional requirement and excuse the absence of a search warrant without a showing by those who seek exemption from the constitutional mandate that the exigencies of the situation made that course imperative.}{ \insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 McDonald v. United States}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 335 U.S. 451, 455-456, 69 S.Ct. 191, 193 (1948).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Further support for placing the burden on the government can be found in }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Judd v. United States}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 190 F.2d 649, 651 (D.C. Cir. 1951 ), where the defendant was held in custody at the time consent was given and the court indicated that consent, under the circumstances, was }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 not in accordance with human experience,}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 and suggested that voluntary consent is so improbable that it is the government who should be required to prove such.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 II.}{\b\insrsid5458716 }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Consent: Voluntariness}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [52]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Having determined that the proper standard for determining the validity of a warrantless search based upon consent is that the government bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the consent was freely and voluntarily given,}{\cs15\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Schneckloth}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 , 412 U.S. at 222, 93 S.Ct. at 2045; }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Matlock, }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 415 U.S. at 177, 94 S.Ct. at 996.}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 it is also clear that }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [a] trial court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s finding on voluntariness should not be overturned unless it is clearly erroneous.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 I believe there was evidence presented to contradict the government}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 s position. Accordingly, the clearly erroneous standard is applicable. }}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Al-Azzawy}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 784 F.2d at 895.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Evidence regarding consent should be viewed in the light most favorable to the trial court.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 United States v. Spires}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 3 F.3d 1234, 1236-37 (9}{\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 th}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Cir. 1993).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In this case, the trial court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s ruling that Santos}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 consent was involuntary was not clearly erroneous.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [53]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The majority holds that drawn guns are not dispositive of coercion, warranting a finding of involuntary consent.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Instead, they choose to downplay the coercive nature of drawn guns and find that it is but a factor to consider when determining whether consent is voluntarily given.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Voluntariness of consent is to be determined based on the totality of the circumstances in any given case.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rothman}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 492 F.2d at 1264.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 However, I believe that such circumstances create an unreasonably coercive situation which warrants great weight to be given to this factor.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The trial court relied on cases which supported its position that the consent in this case was not voluntary.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In the }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Al-Azzawy}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 case, not only was the defendant approached by police officers with their guns drawn, he was forced to remain on his knees with his hands above his head, and he was not advised of his Miranda rights nor his right not to consent to the search.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Al-Azzawy}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 784 F.2d at 895.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [54]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Rodriquez v. State}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 , 559 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Ark. 1978), the defendant was pulled over and consented to the search of his trunk by armed officers.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 It was disputed as to whether the defendant actually consented to the search and he claimed that after asking the officer if he had a search warrant, the officer patted his gun and said it was the only search warrant he needed. }{ \i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court concluded that it could not sustain a finding that the consent was voluntary.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 At the time he [the defendant] was apparently surrounded by armed police officers.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 We pointed out . . . that the State has the burden of proving that consent was freely and voluntarily given.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 This burden cannot be discharged by showing no more than acquiescence to a claim of lawful authority.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 We went on to say that consent must be proved by clear and positive testimony.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 It must also be shown there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Here the proof of consent cannot be said to be clear and positive, nor can it fairly be said that there was no implied coercion.}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id. }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [55]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab L ikewise in this case, Officer Chong testified that the officers were dressed in black battle dress uniforms with helmets and goggles on, carrying pistols, Santos was not advised he did not need to consent to the search, and although Santos was not handcuf fed, }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 he was told to stay in one place until we were done searching.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\cs15\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 The court in }{\i\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 Stamper v. State}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 , 662 P.2d 82, 87 n. 7 (1983), observed that }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 whether guns are drawn or holstered}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{ \fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 could be a coercive factor.}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Plaintiff-Appellant}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s Excerpts of Record at 62.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Several of the facto rs enumerated by both the Eighth and Ninth Circuits have been satisfied so as to tip the scale against the People.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The facts and circumstances provide sufficient evidence to support the determination that consent was obtained by coercion, thus involuntarily given, and should not be disturbed on appeal.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 See also}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 People v. Challoner,}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 136 Cal. App. 3d 779, 782, 186 Cal. Rptr. 458, 460 (1982) (holding that }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [c]onsent to search given in response to a request by an armed officer whose gun is drawn is suspect.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Such consent may well be obtained by coercion and hence not voluntary.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 A person so confronted might reasonably believe that he was not free to refuse the permission sought.}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 ).}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The trial court was in the best position to gauge credibility of the witness and acted within its authority in making the legal determination that the consent was not valid.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 III.}{\b\insrsid5458716 }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Guam Rules of Evidence}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [56]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab The court has taken the position that the question of admissibility of evidence is a preliminary question of fact to which the Rules of Evidence do not apply, and that it is up to the trial court to determine admissibility based on a trial judge}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s own experience and good judgment.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The court, citing } {\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Brewer,}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 also recognizes that in order to ensure due process it may be necessary for the Rules of Evidence to apply to suppression hearings.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 In order to protect the integrity and fairness of the proceedings, the majority would have the trial courts apply only portions of the Rules of Evidence at suppression hearings.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [57]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab In the }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Brewer}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 case, the Ninth Circuit examined Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 104 and determined th at because the Rule did not specifically exclude the FREs from applying to suppression hearings}{\cs15\super\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\lang2057\langfe1033\super\langnp2057\insrsid360439 \chftn }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 6 GCA }{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f172\fs20}}}{\fs20\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 1101(d)(1)}{\lang2057\langfe1033\langnp2057\insrsid360439 .}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 the Rules were therefore applicable.}{ \insrsid5458716 }{\i\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Id.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 at 408-409.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 I believe that the court}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s position in this case does not enhance the search for the truth, but instead creates a breeding ground for complications and inconsistencies.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Confusion is created by loosely applying such language as }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 trial courts may employ the procedural safeguards of the Rules of Evidence.}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 To make such a ruling provides the trial courts with no real guidance for determining when to apply what may or may not be a seemingly }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 procedural safeguard}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 provided by the Rules of Evidence.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 The wide latitude of discretion given to the trial judges opens the door to a problem which occurs all too often in the legal system }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 the exception swallowing the rule.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 To first say the Rules of Evidence do not apply, then immediately turn around and contradict that rule by stating the Rules of Evidence do apply when such is necessary to comport with standards of due process, causes the initial rule to become ineffective and leave the tr ial courts with an exception that is illusory.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 IV.}{\b\insrsid5458716 }{\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 CONCLUSION}{\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid5458716 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\b\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 [58]}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 \tab Based on the foregoing, I cannot, in good conscience, join in the majority}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s opinion.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Although I agree with the majority}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f172\fs24}}}{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 s ruling that exigent circumstances was not a proper exception to the warrant requirement in this case because no probable cause was determined, its analysis and decision as to the consent issue is flawed.}{\insrsid5458716 }{ \insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Considering the totality of the circumstances and giving deference to the trial court, the voluntariness of the consent is highly questionable.}{\insrsid5458716 }{\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 Furthermore, in order to provide the trial courts with proper guidance as to conducting suppression hearings, the Rules of Evidence must apply and must apply in its entirety.}{\insrsid5458716 \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid5458716 {\insrsid360439\charrsid5458716 BENJAMIN J. F. CRUZ \par Associate Justice \par }}