IN THE SUPERIOR COURT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

FILED

November 07, 2023 02:41 PM
ST-2022-CR-00268
TAMARA CHARLES
CLERK OF THE COURT

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN

THE PEOPLE OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS,

Plaintiff, Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268

VS.

ANGEL ALEJANDRO GUERRERO,

)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant. )
)

Cite as 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ql THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant Angel Alejandro Guerrero’s
(“Guerrero” or “Defendant”) Motion to Suppress, filed July 6, 2023. The People of the Virgin
Islands (the ‘“People”) did not file a response to the motion. The suppression hearing was held on
September 19, 2023. Assistant Attorney General Eugene James Connor, Jr. represented the
People. Defendant Guerrero appeared and was represented by Clive C. Rivers, Esq. The People
called Virgin Islands Police Department Officer Roger Arroyo as a witness, and he was the only

witness. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will deny Defendant’s motion.

BACKGROUND

q2 The People have charged Guerrero in a four count Information, as follows: Count One,
Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm with Conversion Kit and Extended Magazine, in violation
of V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14 §§ 2253(e), 2253(d)(9); Count Two, Unauthorized Possession of a
Firearm Within One Thousand Feet of a School, in violation of V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14 §

2253(f); Count Three, Unauthorized Possession of a Firearm, in violation of V.I. CODE ANN.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 2 of 12

tit. 14 § 2253(a); and Count Four, Unauthorized Possession of Ammunition, in violation of V.1.
CODE ANN. tit. 14 § 2256(a)(3)(4). Defendant moves to suppress the tangible evidence as well
as the statements he made at the scene.

FACTS

q3 On September 3, 2022, Officer Roger Arroyo, a member of VIPD’s Special Operations
unit, was attending a Roll Call session with other officers. During Roll Call, Sergeant G.
Alexander (“Sergeant Alexander”) received a phone call from VIPD’s Intel Investigation Unit, in
which an undercover officer in that unit reported on a possible shooting to take place at a
particular bar (“Bar’’) in the Savan area of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands. The description of the two
suspects that was relayed to Officer Arroyo, and other officers in Roll Call, was: one Hispanic
male wearing a jersey-style shirt and one Black male wearing a white shirt and black pants.
Because the Intel Unit consistently provided credible information, the Special Operations unit
deemed the tip credible and executed a plan to go to the Bar.

q4 Officer Arroyo drove the lead car to the Bar. As he arrived, Officer Arroyo observed two
persons standing immediately outside of the Bar that fit the description provided by Sergeant
Alexander. Officer Arroyo testified that he was laser focused on the suspects and could not
recall whether any other individuals were at the Bar when he arrived. As the officers approached
the two suspects, the Black male suspect wearing a white shirt took off on foot and Officer
Arroyo pursued him. The Hispanic male suspect attempted to leave the area in another direction.
q5 The Black male suspect ran down a nearby alley with a firearm. But Arroyo lost sight of

that suspect and that suspect fled the scene without apprehension.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 3 of 12

q6 Officer Arroyo subsequently returned to his police unit located in front of the Bar to relay

the events to the team. As Officer Arroyo approached the Bar, he observed Sergeant Esprit
walking with the other suspect. The suspect wearing the jersey was identified as Guerrero, the
Defendant in the instant case. Sergeant Esprit relayed to Officer Arroyo that he had conducted a
pat down of Guerrero, which revealed ammunition and a magazine in his pocket. In addition,
Officer Dowe told Arroyo that he witnessed Guerrero “toss a gun” under a nearby parked
vehicle. Officer Arroyo testified that the statements Guerrero made at the scene were not in
response to any questions because VIPD had not posed any questions to Guerrero.

q7 While Officer Arroyo watched Guerrero, Sergeant Esprit inspected the surrounding area
and located the firearm underneath a parked vehicle, which the forensics team later retrieved. In
addition, the ammunition found in Guerrero’s pocket matched the firearm retrieved at the scene.
qs After Dowe pointed out the gun tossed under the vehicle, Officer Arroyo read Guerrero
his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest.

LEGAL STANDARD

q9 The burden of proof is originally on the defendant to establish a basis for a motion to
suppress evidence under the Fourth Amendment or a statement under the Fifth Amendment.
People v. Gumbs, 2023 VI SUPER 16U, § 12 (citing People v. Roa, No. ST-17-CR-36, 

, at *2 (V.I. Super. Ct. June 29, 2017) (citing People of the Virgin Islands v. Lloyd, 

, *6 (V.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 29, 2015)); see also People v. Azzam, No. ST-16-CR-
232, 

, at *1 (V.I. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2017). If the defendant succeeds in

demonstrating a warrantless search or seizure occurred, the burden then shifts to “the
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 4 of 12

government to show that each individual act constituting a search or seizure under the Fourth
Amendment was reasonable.” Gumbs, 2023 VI SUPER 16U, § 12 (citing Roa, No. ST-17-CR-
36, 

, at *2).

q10 Likewise, in the case of a violation of the Fifth Amendment, once “the accused alleges
facts demonstrating that the accused was in custody and subject to interrogation, the burden
shifts to the People to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the police complied with
Miranda and that the statement was voluntary.” Gumbs, 2023 VI SUPER 16U, 4 12 (Azzam, No.
ST-16-CR-232, 

, at *1 (citing Colorado v. Connelly, 

 (1986)).

DISCUSSION

11 Guerrero seeks to suppress the evidence seized from his person, the statements made at
the time of arrest, and the firearm located at the scene. Guerrero argues that the People have
failed to meet their burden in proving that the evidence should not be suppressed since VIPD did
not have a valid warrant. He also argues the People failed to meet their burden because they did
not call Sergeant Esprit — the law enforcement officer who patted down Arroyo — as a witness
during the hearing. The People counter that reasonable suspicion existed at the time of
Guerrero’s apprehension resulting in the ultimate discovery of the evidence at issue, and that the
People need not call every possible witness during a suppression hearing. Further, the People
argue that Officer Arroyo’s testimony established enough evidence to meet the People’s burden

of proof and to deny the motion to suppress.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion
Page 5 of 12
I. The seizure of the items found on Guerrero and the firearm under a parked

vehicle did not violate the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights.

a. Fourth Amendment — Legal Standard
412 Guerrero argues the search and seizure at the time of arrest were not reasonable under the
Fourth Amendment. Moreover, Guerrero asserts that the People failed to meet their burden at the
suppression hearing by only calling Officer Arroyo as a witness.
13 The Fourth Amendment guarantees the right of people “to be secure in their persons ...
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” People v. Martin, 2019 VI SUPER
149U, § 14 (citing Whren v. United States, 

 (1996)); U.S. CONST. amend. IV.
For a search or seizure to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, it typically must be
executed pursuant to a valid search warrant based on probable cause. Nicholas v. People, 

 (V.I. 2012). Generally, a warrantless search or seizure is per se unreasonable unless an
exception applies. Thomas v. People, 63 V.1. 595, 605 (V.I. 2015) (citing Katz v. United States,

 (1967)).

b. Items on Person
414 Guerrero argues that the ammunition and extended magazine seized from the pat-down
should be suppressed as it was acquired under a warrantless search. The Defendant asserts that
the People failed to meet their burden in showing that reasonable suspicion existed under the
Fourth Amendment to justify the warrantless search. Further, at the suppression hearing the
Defendant argued that the People should have at least called additional witnesses, such as
Sergeant Esprit, to adequately meet their burden. Defendant was particularly interested in the pat

down and what object Esprit believed he felt in Defendant’s pocket.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 6 of 12

415 An exception to the warrant requirements provides that where an officer has “reasonable
and articulable suspicion of criminal activity,” the Fourth Amendment permits limited search and
seizure of the individual. Terry v. Ohio, 

 (1968); see also Blyden v. People of the
Virgin Islands, 53 V.1. 637, 647-48 (V.I. 2010) (quoting United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 

 (1975)). Further, reasonable suspicion “need not rise to the level of probable
cause—as the circumstances triggering reasonable suspicion necessitate swift action—but such
suspicion must nonetheless suffice “a minimal level of objective justification.” People v.
Martin, 

, § 15 (Illinois v. Wardlow, 

 (2000)). As such,
reasonable suspicion may be found if the officer can “point to specific and articulable facts
which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the]
intrusion.” Martin, J 15 (citing Terry, 

 (footnote omitted)). However, a warrantless
search pursuant to a Terry stop still must be reasonable under the scope of the Fourth
Amendment. Terry, 

.

{16 The Fourth Amendment states that the Defendant bears the burden of showing a search or
seizure occurred without a warrant. Gumbs, § 12 (citing Roa, No. ST-17-CR-36, 

, at *2). Here, it is not disputed that the Officer’s search was not supported by a search
warrant. Accordingly, the burden then shifts to the People to demonstrate that reasonable
suspicion justified the search. /d. The People argue that Officer Arroyo’s testimony is sufficient
to show reasonable suspicion existed and that they need not call additional witnesses for the
suppression hearing. The Virgin Islands Superior Court states that reasonable suspicion exists if

an officer can “point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 7 of 12

inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant [the] intrusion.” Martin, 15 (citing Terry, 

 (footnote omitted)).

417 In the instant case, law enforcement received a reliable tip from the VIPD Intel
Investigation Unit about a possible shooting to take place and a description of the two suspects.
Upon arrival at the Bar, Officer Arroyo testified that he observed and approached the two
suspects who fit the description, one of whom was Guerrero. Both suspects fled on foot in
different directions before Officer Arroyo could gather information from them. As such, the tip
provided by the Intel unit along with witnessing the two suspects take flight provided reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. The officers’ suspicion was therefore based on
“articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably
warrant [the] intrusion.” Jd.

q18 Virgin Islands law also permits law enforcement to conduct a pat-down of the outer
clothing of an individual if the officer believes the individual is “wearing, carrying, or
transporting a firearm,” provided that the officer also believes the person is presently dangerous.
Martin, {| 15 (citing People of the Virgin Islands v. Murrell, 56 V.1. 796, 808 (2012) (discussing
23 V.I.C. § 488(a)). Probable cause for arrest may be found if evidence of a crime is revealed
during the stop. Id. (citing Blyden, 53 V.1. 651 (finding probable cause to exist after finding a
firearm on the defendant during a lawful Terry stop). Here, the Intel Unit provided reliable
information about a possible shooting to take place. As such, it was reasonable for the officer to
believe the Defendant was armed, thereby warranting a lawful Terry stop of Guerrero after he
ran. Officer Arroyo’s testimony further provided that the pat-down of Guerrero’s outer clothing

revealed ammunition and an extended magazine, both of which indicated evidence of a crime.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 8 of 12

q19 — Finally, the Defendant has pointed to no legal authority that requires the prosecution to
provide a certain number of witnesses to meet their burden during a suppression hearing. The
Court also cannot find any governing source or authority in Virgin Islands law that supports the
assertion that the People are required to call certain witnesses to demonstrate that reasonable
suspicion existed at the suppression hearing. Additionally, the Court notes that Officer Arroyo
was required to give his testimony under oath at the hearing.
q20 As such, the People met their burden by calling Officer Arroyo to testify as to the events
he personally observed as an officer on the scene leading up to Guerrero’s arrest. Therefore, the
Court finds the initial stop and seizure of items found on Guerrero was reasonable under Fourth
Amendment standards.

c. Firearm
421 Guerrero argues that the firearm recovered by forensics at the scene should be
suppressed. According to the Defendant, the firearm located underneath the parked vehicle is
encompassed under the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
422 The Virgin Islands Supreme Court has not yet considered whether a defendant is entitled
to a reasonable expectation of privacy in abandoned property. However, the Third Circuit has
clearly held that a “defendant lacks such an expectation of privacy in property that he has
voluntarily abandoned.” United States v. Fulani, 

 (3d Cir. 2004). Without the
expectation of privacy in voluntarily abandoned property, a defendant lacks standing to assert
that the seizure of the property violates the Fourth Amendment. Abel v. United States, 

 (1960).
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 9 of 12

423. Moreover, Virgin Islands Courts have recognized that a defendant does not have a
reasonable expectation in abandoned property. People v. Bethel, No. SX-14-CR-246, 

, * 4 (V.I. Super. Ct. Aug. 4, 2017) (backpack allegedly discarded by Defendant before
being seized constituted abandoned property and therefore not excludable); see also United
States v. Wrensford, No. 2013-0003, 

 at *6, 

 at
*13-15 (D.V.I. Feb. 6, 2023). However, the “property may be seized as abandoned only if it is
found that the appellant was not seized at the time . . . and that such abandonment was
voluntary.” Edwards v. Virgin Islands, 

, 1, 

(D.V.I. Nov. 30, 2004)

q24 In the instant case, nothing gleaned from the suppression hearing indicates that the
firearm was on Guerrero at the time he was detained. Rather, Officer Dowe told Arroyo that-he
witnessed Guerrero “toss a gun” under a nearby parked vehicle prior to being handcuffed by
officers. A subsequent search of the surrounding area revealed a firearm located underneath a
parked vehicle. Consequently, the Defendant’s argument that the firearm should be suppressed

fails as it constitutes abandoned property not protected by the Fourth Amendment.

II. The voluntary statements made by Guerrero to VIPD were not in violation of
his Fifth Amendment rights.

a. Fifth Amendment — Legal Standard

q25 The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “no person ... shall

be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty,
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 10 of 12

or property, without due process of law.” U.S. CONST. amend. V. On that basis, an officer must
provide Miranda warnings whenever a suspect is subject to custodial interrogations. Castillo v.
People, 

 (V.I. 2013) (citing Miranda y. Arizona, 

 (1966)).
When an individual is in custody, they are “deprived of freedom of action in any significant
way.” Ramirez v. People, 

 (V.I. 2012) (citing United States v. Thompson, 

 (7th Cir. 2007)). One is subject to “interrogation” when “the Defendant responds
to express questioning or its functional equivalent—words or actions reasonably likely to elicit
an incriminating response.” Gumbs, § 28 (citing Azzam, No. ST-16-CR-232, 

,
at *1.).

b. Guerrero was not interrogated.

26 Guerrero asserts that the statements made to law enforcement during his detainment
should be suppressed under the Fifth Amendment. Further, the Defendant argued in the
suppression hearing that the People have not met the burden by a preponderance of the evidence
that the police complied with Miranda and that the statement was voluntary.” Gumbs, J 12
(citing Azzam, No. ST-16-CR-232, 

, at *1 (citing Colorado, 

(1986)).

(27 A suspect’s Fifth Amendment right can be waived if they made a voluntary statement.
Castillo v. People, 

 (2013). Under Miranda, law enforcement must inform a
suspect in custody that he or she has certain rights before questioning the suspect. 

.
Nonetheless, a voluntary statement may be inadmissible if procured through a violation of the

Fourth Amendment. Jd. at 257.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 11 of 12

428 Here, the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop and question Guerrero as discussed
above. When Guerrero was detained, the officers conducted a pat-down of his outer clothing,
which revealed ammunition and an extended magazine. Additionally, Arroyo stated that when
the officers on the scene were communicating with one another about a firearm that allegedly
had been tossed under a vehicle, Guerrero voluntarily stated that he “found the gun nearby.”
Arroyo testified that Guerrero’s statements were voluntary and not in response to any questions
because they had not posed any questions to Guerrero. Once one of the officers announced they
had observed Guerrero toss a gun and it was observed under a vehicle, Arroyo instantly read
Guerrero his Miranda rights and placed him under arrest.

q29 The testimony provides that the statements made by Guerrero prior to his Miranda
warnings were voluntary and not in response to any questioning by the VIPD. As such, nothing
in the facts indicates that Guerrero’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated, warranting the
exclusion of the statements made to the VIPD. Thus, the admission of such statements made by
Guerrero does not violate his Fifth Amendment rights.

q30 As noted above in the analysis, this Court cannot find any legal authority that supports
the assertion that one witness’s testimony is insufficient to meet the burden of proof in a
suppression hearing. Arroyo’s testimony demonstrates that the statements were both voluntary
and not made in violation of Miranda. Additionally, Arroyo’s testimony is indispensable as he
was the officer who placed Guerrero under arrest and read him his Miranda warnings.
Consequently, Guerrero’s argument that the People have failed to meet their burden in showing
the statements should not be admissible fails. Thus, this Court finds that Guerrero’s Fifth

Amendment rights were not violated.
People v. Angel Guerrero

Case No. ST-2022-CR-00268 Cite as 

Memorandum Opinion

Page 12 of 12

CONCLUSION

431 The Court finds that the People’s presentation at the suppression hearing satisfies the
burden of proof for a suppression hearing. Further, the Court has not found any legal basis or
authority that requires parties to a suppression hearing to call a certain number of witnesses or
any particular witness to meet their burden of proof. The Court finds that Officer Arroyo’s
testimony regarding the tip provided by VIPD’s Intel Unit and Guerrero’s decision to flee when
officers approached the two suspects demonstrate reasonable suspicion. Thus, the recovery of the
ammunition, extended magazine, and firearm provided the officers with probable cause to arrest
the defendant. As a result, the Court finds that Guerrero is not entitled to suppression of the fruits
of the search.

432 Further, the statements made by Guerrero to VIPD before the Miranda warnings were
voluntary and not in response to any questioning by the officers. As such, the Court finds that
defendant is not entitled to a suppression of his statements.

An order consistent herewith will immediately follow.

DATED- Noveniber 4 2023 LV Ay, Leary ;

Kathleen Mackay
Judge of the Superior Court
ATTEST: of the Virgin Islands
TAMARA CHARLES

Clerk of the Court

BY: C
{o- LATOYA CAMACHO
Court Clerk Supervisor || /O7/ A%