People of Guam v. Joseph Quichocho Taimanglo II (aka Joseph Quichocho Taimanglo; aka Baby Joe; aka Joseph Quintanilla Taimanglo II)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM

PEOPLE OF GUAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH QUICHOCHO TAIMANGLO II (aka Joseph Quichocho Taimanglo; aka Baby Joe; aka Joseph Quintanilla Taimanglo II), Defendant-Appellee.

Supreme Court Case No. CRA24-009 Superior Court Case No. CF0428-23

OPINION

Cite as: 2025 Guam 7

Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam Argued and submitted on February 21, 2025 Hagåtña, Guam

Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant: Appearing for Defendant-Appellee: Nathan M. Tennyson, Esq. Peter J. Santos, Esq. Acting Deputy Attorney General (former) Assistant Alternate Public Defender Office of the Attorney General Alternate Public Defender Appellate & Writing Division MVP Commercial Bldg. 590 S. Marine Corps Dr., Ste. 801 777 Route 4, Ste. 109 Tamuning, GU 96913 Sinajana, GU 96910 People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 2 of 20

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

CARBULLIDO, J.:

[1] Defendant-Appellee Joseph Quichocho Taimanglo II was the passenger of a vehicle

involved in a serious crash after a police chase. The vehicle veered out of control, went airborne,

did two 360-degree spins, and hit a concrete utility pole. Taimanglo exited the vehicle and began

running before being detained—but not arrested—by a police officer. Another officer

investigating the crash scene found a cell phone on the ground near the passenger side of the

vehicle. When Taimanglo saw the officer holding the phone he said, “That’s my cell phone.”

Although Taimanglo was detained, neither officer believed they had probable cause to arrest him.

Despite Taimanglo claiming ownership of the phone, the officer removed the phone’s case,

revealing a small baggie of methamphetamine. Taimanglo was charged with Possession of a

Schedule II Controlled Substance (as a Third Degree Felony). Taimanglo successfully moved to

suppress the evidence seized, arguing his Fourth Amendment rights were violated.

[2] Plaintiff-Appellant People of Guam (the “People”) appeal the trial court’s ruling, arguing

that if Taimanglo had any reasonable expectation of privacy in his phone, it was so diminished

that it was not violated by the officer’s search of his phone. The People also argue the trial court

applied the wrong legal standard. Alternatively, they claim that even if the search was illegal,

discovery of the contraband was inevitable. We conclude the trial court applied the correct legal

standard. Furthermore, the People did not preserve their lost property and inevitable discovery

claims for appellate review.

[3] We affirm. People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 3 of 20

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

[4] Taimanglo was the passenger of a white Volkswagen Jetta that was evading police. Guam

Police Department (“GPD”) officers began chasing the white sedan after the driver allegedly sped

off from a traffic stop. Multiple police officers driving multiple police cruisers engaged in the

chase, including Officers Isaiah Ibanez and Wilfred Skilling. As the chase wound through Dededo

and into Yigo, Officer Skilling became the lead car in the chase.

[5] Officer Ibanez testified that the vehicles involved in the chase were going faster than 60

miles per hour. Near the front gate of Andersen Air Force Base, the driver of the white sedan lost

control after attempting to turn and crashed into the base of a utility pole. Officer Skilling testified

that the vehicle “went airborne briefly, spun around two times, and then came to a complete stop.”

Transcript (“Tr.”) at 40 (Hr’g, Oct. 26, 2023). Officer Skilling testified that Taimanglo exited the

crashed vehicle from the passenger side door and began to run toward the base. Officer Skilling

chased Taimanglo and eventually detained him. Both officers testified that, at this time, Taimanglo

was not under arrest, and neither officer believed they had probable cause to arrest him for any

offense.

[6] Meanwhile, Officer Ibanez began to investigate the scene of the crash. Officer Ibanez

found two cell phones—one with a brown case—on the ground outside the passenger side of the

white sedan. Officer Ibanez gave contradictory testimony at the suppression hearing about what

happened next. Officer Ibanez’s testimony on direct examination contradicted what he wrote in

his police report. Id. at 27–28 (discussing timing of removing phone case). Faced with these

contradictions, the trial court made these findings of fact:

8. Officer Ibanez decided to remove the cover from the cell phone. He did so because in his experience, individuals sometimes leave their ID or bank cards inside the case of their cell phone.

.... People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 4 of 20

12. Immediately after Officer Ibanez began to remove the cell phone’s cover, Officer Skilling appeared nearby, escorting Defendant to one of the patrol cars.

13. When Defendant saw Officer Ibanez holding the cell phone with the cover on it, Defendant stated something like “yeah, that’s my cell phone.”

14. At this exact moment, according to the testimonies of Officer Skilling and Officer Ibanez, neither officer believed they had probable cause to make an arrest on Defendant.

15. Officer Ibanez nonetheless opened the cell phone case and found a “small clear resealable baggie” containing suspected methamphetamine.

Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 34 at 2–3 (Dec. & Order, Apr. 3, 2024) (citations omitted). After

a field test “yielded a ‘presumptive positive’” for methamphetamine, Officer Skilling arrested

Taimanglo. Id. at 3.

[7] Taimanglo was charged with Possession of a Schedule II Controlled Substance (as a Third

Degree Felony). Taimanglo moved to suppress the evidence seized, arguing Officer Ibanez’s

search of his phone violated the Fourth Amendment. The People argued that the protections of

the Fourth Amendment did not apply because Taimanglo had abandoned his phone, or,

alternatively, it was a valid inventory search.

[8] The trial court made these findings about the inventory search argument:

9. Officer Ibanez testified that whenever he is investigating a potential crime scene, he “conducts an inventory” and collects the personal property he finds.

10. Officer Ibanez testified that this practice is pursuant to established GPD policy, which allows officers to confiscate items either for “safekeeping or evidence.”

11. No written versions of the purported GPD policy (or policies) in question have been brought before the Court.

RA, tab 34 at 2–3 (Dec. & Order) (citations omitted).

[9] After the suppression hearing, the trial court granted the motion to suppress. The trial court

concluded that the evidence did not show that Taimanglo abandoned his cell phone. Relying on People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 5 of 20

Ninth Circuit precedent, the trial court stated, “Determining whether an object has been abandoned

is primarily ‘a question of intent,’ as an abandonment ‘must be voluntary.’” Id. at 5 (quoting

United States v. Stephens, 206 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir. 2000)). The court determined that although

the People’s burden of proof to show abandonment was unclear under federal case law, “two

important factors” to consider were (1) “denial of ownership” and (2) “physical relinquishment of

the property.” Id. (quoting United States v. Nordling, 804 F.2d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1986)). The

court found that Taimanglo “never denied ownership of the cell phone” and that this factor

weighed against finding abandonment. Id. On the second factor, the court found that the facts did

not establish that Taimanglo “intentionally relinquished” his phone:

Neither Officer Ibanez nor Officer Skilling testified that they saw Defendant drop, throw, or otherwise intentionally give up control of the phone. And while in some cases it may [be] reasonable to assume a cell phone could only be away from a person’s body by a voluntary act, the facts here show that Defendant had just been involved in a serious car crash. The testimony of the officers indicates that in the crash, the vehicle veered out of control, went “airborne,” and did two “360 spins.” The cell phone was then found very near to the crash site. Under these circumstances, the cell phone could have been inadvertently ejected from the vehicle during the crash, or inadvertently lost as Defendant exited from the vehicle.

Id. at 6 (citation omitted). The trial court held that the People failed to prove abandonment—

whether the standard was “clear and convincing evidence” or “a preponderance of the evidence”—

because “it is at least as likely that Defendant inadvertently lost his cell phone during or

immediately after the car crash as that he intentionally abandoned it before fleeing from police.”

Id. The trial court concluded that “a person may not abandon property for Fourth Amendment

purposes by mere loss, carelessness, or accident.” Id. (quoting United States v. Sparks, 806 F.3d

1323, 1353 (11th Cir. 2015) (Martin, C.J., dissenting)).

[10] The court then accepted the People’s characterization of the search of the phone as an

“inventory search” but found that it violated the Fourth Amendment. Id. at 7–9. The trial court

stated that not “all inventory searches are constitutionally permissible” and concluded that, to be People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 6 of 20

valid, an inventory search must be “conducted in good-faith according to standardized criteria,

such as a police-department uniform inventory search policy, and this criterion must curtail the

discretion of the searching officer so as to prevent searches from becoming a ruse for a general

rummaging in order to discover incriminating evidence.” Id. at 7 (quoting United States v. Stitt,

382 F. App’x 253, 255 (4th Cir. 2010)). The court emphasized that nearly all the inventory search

cases it reviewed dealt with searches that occurred after a defendant had been arrested, and that

the People did not explain how a pre-arrest search could still meet the exception. Id. The court

emphasized that “an inventory search must be conducted pursuant to a valid departmental policy”

and that “no written version of that policy was presented to the Court, and the testimony suggested

that this policy is extremely broad in scope.” Id. at 7–8.

[11] The trial court concluded that it did not “have sufficient evidence to determine whether

there are appropriate safeguards on the GPD policy that apparently authorized this search. And

where such safeguards cannot be ascertained, the inventory search cannot be upheld as an

exception to the Fourth Amendment.” Id. at 9. The court stated it was “reluctant to apply an

exception to the Fourth Amendment, not previously recognized by the Supreme Court of Guam,

without either persuasive case law supporting the application or at least a clear presentation of

GPD’s inventory search policy.” Id.

[12] The People timely appealed the suppression of the evidence.

II. JURISDICTION

[13] We have jurisdiction over an appeal from a Superior Court order granting a motion

to suppress evidence. 48 U.S.C.A. § 1424-1(a)(2) (Westlaw through Pub. L. 119-36 (2025)); 7

GCA §§ 3107, 3108(b) (2005); 8 GCA §§ 130.20(a)(6), 130.40 (2005).

//

// People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 7 of 20

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[14] Our review of a trial court’s suppression of evidence is two-part: the “court’s factual

findings are reviewed for clear error” while its application of the law to the facts is reviewed de

novo. People v. Viva, 2023 Guam 24 ¶ 12. “When the People appeal a decision granting a motion

to suppress, the facts are construed in the light most favorable to the defendant.” Id. (citing People

v. Camacho, 2023 Guam 9 ¶ 13). “A finding is clearly erroneous when, even though some

evidence supports it, the entire record produces the definite and firm conviction that the court

below committed a mistake.” Id. (quoting People v. Mansapit, 2016 Guam 30 ¶ 8). “We accept

the trial court’s findings of fact unless the entire record makes clear that a mistake was made.” Id.

[15] “Whether property has been abandoned within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment is

an issue of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v. Gonzales, 979 F.2d 711, 712 (9th Cir.

1992).

[16] A preserved claim of inevitable discovery presents a mixed question of law and fact, which

we review for clear error. United States v. Lang, 149 F.3d 1044, 1047 (9th Cir.), amended by, 157

F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 1998). However, given the fact-sensitive nature of the inquiry, we will decline

to address inevitable discovery arguments not raised by the government in the trial court when it

appeals a decision granting a motion to suppress.

IV. ANALYSIS

[17] The People argue that if the Fourth Amendment applies to lost property, it was not violated

in this case, and that the trial court “applied the facts of this case to an incorrect legal standard.”

Appellant’s Br. at 18 (Sep. 9, 2024). The People have also changed their inventory search

argument on appeal; they no longer claim the search of Taimanglo’s phone was a valid inventory

search. See Appellant’s Reply Br. at 3 (Nov. 22, 2024). Instead, they claim that even if the People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 8 of 20

evidence were the fruit of an illegal search, it inevitably would have been discovered during a later

inventory search. Appellant’s Br. at 19. The arguments raised by the People lack merit.

[18] “[T]he ultimate touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is ‘reasonableness.’” Brigham City

v. Stuart, 547 U.S. 398, 403 (2006). The trial court applied the correct legal standard when it

concluded this government intrusion into Taimanglo’s privacy was unreasonable. Furthermore,

the People’s arguments about lost property and inevitable discovery are raised for the first time on

appeal. We decline to address them.

[19] Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed, “Because the strongest advocates of Fourth

Amendment rights are frequently criminals, it is easy to forget that our interpretations of such

rights apply to the innocent and the guilty alike.” United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 11 (1989)

(Marshall, J., dissenting). This case presents an example of the “general, exploratory rummaging

in a person’s belongings” the Fourth Amendment was designed to prevent. See United States v.

Galpin, 720 F.3d 436, 445 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443, 467

(1971)). We affirm the trial court’s suppression of the evidence seized after an illegal search.

A. The Trial Court Applied the Correct Legal Standard for Abandonment under the Fourth Amendment

[20] The People claim, “The Trial Court applied the facts of this case to an incorrect legal

standard.” Appellant’s Br. at 18. They argue the trial court erred when it “focused solely on Mr.

Taimanglo’s lack of subjective intent to abandon his cell phone, rather than the objective facts

indicating Mr. Taimanglo’s abandonment of his reasonable expectation of privacy in the cell

phone.” Id. at 15. They claim the correct standard is “whether there exists a reasonable and

objective expectation of privacy, as opposed to an analysis of ownership rights.” Id. at 18.

Apparently, the People believe the correct standard for abandonment under the Fourth Amendment

is the test articulated by California courts. See id. at 15–18 (citing People v. Shepherd, 28 Cal. People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 9 of 20

Rptr. 2d 458 (Ct. App. 1994); In re Baraka H., 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d 221 (Ct. App. 1992); People v.

Juan, 221 Cal. Rptr. 338 (Ct. App. 1985)). However, these arguments overlook the trial court’s

correct citation and application of Ninth Circuit precedent to determine whether property is

abandoned for Fourth Amendment purposes. We reject the People’s arguments and adopt the

Ninth Circuit standard applied by the trial court.

[21] The Fourth Amendment protects the right of people to be secure in their “effects” against

unreasonable search and seizure. U.S. Const. amend. IV; 48 U.S.C.A. § 1421b(u) (extending

Fourth Amendment to people of Guam); see also 48 U.S.CA. § 1421b(c). “Cell phones plainly

qualify as ‘effects’ under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.” In re Application for Tel. Info.

Needed for a Crim. Investigation, 119 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1019 (N.D. Cal. 2015). “Since the time

of its framing, ‘the central concern underlying the Fourth Amendment’ has been ensuring that law

enforcement officials do not have ‘unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s

private effects.’” United States v. Wurie, 728 F.3d 1, 14 (1st Cir. 2013) (quoting Arizona v. Gant,

556 U.S. 332, 345 (2009)), aff’d sub nom., Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014). “Warrantless

searches and seizures are per se unreasonable, subject to a few specifically established and well-

delineated exceptions.” Camacho, 2023 Guam 9 ¶ 15. One such exception is abandonment. Abel

v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 241 (1960) (“There can be nothing unlawful in the Government’s

appropriation of . . . abandoned property.”).

[22] The U.S. Supreme Court has long recognized that the Fourth Amendment does not protect

abandoned property, e.g., id.; Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57, 58 (1924), but it has yet to

articulate a test for determining whether property is abandoned for Fourth Amendment purposes.

No single test has been universally adopted to define when property is considered abandoned. The

Ninth Circuit has stated: People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 10 of 20

The inquiry should focus on whether, through words, acts or other objective indications, a person has relinquished a reasonable expectation of privacy in the property at the time of the search or seizure. This determination is to be made in light of the totality of circumstances, and two important factors are denial of ownership and physical relinquishment of the property.

Nordling, 804 F.2d at 1469 (citations omitted). Generally, the federal courts have analyzed

abandonment under the expectation of privacy framework established by Katz v. United States,

389 U.S. 347 (1967), that looks at subjective and objective privacy expectations. E.g., United

States v. Sledge, 650 F.2d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 1981) (“If one who has abandoned property from

all outward appearances in fact has retained a subjective expectation of privacy, then a search of

the property is nevertheless valid if that expectation is intrinsically unreasonable . . . .”); United

States v. Chavez, 985 F.3d 1234, 1240 (10th Cir. 2021); United States v. Ramirez, 67 F.4th 693,

696–98 (5th Cir.) (“We are unaware of any cases expounding on the interplay between

abandonment and Jones’s property-rights rubric.” (citing United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400

(2012))), revised and superseded, No. 22-50042, 2023 WL 5925902 (5th Cir. May 10, 2023). The

government has the burden of proving abandonment by a preponderance of the evidence. United

States v. Linn, 880 F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1989) (“Any exception to the Fourth Amendment

warrant requirement must be proven by a preponderance of evidence, and this burden is upon the

government.”), abrogated on other grounds by, Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999).

[23] The People’s arguments about abandonment focus on whether the trial court gave enough

consideration to reasonable expectations of privacy. The People argued that the “keystone of this

appeal is the meaning of ‘abandonment’ under the Fourth Amendment.” Appellant’s Br. at 6. But

then, in their reply, the People claimed they “do not argue that Mr. Taimanglo abandoned his

phone, nor do they claim he intended to abandon it.” Reply Br. at 1. They argue, “Taimanglo’s

departure from the scene, coupled with his failure to retrieve his lost property, undermines any

reasonable expectation of privacy in external portions of the phone potentially containing People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 11 of 20

identifying information.” Id. at 2. However, whether Taimanglo abandoned his phone is a

threshold issue for determining if his expectation of privacy was reasonable.

[24] The trial court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent to evaluate the People’s claim that

Taimanglo’s phone was abandoned. See RA, tab 34 at 5 (Dec. & Order) (quoting Nordling, 804

F.2d at 1469). Although the People argue that the trial court applied the wrong legal standard,

they fail to explain how the trial court misapprehended the Ninth Circuit’s test or why the Ninth

Circuit standard is incorrect. The trial court correctly articulated the legal standard adopted in the

Ninth Circuit and several other jurisdictions, e.g., United States v. Crumble, 878 F.3d 656, 659

(8th Cir. 2018); United States v. Basinski, 226 F.3d 829, 837 (7th Cir. 2000); State v. Prior, 973

N.W.2d 726, 744 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022); People v. Pitman, 813 N.E.2d 93, 105 (Ill. 2004); Knight

v. Commonwealth, 734 S.E.2d 716, 722 (Va. Ct. App. 2012); State v. Valles, 2019 ND 108, ¶ 7,

925 N.W.2d 404, 408.

[25] The standard the People advance was discussed by the California Supreme Court in 2008:

“[T]he intent to abandon is determined by objective factors, not the defendant’s subjective intent. ‘Abandonment is primarily a question of intent, and intent may be inferred from words, acts, and other objective facts. Abandonment here is not meant in the strict property-right sense, but rests instead on whether the person so relinquished his interest in the property that he no longer retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in it at the time of the search.’”

People v. Parson, 187 P.3d 1, 11 (Cal. 2008) (alteration in original) (internal citations omitted)

(quoting People v. Daggs, 34 Cal. Rptr. 3d 649, 652 (Ct. App. 2005)). Contrary to the People’s

arguments, nothing about the California and Ninth Circuit standards are necessarily incompatible.

California courts have fit Nordling’s “disclaimer of ownership” factor into their standard. E.g., In

re Baraka H., 8 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 226 (stating disclaimer cases can be viewed through the lens of

whether society will “recognize an asserted privacy expectation as ‘reasonable’” (citing cases

including Nordling, 804 F.2d at 1469–70)). Although framed in terms of privacy, California cases People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 12 of 20

also consider whether a defendant physically relinquished the property. See Daggs, 34 Cal. Rptr.

3d at 654 (“[W]hen the owner fails to take normal precautions after leaving property unattended

in a public place, the owner has relinquished a reasonable expectation of privacy . . . .”). The

People seem to argue that by relying on the Ninth Circuit standard, the trial court focused solely

on subjective intent. See Appellant’s Br. at 15. But this is incorrect, as the Ninth Circuit has held

that abandonment is to be determined by reference to the objective manifestation of an individual’s

intent. United States v. Kendall, 655 F.2d 199, 200 (9th Cir. 1981). The variation in how different

courts articulate the legal standard to determine abandonment does not mean the trial court erred

in relying on the Ninth Circuit’s standard.

[26] A review of abandonment cases underscores the validity of the Ninth Circuit’s standard (as

articulated in Nordling). The Seventh Circuit explained there are generally three types of

abandonment cases: (1) those “characterized by the presence of a fleeing defendant who

relinquishes an object to make his flight easier or because discarding the item might make it easier

for him to later claim that he never possessed it,” (2) “garbage cases” where “the defendant places

material in or near a refuse receptacle that is readily accessible to the public, and in which he

usually places other discarded materials,” or (3) where “the defendant is usually caught red-handed

with or near a container of contraband, whereupon he denies that the container or its contents are

his.” Basinski, 226 F.3d at 837 (citations omitted). These three categories of cases can be further

reduced to either physical relinquishment of property or denial of ownership. We agree with the

Seventh Circuit that when a case does not fit into the rubric of physical relinquishment or denial

of ownership, it “strongly suggests that no abandonment occurred.”1 See id.

1 This is not to say either factor is dispositive. Courts must still evaluate the totality of the circumstances. As the Ninth Circuit has said: “[N]one of our ‘abandonment’ cases has held that mere disavowal of ownership, without more, constitutes abandonment of a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy in that property.” United States v. Lopez-Cruz, 730 F.3d 803, 809 (9th Cir. 2013). People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 13 of 20

[27] The People were free to argue before the trial court that this case fit into the category of

cases characterized by a fleeing defendant who discards an item. But the trial court’s decision that

the People failed to meet their burden on this point does not mean the court applied the wrong

legal standard. The trial court accurately articulated the Ninth Circuit standard, and on appeal the

People fail to identify what precisely was incorrect about this legal standard. The trial court’s

articulation of the first factor under Nordling was correct. The People seem to imply that the trial

court used an incorrect standard for the physical-relinquishment factor when it focused on whether

Taimanglo “intentionally relinquished his cell phone” and whether the facts support an inference

of a voluntary act. See Appellant’s Br. at 15 (quoting RA, tab 34 at 6 (Dec. & Order)). But the

trial court relied on language from another Ninth Circuit case, United States v. Stephens, 206 F.3d

914 (9th Cir. 2000), where the court stated: “‘[A]bandonment is a question of intent.’ ‘An

abandonment must be voluntary, and an abandonment that results from Fourth Amendment

violation cannot be voluntary.’” 206 F.3d at 917 (first quoting Nordling, 804 F.2d at 1469; and

then quoting United States v. Austin, 66 F.3d 1115, 1118 (10th Cir. 1995)); see also RA, tab 34 at

5 (Dec. & Order) (quoting Stephens, 206 F.3d at 917).

[28] Whether property is abandoned for Fourth Amendment purposes is an issue of first

impression in this court. Because we review the trial court’s legal conclusions de novo, we are not

bound to adopt the Ninth Circuit standard used by the trial court. Although the People cite a

handful of California cases that describe the abandonment standard differently, they do not explain

why this court should adopt the California test in place of the Ninth Circuit standard, nor do they

adequately articulate why the Ninth Circuit standard is wrong.2 The People fail to explain why

2 The People do not challenge the trial court’s finding that the phone was not abandoned. This undercuts the People’s argument, as it seems to be a concession that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion under the California standard. The People make no attempt to show the trial court committed clear error when it found “it People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 14 of 20

relying on the Ninth Circuit standard was an error. We adopt the Ninth Circuit standard relied on

by the trial court as it is a correct articulation of the abandoned property doctrine. We find no

error.

B. We Do Not Address the Other Issues the People Raise for the First Time on Appeal

[29] “[T]he People bear the burden of proof when a warrantless search or seizure occurs.”

People v. Calhoun, 2014 Guam 26 ¶ 9 (quoting People v. Santos, 1999 Guam 1 ¶ 51). When the

People appeal the suppression of evidence, we will generally decline to consider arguments not

presented to the trial court. See Camacho, 2023 Guam 9 ¶ 16 n.3.

1. The People did not mention lost property in the trial court, and we decline to address it on appeal

[30] The People raise for the first time on appeal the theory that Taimanglo’s phone was “lost”

rather than “abandoned.” In their reply brief, the People distance themselves from the argument

that Taimanglo’s phone was abandoned and outside the protections of the Fourth Amendment; they

instead claim his diminished expectation of privacy in lost property was not violated. Reply Br. at

1–2. “As a general rule, this court will not evaluate an argument which was not presented for

consideration to the trial court.” People v. Mendiola, 2015 Guam 26 ¶ 26. This concern is

heightened in the Fourth Amendment context, where, “[e]ver mindful of the Fourth Amendment

and its history,” we are tasked with scrutinizing “practices that permit ‘police officers unbridled

is at least as likely that Defendant inadvertently lost his cell phone during or immediately after the car crash as that he intentionally abandoned it before fleeing from police.” Record on Appeal (“RA”), tab 34 at 6 (Dec. & Order, Apr. 3, 2024); see also United States v. Sinkler, 91 F. App’x 226, 232 n.8 (3d Cir. 2004) (holding that where the government searched a backpack found outside a vehicle involved in a high speed crash resulting from police chase, the government was required to prove defendant intended to toss the bag away, because “it seems just as likely that the impact of the collision caused the backpack to fly from the Jeep. If that is the case, it would be troubling to find that [defendant] somehow ‘abandoned’ it and gave up his Fourth Amendment rights with respect to its contents.”). Because the trial court found that the People failed to prove the cell phone was abandoned, the cases cited by the People that stand for the proposition that police can search abandoned property are unavailing. See Appellant’s Br. at 10–12 (Sep. 9, 2024).  People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 15 of 20

discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private effects.’” See Byrd v. United States, 584

U.S. 395, 403 (2018) (quoting Gant, 556 U.S. at 345).

[31] Some courts have recognized that an expectation of privacy may be diminished in lost

property. E.g., State v. Hamilton, 2003 MT 71, ¶ 26, 314 Mont. 507, 67 P.3d 871; State v. Ching,

678 P.2d 1088, 1092 (Haw. 1984) (“Although owners of lost property must expect some intrusion

by finders, common sense dictates that they do not forfeit all expectations of privacy in their

property as though they had intentionally abandoned it.”). But “state courts that have addressed

searches of lost property have uniformly held that persons retain a reasonable expectation of privacy

in personal property that is lost or mislaid ‘diminished to the extent that the finder may examine the

contents of that item as necessary to determine the rightful owner.’” Commonwealth v. Raboin,

No. Criminal Action No. 06-01180, 2008 WL 2738599, at *3 (Mass. Super. Ct. June 20, 2008)

(emphasis added) (quoting Hamilton, 2003 MT 71, ¶ 26); see also Ching, 678 P.2d at 1092–93

(“When lost property is turned in to the police, their paramount goal must be to ascertain its

ownership and return it to the owner in substantially the same condition as it was received. . . .

[P]olice may validly search lost property to the extent necessary for identification purposes.”); State

v. Lewis, 474 P.3d 907, 911–12 (Or. Ct. App. 2020) (prohibiting searches unless it is objectively

reasonable to believe the property is lost); Valles, 2019 ND 108, ¶ 15 (holding that searches of lost

property are reasonable to the extent the police take actions one might expect from any person who

finds a lost item).

[32] The trial court made no findings of fact about whether Taimanglo’s phone was lost. Nor

did it reach any conclusions about whether any intrusion into Taimanglo’s expectation of privacy

was reasonable. This is because the People never made these arguments in the trial court; they

relied exclusively on abandonment and inventory search theories. The only reference to lost

property was by the defense: “[T]here’s no caselaw that says once the property is misplaced then  People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 16 of 20

you all of a sudden completely lost ownership over that property. That would be an absurd result.”

Tr. at 5 (Hr’g, Oct. 26, 2023). The People claim on appeal that Officer Ibanez was looking for a

“serial number in order to assist with identifying the owner,” see Appellant’s Br. at 7–8, 16, but a

review of the suppression hearing transcript shows that testimony about serial numbers related to

the People’s argument that a valid inventory search occurred, see Tr. at 53 (Hr’g, Oct. 26, 2023)

(arguing “everything at the crime scene is subject to the inventory of the officers”); see also id. at

18–20, 30–31 (claiming that GPD inventory policy authorizes police to seize and search any

personal property found at the scene of a crash for “safekeeping”). The post hoc justification that

a “reasonable inquiry to identify the owner,” see Reply Br. at 3, of a cell phone includes quizzing

them on its serial number was not preserved in the trial court, see Appellant’s Br. at 7–8, 16.

[33] Generally, “this court will not address an argument raised for the first time on appeal.”

Univ. of Guam v. Guam Civ. Serv. Comm’n, 2002 Guam 4 ¶ 20. The People’s concession of weak

legal arguments is welcome, yet it does not change that the lost property theory is raised for the first

time on appeal. We decline to address the merits of the People’s lost property argument raised for

the first time on appeal.

2. Inevitable discovery was not preserved for appellate review, and we decline to address it

[34] The People make the conclusory argument that “[e]ven if the methamphetamine was

discovered as the result of an illegal search and otherwise inadmissible under the exclusionary

rule, it would have been discovered independently later during an inventory search. As a result, it

need not be excluded under the ‘inevitable discovery’ exception.” Appellant’s Br. at 19. The

People did not adequately preserve this argument. The only mention of the inevitable discovery

doctrine by the People was in passing at the end of the suppression hearing. After arguing

throughout the hearing that the search was a valid inventory search, the prosecutor concluded, “[I]t People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 17 of 20

was an inventory search. The officer was -- it was also an inevitable discovery and therefore the

search was lawful and the defendant’s Motion should be denied.” Tr. at 54 (Hr’g, Oct. 26, 2023).

[35] At the trial level, the burden was on the People to show the inevitable discovery of evidence

obtained by unlawful means. Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431, 444–45, 444 n.5 (1984). Courts have

generally recognized that “[t]he inevitable-discovery exception excuses warrantless searches

where the government proves ‘by a preponderance of the evidence’ that unlawfully obtained

evidence ‘would have been discovered inevitably [through] lawful means.’” E.g., United States v.

Holmes, 121 F.4th 727, 737 (9th Cir. 2024) (second alteration in original) (quoting United States

v. Andrade, 784 F.2d 1431, 1433 (9th Cir. 1986)); see also People v. Santos, 2003 Guam 1 ¶ 56

(referencing inevitable discovery). This inquiry “focuses on demonstrated historical facts capable

of ready verification or impeachment.” Nix, 467 U.S. at 444 n.5. “[W]hether ‘historical facts’

establish that lawful discovery of the evidence was inevitable is a case-specific inquiry.” Holmes,

121 F.4th at 739. Because of the fact-intensive nature of inevitable discovery, courts often refuse

to allow the Government to raise the argument for the first time on appeal when they seek to

overturn the suppression of evidence. E.g., id. (“At no point previously did the Government argue

inevitable discovery . . . . Therefore, these arguments were forfeited.”); People v. Chapman, 274

Cal. Rptr. 47, 50–51 (Ct. App. 1990) (holding that inevitable discovery claim raised by People for

first time on appeal turned on determination of facts not presented to trial court and was not subject

to appellate review). Because the People did not attempt to meet their burden to establish

inevitable discovery before the trial court, we will not review the inevitable discovery argument.

[36] We conclude that the People have forfeited their inevitable discovery argument. Despite

bearing the burden of proving inevitable discovery at the suppression hearing, it was not raised in

the People’s opposition to the suppression motion. Inevitable discovery appears to have been an

afterthought; its first and only mention by the prosecutor was in their closing sentence at the People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 18 of 20

suppression hearing. Because the People did not meaningfully argue inevitable discovery in the

trial court, this court has no findings to aid its review of this mixed question of law and fact. Cf.

McKathan v. United States, 969 F.3d 1213, 1232 (11th Cir. 2020) (“[T]he record lacks information

that would allow us to assess the viability of an inevitable-discovery argument. Therefore, we

cannot determine whether, as a legal matter, the government would have been permitted to search

[defendant’s] phone.”). The prosecution’s fleeting reference to inevitable discovery is insufficient

to preserve this matter for appeal. See In re People, 2024 Guam 17 ¶ 38 (“To preserve a matter

for appellate review, a party ‘must unequivocally put its position before the trial court at a point

and in a manner that permits the court to consider its merits.’” (quoting In re Niaspan Antitrust

Litig., 67 F.4th 118, 135 (3d Cir. 2023))).

[37] Although we have the discretion to reach this forfeited issue, applying the doctrine would

require too much speculation. As the Ninth Circuit explained: “Inevitability is the key. There can

be ‘no speculative elements’ in showing that law enforcement would have obtained the evidence

lawfully absent its unlawful actions.” Holmes, 121 F.4th at 737. “[T]he doctrine requires that the

fact or likelihood that makes the discovery inevitable arise from circumstances other than those

disclosed by the illegal search itself.” United States v. Boatwright, 822 F.2d 862, 864–65 (9th Cir.

1987). “Where the hypothetical next steps of an investigation are more discretionary and less

procedural, inevitability may be lacking. . . . [T]he more leeway for decision-making, the harder

it is to conclude, without speculation, that law enforcement inevitably would reach the same

outcome.” Holmes, 121 F.4th at 739 (citation omitted). As the California Court of Appeal has

explained: “A violation of the Fourth Amendment may not be disregarded ‘simply because the

police, had they thought about the situation more carefully, could have come up with a lawful

means of achieving their desired results.’” People v. Hughston, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 890, 899 (Ct. People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 19 of 20

App. 2008) (quoting People v. Superior Court (Walker), 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 831, 856 n.30 (Ct. App.

2006)).

[38] Without the benefit of the trial court’s findings, we would be left to speculate whether, and

for what reasons, Taimanglo would have been arrested without the search. We would also be

forced to speculate whether Taimanglo’s phone would have been returned to him or kept in police

custody. We would also be forced to speculate about the inevitability of discovery under GPD’s

inventory policy.3 Even if we were inclined to reach inevitable discovery for the first time on

appeal, the record before us is simply too sparse to address the inevitable discovery exception to

the exclusionary rule. We are wary of the claim that police may seize personal property for

“safekeeping” under the guise it is abandoned (or lost) while the owner is present and not under

arrest. This seems to be the exact abuse the warrant requirement was designed to prohibit. Cf.

United States v. Suggs, 998 F.3d 1125, 1132 (10th Cir. 2021) (stating warrant requirement of the

Fourth Amendment was “the product of contemporary revulsion against a regime of general

warrants that gave British officials carte blanche to search and seize property of American

colonists”). Police do not have “unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person’s private

effects,” Gant, 556 U.S. at 345, even when they claim that ownership is uncertain, e.g., Hamilton,

2003 MT 71, ¶ 46.

//

//

3 The trial court found that the Guam Police Department’s (“GPD”) lost item policy was “extremely broad in scope.” RA, tab 34 at 8 (Dec. & Order). Officer Ibanez testified that GPD policy is to “confiscate” personal property found at a crash site for “safekeeping,” regardless of whether it is related to a crime. Transcript (“Tr.”) at 18–20, 30 (Hr’g, Oct. 26, 2023). We sincerely doubt that GPD’s policy granted officers carte blanche to seize all innocuous personal property from its owner for “safekeeping” at their own discretion without a warrant. Further, we doubt that such a policy could withstand Fourth Amendment scrutiny. See, e.g., Williams v. State, 85 A.3d 367, 373 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) (holding that police had no justification to retain and further examine cell phone that was not an instrumentality of crime, fruit of crime, contraband, or evidence). People v. Taimanglo, 2025 Guam 7, Opinion Page 20 of 20

V. CONCLUSION

[39] The trial court concluded that the People failed to meet their burden of showing the

warrantless search of Taimanglo’s phone was reasonable. The legal standard applied by the trial

court was correct, and the People do not challenge the factual finding that Taimanglo’s cell phone

was not abandoned. We do not address the arguments raised by the People for the first time on

appeal. We cannot disregard a Fourth Amendment violation simply because the police could have

achieved their desired results lawfully with more careful consideration. See Hughston, 85 Cal.

Rptr. 3d at 899. Nor will we overturn a trial court’s conclusion that the Fourth Amendment was

violated based on theories of admissibility raised for the first time on appeal. We AFFIRM.

/s/ /s/ F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO KATHERINE A. MARAMAN Associate Justice Associate Justice

/s/ ROBERT J. TORRES Chief Justice