By Gina Tabonares
Variety News Staff

A man who was indicted for receiving a DHL package containing methamphetamine or “ice” is now asking the court to suppress the physical evidence, citing an unwarranted search.
Ryan Jason Wall, 32, was charged with conspiracy to distribute “ice” and attempted possession of an illegal substance with an intent to distribute through a grand jury indictment filed on Jan. 3, 2007.
A hearing on the motion to suppress physical evidence started yesterday morning where Wall, through his lawyer Richard Arens, argued that the search was illegal based on the lack of a probable cause supporting the warrant.
According to the discovery provided by the government, Drug Enforcement Administration Task Force Officer Marvin R. Desamito received an anonymous telephone call regarding a DHL package containing crystal methamphetamine which had been shipped to Guam.
The anonymous caller informed agents of the DHL tracking number, the date and place from which the package was sent, and the alleged recipient.
The package allegedly arrived on Guam on the morning of Dec. 30, 2006. On the same day, at approximately 4:52 p.m., a K-9 drug detector dog was used to conduct a drug detection test on the package. The dog sniff was negative for the presence of drugs. Agents later processed the package through the airport’s X-ray machine.
According to the DEA agents, the package contained suspicious items commonly used in the importation of drugs.
On Dec. 31, 2006, the government obtained and executed a search warrant on the package. More than 100 grams of suspected methamphetamine were found in the package. The parcel was then repackaged with a substitute product and returned to the DHL office.
On Jan. 2, 2007, Wall was arrested when he picked up the package.
During yesterday’s hearing, Arens asked the court to bar Drug Enforcement Administration agent Mike Perkins from the courtroom during agent Marvin Desamito’s testimony but District Court of Guam Chief Judge Frances Tydingco-Gatewood denied the oral motion.
The defense contended that the search warrant lacked the requisite probable cause required by the Fourth Amendment, stressing that any evidence directly obtained from an illegal seizure is inadmissible under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine; therefore all evidence obtained derived from the illegal search should be suppressed.
The court will continue the motion hearing on March 19 at 9:30 a.m.