The motion was filed by court-appointed defense counsel Mark Hanson and Assistant Public Defender Richard Miller on behalf of their clients Juan Babauta Castro, 55, and Vincent Cabrera Castro, 36.
Assistant Attorney General Brian D. Gallagher is the prosecutor.
The department’s Criminal Investigation Bureau and the CNMI Customs Joint Drug Enforcement Task Force conducted the surveillance, and eventually arrested the Castros.
Police found 145 marijuana plants from Juan Castro’s property in As Matuis.
The defense, however, pointed out that the police did not have a warrant to search the defendants’ property; Vincent Castro did not voluntarily consent to the search; and he was not advised of his Miranda rights.
The prosecution relied on the “open fields” doctrine, stating that the area of seizure was “outside the curtilage of home,” and that the marijuana plants were in plain view.
In law, curtilage is the enclosed area of land around a dwelling.
The prosecution said after being advised of their constitutional rights, the defendants admitted to growing and smoking marijuana.
“Unfortunately,” Wiseman said, “any statements made, as well as any evidence recovered from the defendants’ property must be suppressed as a result of an illegal search and seizure.”
He added, “Because criminal case law is ever evolving and new cases come to light setting new case precedents, as well as modifying existing case law, the court believes that DPS should implement a policy to have a refresher orientations for its officers in order that they may stay apprised of policies, new and old, that might affect their duties as a police officer. The police department has a duty and a responsibility to make proper searches based on probable cause, after first obtaining a search warrant, subject to any enumerated exceptions.”
According to the judge, “Here, none of the…exceptions [to the requirements of a warrant] applied since there were no exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, or fear that the evidence would be destroyed that would have allowed the police officers to search defendants’ property without a warrant. Thus, any illegal evidence they obtained must be suppressed.”
He noted that “there was ample time, and probable cause, for DPS to get a search warrant to search the defendants’ property at multiple times during the search. Had the police officers followed proper procedure and presented an impartial judicial officer with an affidavit asserting probable cause, the evidence shows that a warrant would most likely have been issued.”
Wiseman said the manner in which evidence was obtained was in violation of the defendants’ Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.
He further ruled that any statements the Castros made to the police are suppressed because they were made in violation of their Fifth Amendment constitutional rights.
