United States v. Morta
| Decision Date | 09 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL 1:21-cr-00024 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. REBECCA ROSE SAN NICOLAS MORTA, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Guam |
Before the Court is Defendant Rebecca Rose San Nicolas Morta's (“Morta”) motion to suppress (“Motion”). ECF No. 12. The Government opposed the motion, ECF No. 28, to which Defendant filed a reply. ECF No. 37. The Court conducted an evidentiary hearing over several days. Min., ECF Nos. 44-45, 58. The Government presented the testimony of two witnesses, Task Force Officer Jonathan Calvo, and U.S. Postal Inspector Leroy Versoza, as well as several documents and photographs as evidence. Defendant presented her own sworn declaration and the testimony of two witnesses, her father Jesse Morta, and U.S Postal Officer Angelina Mapa-Heiland. Having considered the parties' briefing, applicable law, and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the Motion for the reasons explained herein.
On January 31, 2020, a United States Postal Service (“USPS”) Priority Mail parcel with the tracking number #9505 5145 2417 0028 2500 74 (“Parcel”) arrived in Guam via plane. See Opp'n at Ex. 1, ECF No. 28-1; see also Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 32:19-33:10. The Parcel was removed from the plane and brought to the Barrigada Post Office. Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 55:13-57:21.
There, between approximately midnight and 1:00 a.m. on February 1, 2020, Inspector Versoza “profiled” the Parcel. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 27:9-14. “Profiling is taking a package and examining it for inconsistencies or things that would indicate, based on our training and experience, some sort of contraband or something suspicious specifically about this parcel, which includes [the] area . . . in which it was mailed, [the] area in which it was going to, and any other inconsistencies such as miscommon [sic] spellings of names, or in some cases, lack of phone numbers or lack of signature requirement.” Id. at 14:16-24. Inspector Versoza immediately noticed a discrepancy in zip codes, wherein the “sender” line of the Parcel indicated “Stockton CA 95206” but the postal office origin from which it was mailed indicated a different zip code, in this instance originating from 95213. Id. at 25:16-22. This indicated to Inspector Versoza that someone was attempting to obscure the true origin of the Parcel. Id. at 25:22-24. Inspector Versoza also noticed that the last name of the sender seemed to be misspelled; wherein Figueroa is a common last name, but Inspector Versoza had never seen it spelled as Figuerora. Id. at 25:25-26:2 (emphasis added). The information on the label was handwritten. Id. at 26:8-14; see also Opp'n at Ex. 1, ECF No. 28-1. Moreover, there were no phone numbers listed on the package. See Opp'n at Ex. 1, ECF No. 28-1. As a result of these “flags, ” Inspector Versoza separated the Parcel for further investigation by a general analyst and continued profiling the other arriving packages. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 26:18-27:2.
General analyst On-Fat Choi (“Analyst Choi”) took the information on the Parcel and ran it through the PMN database for deconfliction, and the CLEAR database to locate contact information for both the sender and the recipient. Id. at 29:2-12. Inspector Versoza and Analyst Choi subsequently learned that the name of the recipient “Mark Mota” did not associate with the address. Id. at 30:18-23; see also Ex. 11, ECF No. 58. Rather, there was a similar name “Morta” associated with the recipient address 165 North Mariposa Court in Dededo, Guam (“Recipient Address”), but no “Mark.” Id. at 30:21-23 (emphasis added).
At 1:49 a.m. on February 1, 2020, a narcotics canine sniffed, but did not alert to the presence of narcotics in the Parcel. Ex. 11, ECF No. 58. Thereafter, between approximately 2:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m., Inspector Versoza and Analyst Choi were able to locate sender Monica Figueroa, rather than Figuerora, in CLEAR, at 1726 Benidino Circle in Stockton, California (“Sender Address”) as well as four phone numbers associated with her. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 31:2-7 (emphasis added).
Inspector Versoza made contact with Monica Figueroa at 12:50 p.m. on Monday, February 3, 2020. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 52:8-10; see also Ex. 11, ECF No. 58. Ms. Figueroa disavowed all knowledge of the Parcel, stating that she did not send it, nor did she know anything about it. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 51:14-25. Nevertheless, Ms. Figueroa did not give Inspector Versoza consent to open the Parcel. Hr'g Tr. 25:24-27:20, Apr. 5, 2022. Based on his training and experience, Inspector Versoza understood this to mean that someone had taken her information and used it, increasing his suspicion as to the contents of the Parcel. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 52:3-7. Versoza did not receive this information from Figueroa until hours before the “knock-and-talk” visit at the Morta residence on Monday, February 3rd. Id. at 51:6-52:10. A “knock-and-talk” occurs when officers take a package to the listed address, knock on the door, talk to those present at the residence, and request permission to open the package.
Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 101:17-21.
On Monday, February 3, 2020, Inspector Versoza, Inspector Richard Tracy, and TFO Calvo (collectively, the “Officers”) conducted “three knock-and-talks, ” with the last one occurring at the Recipient Address. Id. at 69:17-19; 102:10-12. The two prior knock-and-talks did not result in the discovery of any contraband in the packages. Id. at 111:6-112:23.
Between approximately 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. on February 3, 2020, the Officers arrived at the Recipient Address, bringing the Parcel with them. Id. at 69:9-19; 70:16-71:3. The Officers approached the porch area of the home, and Inspector Tracy knocked on the door. Id. at 72:11-19. A few minutes later, an individual opened the door, identified himself as Jesse Morta, and exited the doorway to join the Officers on the porch. Id. at 72:20-73:11; Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 37:6-13. There, the Officers questioned him for approximately three minutes before Jesse Morta signed a consent form permitting the Officers to open the Parcel on the porch. Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 105:5-9; see also Opp'n at Ex. 2, ECF No. 28-2.
During those three minutes, Jesse Morta identified himself as the registered or resident owner of the house. Id. at 74:14-17; 138:15-16. Inspector Tracy inquired about the Parcel, to which Jesse Morta responded that there is no “Mark Mota” residing at his residence. Jesse Morta Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 134:1-7. However, Jesse Morta did state that there is a “Mark” staying at the residence, and that it was Jesse Morta's grandson. Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 74:1823. However, there is a discrepancy in the record as to whether Jesse Morta indicated his grandson's full name as “Mark San Agustin, ” “Mark Morta San Agustin, ” or only by his first name. Id. at 74:22-23; Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 37:25-38:1; Jesse Morta Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 134:10-12. Jesse Morta also stated that his daughter and her other grandchildren reside at the Recipient Address. Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 75:1-4; Jesse Morta Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 132:18-22; see also Morta Decl. at 4(f), Ex. C, ECF No. 61 ().
Thereafter, Inspector Versoza explained to Jesse Morta his concern regarding the Parcel, namely the inability to identify the “Mark Mota” listed on the Parcel, a result of which he asked Jesse Morta for consent to open the Parcel. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 40:3-13. At approximately 3:55 p.m. on February 3, 2020, Jesse Morta signed a written consent form authorizing the Inspectors to search the Parcel. Id. at 41:19-42:5; see also Opp'n at Ex. 2, ECF No. 28-2. Jesse Morta also gave his verbal consent. Id. at 48:4-6. Inspector Versoza testified that if he did not receive Jesse Morta's consent, he did not intend to deliver or relinquish control of the Parcel. Id. at 93:23-94:2.
After receiving Jesse Morta's consent, Inspectors Versoza and Tracy opened the Parcel on the porch and found two t-shirts, as well as a box of crackers that appeared to have been resealed with tape. Id. at 42:20-43:9. Inspector Versoza opened the resealed cracker box and discovered a vacuum-sealed bag containing coffee grounds and concealed within, another vacuum-sealed bag containing a white crystalline substance. Id. at 43:13-19; see also Opp'n at Ex. 3, ECF No. 28-3. Inspector Tracy removed the coffee grounds from the cracker box, and one of the Officers asked Jesse Morta whether he knew what this was or if it was something that he was expecting. Id. at 44:6-14. Jesse Morta indicated “no, ” but mentioned that his daughter has a narcotics problem. Id. at 44:15-17. Jesse Morta stated that because Defendant was not present at the Recipient Address at the time of the knock-and-talk, he would bring her to the Barrigada Post Office to do an interview with the Officers after she returned home. Calvo Testimony, ECF No. 51 at 83:6-13. This encounter between Jesse Morta and the Officers lasted approximately ten minutes. Versoza Testimony, ECF No. 52 at 48:1-2. The Officers took the now-opened Parcel and its contents back with them to the Barrigada Post Office and tested the white crystalline substance with a narcotics detection kit, which indicated the presence of methamphetamine. Id. at 45:17-47:2.
That same evening, the Defendant arrived at the Barrigada Post Office with her father Jesse Morta to be interviewed by TFO Calvo and Inspector Connie...
To continue reading
Request your trial