The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled against Mary Sánchez Guzmán, Marisel Torres Sánchez, and José Alexis Torres Sánchez in a case concerning the confiscation of $39,569. The court denied the petitioners' request to suppress evidence related to the confiscation, which they argued was illegal. This ruling impacts the petitioners and highlights issues surrounding property rights and law enforcement procedures in Puerto Rico.

The case began when the petitioners filed a sworn complaint on December 23, 2021, challenging the confiscation of their money by the Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico (ELA). They claimed that the funds were seized during a search warrant executed on November 18, 2021, and were intended for construction expenses, not illicit activities. The petitioners argued that the money was obtained through legal means, including savings and the sale of goods.

In response, the ELA maintained that the confiscation was justified under the Controlled Substances Act of Puerto Rico, asserting that the money was linked to illegal drug activities. The dispute escalated through various legal proceedings, with the petitioners seeking to have evidence suppressed on the grounds that the search warrant was based on insufficient information.

After several hearings, the petitioners filed an urgent motion in limine on December 29, 2025, requesting a hearing to challenge the legality of the search warrant and the evidence obtained. They contended that the search was unreasonable and that the affidavit supporting the warrant was vague and misleading.

The ELA opposed this motion, arguing that the petitioners had no legitimate expectation of privacy regarding the seized marijuana and that the suppression of evidence should have been addressed in the related criminal case, not in the civil action regarding confiscation.

On June 4, 2026, the trial court ruled against the petitioners, stating that their motion to suppress evidence should have been filed in the criminal case, not in the civil confiscation proceedings. The court emphasized that the procedures outlined in the Uniform Confiscation Act governed the case and did not allow for the evidentiary hearing the petitioners sought.

Displeased with this outcome, the petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, which was also denied on July 15, 2026. Subsequently, they sought a certiorari review from the Court of Appeals on August 12, 2026, arguing that the trial court erred in not allowing an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of the evidence.

The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Hernández Sánchez, reviewed the petitioners' claims and the trial court's actions. The court noted that certiorari is an extraordinary procedural vehicle used to correct legal errors by lower courts. However, the court found no basis for intervening in the trial court's decision.

In its ruling, the court stated, "We do not identify any reason for this Forum to intervene." It emphasized that the trial court had not acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion in denying the petitioners' requests. The court concluded that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any error in the trial court's interpretation of the law or its application of procedural rules.

This ruling has significant implications for the petitioners, as it upholds the ELA's authority to confiscate property under the Controlled Substances Act. The decision also reinforces the procedural requirements for challenging evidence in criminal cases, emphasizing that such challenges must be made in the appropriate legal context.

Going forward, this ruling may affect how individuals approach confiscation cases in Puerto Rico. It underscores the importance of understanding the legal framework surrounding property rights and the procedural avenues available for contesting government actions. The outcome may also influence future cases involving the intersection of civil and criminal law in confiscation matters.

As for next steps, the petitioners may consider their options for further legal recourse. However, details were not available in the court filing regarding any potential appeals or related cases pending in the system. The court's decision stands as a significant precedent in the realm of property confiscation and civil rights in Puerto Rico.