WPC^ _9~߿ 1wWy[ S 9*kUHgvLi RAicrc &mwD\R!J/B*4`wK!;k7gH'_}yy ž9VӬ!!P]uH./y̩NLUalS` 8oAI70;-h՚5&V F$eSgRg"{PfrsO1:m6AaKφ4: I]R8qWp'mƕ`E ƑuC2mnbٮk~A8uߩltʧ#|JjZL_V$"(sUĺi /6!|tvlrڸ£BS;6xgo,phb-1yo)Uȋgskh#U Nq % 0( v wc 4g {  0D  U] 0l/ 0DU NUNNL^ NZ m\sUN9eMN B A 0D D- 0KHP LaserJet 4,,,,,,0(uH Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($Motion to suppress statements   ' fpd0fpd .   eH+3|x  '  _X@XXXXX@MotiontoSuppress...  CriminalNo.00000 t Page  1  #X@XJ#(3$ !   w $    2    _ԀThiscasewaslaterrevisitedbytheCourtofAppealsinUSvs._Fernndez_ԀVentura,132  F.3d.844(1st.Cir.,1998).However,thesecondsOpiniondoesnotmodifythesubstantive  holdingsofthefirstOpinion. $    3    _ԀU.S.v.FernndezVentura,supra,startingat710.Footnotesdeleted,emphasis  provided.((3$ !      0  (#$  0   Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 $    1    _ԀTheexpectedtestimonyherepresentedisacompilationmadefromthedifferent  documentsprovidedbytheGovernmentduringdiscoveryproceedings.(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularҌ*+s ULevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(9 Z 6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ddgf&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK(3$ !  )!dxdx( $ Figure  1  !  _       X@XXX@U U INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT  @< < FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO  UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA, h   * t   Plaintiff,    h   *   p  L     `      vs. `     h   *   p CRIMINALNO.00000 $ t    `    DEFENDANT0    h   * L  (# (#   Defendant.    h   * $  *  * ` * *  * h *  *   @  MOTIONTOSUPPRESSSTATEMENTS    TOTHEHONORABLECARMENC.CEREZO \ UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTJUDGE H FORTHEDISTRICTOFPUERTORICO 4   COMESNOWdefendant,representedbytheFederalPublicDefender,andherebyPLEADS  \ andALLEGES: 4  I   INTRODUCTION     Defendantischargedwithpossessingwithintenttodistributemorethan5kilogramsof  cocaine.Before,duringandafterhisarrest,Mr.Defendantwasinterrogatedinacustodialsituation l asdefinedbyMirandav.Arizona,384US436(1966)anditsprogeny.X@XXX@Thisinterrogationwas D! performedbyD.E.A.taskforceagentswithoutadvisingthedefendantofhisrights.#X@XXX@#ԀDefendantnow #l! movestosuppressthosestatements. $D #  II  TESTIMONYEXPECTEDFROMTHEGOVERNMENTSAGENTS  &"%   Defendantexpectsthegovernmentsevidence #  1      ׀toshowthatonJuly10,1999,taskforce (#' agent(_TFA_)wascalledbyX@XXX@ansourceofinformation(SOI)atGroundMotiveDependable(_GMD_), |*%) acompanywhichprovidesgroundservicesforTowerAirattheLuis_Muoz_ԀMarinInternational  Airport,Carolina,PuertoRico.TheSOIadvised_TFA_Ԁthatwhilemonitoringflight50enrouteto   NewYork,theSOIobserved,consideredsuspiciousanddetainedablacksuitcase.Onhisownthe t  _GMD_Ԁsecuritypersonnelopenedthesuitcaseandsawfiverectangularpackagesinside,whichhe L  suspectedwasdrugs.AtthattimetaskforceagentswerecalledtotheTowerAirticketcounter,and $` interviewedtheSOI,whoshowedthemtheblacksuitcasewhichwasopenedintheirpresence._TFA_ 8  observedfiverectangularpackagesthatappearedtobecocaine.Theagentsassumedcustodyofthe   suitcase.     Afterunsuccessfullytryingtoidentifytheownerofthesuitcaseamongtheairplanes  passengers,_TFA_ԀtoldTFA2that_GMD_Ԁemployeeshadobservedanotheremployee,lateridentified \ asdefendant,attemptingtoplaceablacksuitcaseontheTowerAirlinescarousel.Thesupervisorof 4p thatworkareadidnotacceptthesuitcase.Later_GMD_ԀemployeesobservedDefendantplacingthe  H suitcaseattheTowerAirticketcounter.     _TFA_ԀandTFA2identifiedDefendantviahisPortAuthorityID._TFA_Ԁidentifiedhimselfand  askedtospeakwithdefendant,towhichheagreed.Defendantwasaskedifheattemptedtoputany ! luggageintotheTowerAirlinecarousel.Defendantrespondedyes._TFA_ԀthenaskedDefendantto l# accompanyhimtotheDEAoffice,locatedattheAirport,andDefendantagreed D%    AttheDEAoffice,_TFA_ԀandfourotheragentsinterviewedDefendant,andenteredintoan 'X" extensiveinterrogationconcerninghisjobduties,hisversionoftheevents,andhewasaskedto (0!$ identifythesuitcase.Afterthisinterrogationwasended,_TFA_ԀthenplacedDefendantunderarrest. *#& Itwasatthatmomentthat_TFA_ԀreadDefendanthisMirandawarnings.#X@XXX@j # ,$(  III  INADMISSIBILITYOFSTATEMENTS     Priortoanyquestioning,thepersonmustbewarnedthathehasarighttoremainsilent,that   anystatementhedoesmake,maybeusedaevidenceagainsthim,andthathehasarighttothe t  presenceofanattorneys,eitherretainedorappointed.Mirandavs.Arizona,supra.Theessenceof L  Mirandaisthatcustodialinterrogationsareinherentlycoercive.Therefore,theprosecutionmaynot $` usestatementsobtainedfromcustodialinterrogationsunlessproceduralsafeguardsguaranteethat 8  theaccusedhasbeeninformedof,andfreelywaived,theconstitutionalprivilegesoftheFifthand   SixthAmendments.     TheessentialcontroversyisiftheinterrogationofMr.Defendantwasperformedina  custodialsettingthattriggeredthenecessitythatMirandawarningsbegivenbeforetheinterrogation \ began.TheFirstCircuitdirectlyaddressedthisissueinU.S.v._Fernndez_ԀVentura,85F.3d.708(1st 4p Cir.1996)_  #  2      _.InthatcasetheCourtstated T #  3      :  H 8   ` X@XXX@ Mirandawarningsmustbegivenbeforeasuspectissubjectedtocustodial   interrogation.UnitedStatesv.Taylor,985F.2d3,7(1stCir.1993). Thecustodial   interrogationinquirynecessarilydemandsdeterminationofitstwosubsidiary  components:1)custodyand2)interrogation .SeeIllinoisv.Perkins,496U.S.   292,297,110_S.Ct_.2394,2397-98,110_L.Ed_.2d243(1990)("Itisthepremiseof ! Mirandathatthedangerofcoercionresultsfromtheinteractionofcustodyand " officialinterrogation.".t#   8   ` Thecustodydeterminationistheinitialand,generally,thecentralinquiry: L%  itis"thetouchstonetotheneedforMirandawarnings."UnitedStatesv.Quinn,815 8&t! F.2d153,160(1stCir.1987).SinceMiranda,theCourthasenunciatedseveral  generaldefinitionsofcustody,but theultimateinquiryiswhethertherewas"a  formalarrestorrestraintonfreedomofmovementofthedegreeassociatedwith   aformalarrest ."Thompsonv._Keohane_,511U.S.318,----,116_S.Ct_.457,465,133   _L.Ed_.2d383(1995)(quotationmarksandcitationsomitted);_Stansbury_Ԁv.California, |  511U.S.318,----,114_S.Ct_.1526,1529,128_L.Ed_.2d293(1994)(per_curiam_Ԁ) h  (same).T    #X@XXX@#X@XXX@8   ` Inordertoassessthe"restraintonfreedomofmovement,"acourtmust ,h examineallthecircumstancessurroundingtheinterrogation. Thistestisobjective: T  theonlyrelevantinquiryis"howareasonablemaninthesuspect'sshoeswould D  haveunderstoodhissituation ."_Stansbury_,511U.S.at----,114_S.Ct_.at1529 0  (quoting_Berkemer_Ԁv._McCarty_,468U.S.420,442,104_S.Ct_.3138,3151-52,82   _L.Ed_.2d317(1984)). Thesubjectivebeliefsheldbytheinterrogatingofficersor   thepersonbeinginterrogatedarenotgermane .    8   ` Relevantcircumstancesinclude"whetherthesuspectwasquestionedin  familiaroratleastneutralsurroundings,thenumberoflawenforcement  officerspresentatthescene,thedegreeofphysicalrestraintplaceduponthe t suspect,andthedurationandcharacteroftheinterrogation ."UnitedStatesv. ` Masse,816F.2d805,809(1stCir.1987)(quotingUnitedStatesv._Streifel_,781F.2d P 953,961n.13(1stCir.1986)).Thisisnotanexhaustivelist.Othercourtshave <x identifiedotherfactorssignificanttoacustodydetermination.See_Sprosty_Ԁv. (d _Buchler_,79F.3d635,641(7thCir.1996)(citingcases).P      ` ..... ( 8   ` Theothercomponentofcustodialinterrogationis,ofcourse,interrogation.   Interrogationreferstobothexpressquestioningandits"functionalequivalent,"which ! includes"whichincludes"anywordsoractionsonthepartofthepolice(otherthan " thosenormallyattendanttoarrestandcustody)thatthepoliceshouldknoware # reasonablylikelytoelicitanincriminatingresponsefromthesuspect.#X@XXX@d"#X@XXX@."RhodeIsland t$ v._Innis_,446U.S.291,301,100_S.Ct_.1682,1689-90,64_L.Ed_.2d297(1980) `%  (footnotesomitted).Againtheinquiryisobjective:howwouldtheofficer's L&! statementsandconductbeperceivedbyareasonablepersoninthesame 8't" circumstances?SeeTaylor,985F.2dat7.Here,quiteclearly,ifdefendantswerein $(` # custody,theofficers'expressquestionsconstitutedinterrogation.#X@XXX@,#)L!$     Inapplyingtheholdingof_Fernndez_ԀVenturatothiscaseitmustfirstbeexaminedifthe *$#& interrogationoccurredinacustodialsetting.X@XXX@ԀThefactsinthiscase,whenexaminedagainstthe ,$( relevantcircumstances,i.e."whetherthesuspectwasquestionedinfamiliaroratleastneutral  surroundings,thenumberoflawenforcementofficerspresentatthescene,thedegreeofphysical   restraintplaceduponthesuspect,andthedurationandcharacteroftheinterrogation,allmilitate t  tobelievethatthiswasaninterrogationheldinacustodialsettingagainstatargetwiththespecific L  purposeofobtainingaconfession.Mr.Defendantwasremovedfromthe#X@XXX@/# publicareaoftheairport $` andtakentothe_D.E.A._Ԁofficethere,whichcertainlyarenotfamiliarorneutralsettings.Hewas 8  relievedofhisairportemployeeidentification,limitinghismovementswithinthesecuredareahe   wasin.Hewasquestionedinsideasmallroomwithatotaloffiveagents,whichcreateacoercive   ambianceintheinterrogationroom.Mr.Defendantwasquestionedextensivelyoncasespecifics,  atatimewhenhewasalreadyconsideredasuspectandtheinvestigationwasdirectedagainsthim. \ Thecharacterofthequestioningwasnotinvestigativeandwasdefinitivelymadetoelicita 4p confessionfromthedefendant.  H   InthepresentcasethestatementsmadebyMr.Defendanttotaskforceagentswereobtained   beforethedefendantwasnotifiedofhisconstitutionalrights.AlthoughtheGovernmentwillargue  thatDefendantwentvoluntarilytothe_D.E.A._Ԁoffices,andhewastoldthathewasnotunderarrest, ! thefactisthatthetotalityofthecircumstancespointedtothefactthatanyreasonableperson,in l# similarcircumstances,wouldbelievethathewasunderarrest.Therewasnovoluntarinesstohis D%  statements. 'X"   Thesecondtieroftheanalysisiswhethertherewasinfactaninterrogation.X@XXX@Theconcept (0!$ isdefinedas"anywordsoractionsonthepartofthepolice(otherthanthosenormallyattendantto *#& arrestandcustody)thatthepoliceshouldknowarereasonablylikelytoelicitanincriminating ,$( responsefromthesuspect.#X@XXX@8#Certainlythedirectquestioningofthedefendant,whowasthetargetof  theinvestigationatthetime,withinthe_D.E.A._Ԁofficesonthespecificsofthecasemustqualifyas   aninterrogation.AscanbediscernedfromtheexpectedevidenceoftheGovernment,thequestions t  weredirected,anddidobtain,specificanswersconcerningtheparticipationofdefendantinthe L  events.Theywerenot,inanyconceivablemanner,generalundirectedquestions. $`    IV ` CONCLUSION  8    WHEREFORE,DefendantpraysthisHonorablecourttosetthemotionforpretrial   evidentiaryhearing,andthereaftersuppressallstatementsmadebythedefendantinviolationofhis   constitutionalrightsasdefinedbyMirandaanditsprogeny.    RESPECTFULLYSUBMITTED. \    `     h   JOSEPHC.LAWS,JR. 4p    `     h   FederalPublicDefender  \    `     h   FortheDistrictofPuertoRico  H    `     h      `     h   AssistantFederalPublicDefender      `     h   _USDC_ԄPR !    `     h   259FranklinD.RooseveltAvenue "    `     h   SanJuan,PR009182305 l#    `     h   Tel.(787)2814922 X$ X@XXX@ @ CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE  *#&   ICERTIFYthaton  September10,2001!  ,IservedacopyoftheforegoingMotionToSuppress   Statementsoncounselforthegovernment,U.S.AttorneyGuillermoGil_Bonar_Ԁ(att:AssistantU.S.   AttorneyRoseVega)bydeliveringittohisofficeatFederico_Degetau_ԀFederalBuilding,Room452, t  CriminalDivision,150Carlos_Chard;n_ԀAvenue,SanJuan,PR00918. L    InSanJuan,PuertoRico,this  September10,2001!  . $` #X@XXX@;B#   `     h      p X@XXX@     x     `     h      `     h   AssistantFederalPublicDefender   #X@XXX@F#.