Manglona denies CPA police officer’s motion to dismiss charges

U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Ramona V. Manglona has denied Commonwealth Ports Authority Police Officer II Floyd M. Mendiola’s motion to dismiss the indictment or suppress all statements he gave to law enforcement.

In an order issued on Tuesday, Manglona ruled that having considered the testimony of three of the U.S. government’s witnesses and two defense witnesses, including Mendiola himself, three government’s exhibits, and the oral and written arguments of both counsel, the court finds no grounds to support dismissal of the indictment or suppression of defendant’s statements.

Mendiola’s trial will be on Oct. 7, 2014.

Manglona determined that a promise of immunity from prosecution was never part of the bargain between Mendiola and federal agents.

“For that reason, Mendiola’s attempt to enforce such a promise and have the indictment dismissed must fail,” the judge said.

Manglona said because the federal agents did not promise Mendiola immunity, there is no need to inquire into whether this case is exceptional.

On the motion to suppress, Manglona said because Mendiola was never in custody during any of the interviews, the statements he made were not the product of custodial interrogation.

“The agents were under no obligation to Mirandize him before questioning him, and their failure to do so is not grounds to suppress his statements,” the judge said.

Manglona said considering all the circumstances, the statements Mendiola made in the April 2014 interview were, like those he made in earlier interviews, a product of his free will and therefore voluntary.

“Because Mendiola was never in custody and his statements were voluntary, there is no cause to suppress the statements,” she said.

Manglona conducted the hearing on the motion last July 10.

Federal agents arrested Mendiola last May 27 after an indictment was filed charging him with conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine or “ice” from Feb. 27 to March 2, 2013. He is being released to a third-party custodian.

Mendiola, through counsel Joseph Horey, asserted that the indictment should be dismissed because the U.S. government breached its cooperation agreement with him.

In the alternative, Horey argued that the court should suppress all statements he provided to law enforcement because he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to questioning and that his statements were involuntarily made. In his declaration, Mendiola revealed that he was an informant for federal agents on promises that, among other things, he will avoid criminal liability.

In the U.S. government’s opposition, Assistant U.S. Attorney Garth Backe argued that first, Mendiola was never “in custody” during any of his interviews, and thus Miranda does not even apply.

Second, Backe said, agents followed routine and case-law approved procedures for non-custodial interviews of suspects.

Finally, the prosecutor said, agents never promised, much less even insinuated, that defendant would “get off clean” or be able to save his job if he cooperated.

Backe noted that indeed, if there was a breach of an “agreement” in this case, it was committed by Mendiola, as it was he who revealed to others that he was working as an informant despite being told on more than one occasion that doing so would result in the immediate termination of his cooperation.