Bid to suppress statements of man in sex assault case nixed

Superior Court Associate Judge David A. Wiseman has denied the request of a former Rota liaison employee, who is facing charges that he attempted to sexually assault his then 21-year-old godson last year, to suppress the statements he made to police officers before and after his arrest.

Wiseman determined that the CNMI government successfully shouldered its burden to prove that the Miranda warnings given to defendant Allan Apatang Taitano were adequate under statute and case law.

Wiseman said that Taitano agreed to speak with officers and detectives on two separate occasions after voluntarily waiving his procedural due process rights—both after his formal arrest and subsequent Miranda warnings, and after reading and signing the “Constitutional Rights Form.”

Police arrested the 44-year-old Taitano in April 2013 in Dandan for allegedly attempting to sexually assault the victim inside a vehicle in an open field in As Lito. The victim managed to run away and hide in the jungle for several hours.

Taitano, through counsel public defender Douglas Hartig and deputy public defender Eden Schwartz, moved the court to suppress statements made in response to police questioning during an encounter which occurred outside his home, as well as any statements made inside the police car following his arrest.

Taitano argued that these statements should be suppressed due to law enforcement’s failure to warn him of his Miranda rights prior to questioning and because they were not produced following a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver, respectively.

In the government’s opposition, assistant attorney general Margo Brown-Badawy argued, among other things, that anything Taitano stated before his arrest is admissible because he volunteered any statements and was not interrogated before his arrest, and that once he was formally arrested, he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights under Miranda.

In his order last week that denied Taitano’s motion, Wiseman pointed out that Taitano’s statement made before being asked to put his hands on his vehicle is admissible, and the court denies suppressing that statement.

Wiseman said the court evaluates whether asking a defendant to place his hands on his own vehicle constitutes a formal custodial arrest so as to trigger the necessity of Miranda warnings before questioning defendant.

In this case, the judge noted, the law enforcement officers arrived at the defendant’s house just hours after an alleged sexual assault had been committed, learning the location of the defendant’s residence from the victim and his family and confirming it by identifying defendant’s vehicle which was parked outside the residence.

Wiseman said a police officer testified that he asked a man that emerged from the house if he was Allan Taitano, to which the defendant answered “yes.”

The officer subsequently asked him to place his hands on his vehicle, so they could see them for their own safety.

It was not until after the victim arrived and gave a positive I.D. that the defendant was placed under formal arrest and read his Miranda rights.

Thus, Wiseman said the court finds that the conduct of the law enforcement officers at the scene did not constitute a formal custodial arrest as envisioned by applicable case law simply because they asked defendant to place his hands on his vehicle, and the Miranda analysis—which requires both prongs of “custodial interrogation”—necessarily ends here.

“Thus, the court denies defendant’s motion to suppress statements made before his formal arrest, finding that they were volunteered while out of police custody, thus complying with the need for procedural safeguards to protect the constitutional right against self-incrimination,” Wiseman said.

Moreover, the judge noted, less than 12 hours later, Taitano again waived his rights in writing during a meeting with detectives at the Department of Corrections, who showed him a “Constitutional Rights Form.”

“Thus, the court finds that the Commonwealth has provided, by a preponderance of the evidence, that these written warnings meet the threshold envisioned by Miranda and the cases that have followed it,” he said.