CPA cop’s motion to drop charges placed under advisement

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

After listening to the witnesses’ testimonies and the counsels’ arguments, Manglona placed the matter under advisement and said she will issue a written order.

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 was released to a third-party custodian.

At yesterday’s hearing, attorney Joseph Horey, counsel for Mendiola, called Mendiola and chief of ports police Juan Dela Cruz to the witness stand to support their motion.

To support the U.S. government’s opposition to the motion, assistant U.S. attorney Garth Backe called to the witness stand FBI special agent Joe McDoulett, Drug Enforcement Administration special agent Jacqueline Gordon, and DEA Task Force officer Jesse Stole.

In his declaration, Mendiola revealed that he was an informant for federal agents on promises that, among other things, he will avoid criminal liability.

Mendiola stated that he and a police officer went to the FBI office in Puerto Rico sometime in January 2014 at the officer’s invitation that DEA agent Gordon wanted to talk to him. Mendiola said he met Gordon and an FBI agent at the FBI office.

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

In the alternataive, Horey argued that the court should suppress all statements Mendiola gave to law enforcement because he was not advised of his Miranda rights prior to questioning and that his statements were involuntarily made.

Horey said the totality of the circumstances in this case reveals a combination of promises (that Mendiola will “get out clean,” avoid criminal liability, and save his job) and coercion (confrontation, accusations, threats of prosecution, and isolation from legal counsel) that is more than sufficient to overbear the will of a suspect and render his statements involuntary and inadmissible.

In the U.S. government’s opposition, Backe argued that Mendiola was never “in custody” during any of his interviews, and so Miranda does not 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 Mendiola 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.