But U.S. District Court for the NMI Chief Judge Alex R. Munson granted the motion to suppress filed by Wilbur Masga Inos with respect to his oral statements made in response to the questions of Police Sgt. Eusebio M. Manglona about the location of the clothes he wore to commit the robbery.
Munson denied the defendant’s motion to suppress the statements the defendant made in response to Manglona’s questions regarding his location and attire, the location of the rifle, the clothes and the defendant’s written confession.
The defendant sought to suppress his confession and the physical evidence of the robbery because he claims that his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated.
He also said he was not warned of his Miranda rights.
The defendant asserted that he was hauled to the back of the barracks by police officers.
The defendant argued that his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when Manglona entered his private property without a warrant and no probable cause.
The federal court stated that the defendant did not own the property — it belongs to his father.
There was no record of any transfer and the circumstances point out that he just went to the house to get a ride home.
The defendant also sought to suppress incriminating statements he made because he was not advised of his Miranda rights until after he made the statements.
The court said it analyzed the evidence based on the time line of events.
The court stated that Manglona’s initial questions were not an interrogation when he asked the defendant where they had been 10 minutes earlier and why the defendant was in his underwear.
The court said Manglona’s next question as to where the money and the rifle were located was to locate the evidence of the crime.
The court contends that the defendant was not handcuffed and in fact led the police officers to locate the rifle and the clothes he wore in the robbery.
The court added that the rule of Miranda does not require the suppression of the physical evidence.
The case involved the armed robbery of a poker arcade on Rota on Aug. 4, 2008.
Manglona proceeded to Rota Poker after receiving a call that a man wearing a black mask and camouflage outfit and carrying a rifle staged a robbery.
Manglona watched footage from the surveillance camera of Rota Poker and learned from the security guard that he had seen the suspect running toward the living quarters of the Inos family.
Manglona said he saw two individuals getting into a silver truck.
He ordered both men to get out of the vehicle.
One of the two men was the defendant, while the other was the driver who stated that his boss — Inos — had just woken him up to drive him home.
Inos took a green plastic bag from inside the truck and told Manglona the money was inside.
The rifle was recovered later at the roof of the living quarters where the defendant ran.
