Court denies request for a gag order

By
|
Posted on Dec 30 1998
Share

Superior Court Judge Timothy Bellas has denied a request to suppress documents and statements obtained by the Department of Labor and Immigration during a search of United International Corporation’s construction site in San Vicente.

Ronaldo Catap, charged with unlawfully employing illegal aliens, requested the suppression of the documents or in the alternative the dismissal of the case on grounds that the search was conducted without a warrant and that the statements he gave to a DOLI officer at the work site and office were not proceeded by the Miranda warnings.

Agents from DOLI conducted the search last May 7 after receiving information from a confidential informant that UIC was employing over-stayed and undocumented aliens at the site to construct a house for UIC President and General Manager, James Lin.

Catap was called to the site and upon his arrival, he was met by DOLI officer Peter San Nicolas who questioned him about the workers present at the site.

It was at this time that Catap was notified that DOLI had obtained various documents from the premises, including time sheets, logbooks and service contracts.

Catap requested San Nicolas to return the documents but refused, however, he was told that he could pick them up later at San Nicolas’ office.

Catap went to the DOLI office later that day to pick up the documents and was again questioned by San Nicolas about the workers arrested during the search of the construction site.

On May 26, Catap was arrested by DOLI agents pursuant to an arrest warrant and charged with unlawfully employing illegal aliens at the construction site. He was subsequently released on a $5,000 unsecured bond.

On Sept. 16, Catap filed the motion seeking to have the documents and statements obtained by DOLI suppressed or in the alternative have the case dismissed altogether.

In support of his motion, Catap argued that DOLI’s administrative search was actually a guise to investigate criminal activity and as such, a warrant was required.

Since the search was conducted without a warrant, the records seized as a result of the search must be suppressed.

Assistant Attorney General Aaron Williams opposed the motion saying Catap lacks standing to challenge the search or the seizure of the records.

To establish a Fourth Amendment violation, one must demonstrate a personal and legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or the property seized, the court said.

Without such a showing, a criminal defendant cannot benefit from the exclusionary rule’s protection because one cannot involve the Fourth Amendment rights of the others.

The court said Catap failed to demonstrate that he had legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched by the DOLI agents.

It added that Catap made no claim whatsoever that the area searched or where the records were located involved a place reserved for his exclusive personal use or that he had any expectation of privacy in such area.

The court finds that Catap has failed to demonstrate a personal and legitimate expectation of privacy in UIC’s employment records.

He lacks standing to challenge the search of the UIC premises or the seizure of its records, the court said.

Likewise, Catap sought the suppression of the statements given to San Nicolas because it was not proceeded by the Miranda warnings.

The court said there is no evidence that Catap was the specific focus of the investigation nor was he placed under arrest at the termination of his questioning.

As to the questioning at the DOLI office, the court finds no indication that the questioning took place in a context where Catap’s freedom to depart was restricted in any way.

No only did he go voluntarily to the DOLI office, but after being questioned by Officer San Nicolas, he left the office without hindrance, the court said.

Disclaimer: Comments are moderated. They will not appear immediately or even on the same day. Comments should be related to the topic. Off-topic comments would be deleted. Profanities are not allowed. Comments that are potentially libelous, inflammatory, or slanderous would be deleted.