Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00323/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cr-00323-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Flavia Lino
Defendant
Kenneth Ng
Defendant
Michael Pon
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KENNETH NG, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cr-00323-SI-1 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT NG'S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

Re: Dkt. No. 66

On August 25 and September 16, 2016, the Court held evidentiary hearings on defendant 

Ng’s motion to suppress. The Court heard testimony from defendant and from law enforcement 

agents involved with the probation search and subsequent interrogation of defendant. For the 

reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion. 

BACKGROUND

I. Defendant’s version

The following is taken from defendant’s declaration and his testimony during the 

evidentiary hearing. On August 5, 2014, at approximately 7:53 a.m., Drug Enforcement 

Administration (“DEA”) agents and Task Force Officers (“TFO”) conducted a probation search at 

768 24th Avenue in San Francisco, the residence of defendants Kenneth Ng and Flavia Lino. 

Defendant states that he was smoking a cigarette in his backyard when approximately 10 men in 

DEA jackets and vests, fully armed, came towards him with their guns drawn. Defendant states

that the agents threw him to the ground and handcuffed him, and that he was kept on the ground 

for about 15 minutes. Defendant states that after the agents cleared the backyard, they allowed

him to sit on a chair, still handcuffed, while agents searched his house. Defendant testified that he 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 1 of 9
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

was allowed to smoke while the officers conducted the search, and that he did so while 

handcuffed. Four uniformed officers from the South San Francisco Police Department arrived 

later. Defendant states that he asked to speak to his wife while the officers searched his house and 

that the agents said that he could not talk to her until the search was over.

The search took about an hour, ending at approximately 9:00 am. Defendant testified that 

the agents told defendant that they were taking him to the police station for questioning, and that

he asked if he had a choice and the agents told him he did not. Defendant testified that at the time 

he was not wearing a shirt, and that an agent went inside the house to get a shirt for him to wear. 

Defendant testified that the agents took his handcuffs off to allow him to put on a shirt, and then 

agents placed him back in handcuffs before transporting him in an unmarked police car to the 

South San Francisco Police Station for questioning. Defendant’s wife, co-defendant Lino, was 

transported to the police station separately, and she was interviewed first. Defendant claims that 

once at the police department, he was placed in an interview room where his handcuffs were 

removed. Defendant states that the interview room was approximately 6x8 feet. Defendant claims 

that while he waited for the interrogation to begin, a police officer was posted at the door, and at 

other times the officer would come and sit down in the room. Defendant testified that the officers 

did not give him anything to eat or drink, though he also stated that he did not request anything to 

eat or drink. Defendant also testified that when he needed to use the bathroom, he was escorted by 

a police officer to a toilet in a holding cell in the “jail” portion of the station. 

Defendant testified he waited for an hour to an hour and a half in the interview room 

before the interrogation began. Special Agent Madden, TFO Sena and TFO Mahon conducted the 

interrogation. It is undisputed that the officers never gave defendant Miranda warnings. 

Defendant testified that he did not remember whether TFO Sena told him that he was not under 

arrest, and he testified TFO Sena did not tell him that he was free to leave. Defendant testified 

that during the interrogation, the agents told him that they had enough evidence to put his wife in 

federal prison for 25 years1and to put him away “for a long time.” Defendant testified that the 

 

1

 In his declaration, defendant stated that “the agents threatened that if I did not cooperate, 

my wife would ‘do’ 25 years.” Ng Decl. ¶ 10. 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 2 of 9
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

agents told him that he could help himself and his wife if he helped them. Defendant testified that 

the officers provided him with some information about the investigation, and he states in his 

declaration that he “told them what they wanted to hear so that they would let me leave.” Ng 

Decl. ¶ 10. Defendant testified that the interrogation lasted about one hour.

Defendant also testified that he is a drug addict, and that he had “probably” used drugs the 

night before the search. Defendant testified that he did not believe his drug use affected his ability 

to remember the main details of the events of August 5, 2014. Defendant also testified that he is a 

convicted felon, although he could not remember precisely how many convictions he had (“maybe 

3 or 4”). 

II. The government’s version

The following is taken from the officers’ testimony and declarations. On the morning of 

and prior to the search, TFO Sena, who was acting in an undercover capacity in the 

methamphetamine investigation, called Lino to arrange a meeting that morning at her residence. 

When officers arrived to conduct a probation search pursuant to a search warrant, they knocked on 

the door and Lino opened the door. When Lino saw the uniformed DEA team, she attempted to 

shut the door and fled back into the residence. After the agents entered the residence, one of the 

agents found Lino in a storage room inside the residence.

TFO Fregoso was the first agent inside the residence, and he testified that he had his AR15 rifle drawn.2

 TFO Fregoso saw defendant in the backyard, and based on the nature of the 

investigation and the fact that defendant was on probation, he ordered defendant to a prone 

position and defendant complied. TFO Fregoso testified that he did not throw defendant to the 

ground. TFO Fregoso placed defendant’s hands, which were behind his back, in handcuffs. 

Fregoso searched the backyard, where he found a plastic bag containing drugs. TFO Fregoso 

testified that he kept his rifle pointed at defendant until other officers took over watching 

defendant. Fregoso then went to help search other portions of the residence, and when he returned 

 

2

 Agent Madden testified that only two of the agents had rifles.

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 3 of 9
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

approximately 40 minutes later, he saw defendant talking to Agent Mahon, and he said that 

defendant was smoking and was not handcuffed at that point.

TFO Singh testified that his role was to secure the outside perimeter of the house, and that 

he entered the house 5-7 minutes after the officers had cleared the house. Singh testified that 

when he entered the house he did not have his weapon drawn. Singh testified that he went to the 

backyard and saw Ng sitting in a chair wearing handcuffs. Singh was responsible for watching Ng 

while the other officers searched the house, and Singh testified that after approximately 15-20 

minutes one of the officers took Ng’s handcuffs off and Ng was allowed to walk around the 

backyard and smoke. 

Special Agent Madden testified that he was the officer who found Lino in the storage 

room, and he handcuffed and searched her, and stayed with her while the other officers conducted 

a protective sweep of the residence. Madden testified that his role during the search was as the 

“finder,” and that he seized all of the evidence gathered during the search. Madden testified that 

when he went into the backyard, he seized the bag of drugs that Fregoso had found. Madden 

testified that when he went to the backyard, Ng was sitting in a chair smoking, and he did not 

recall whether he was handcuffed at that point or not. 

Officer Mahon testified that when he entered the backyard, he saw Ng sitting and that he 

was handcuffed. Mahon testified that he explained to defendant that there was an ongoing 

investigation involving the selling of large quantities of crystal methamphetamine to an 

undercover agent working for the DEA. Mahon testified that during the entire time he spoke to 

Ng, his duty weapon was holstered. Mahon also testified that Ng’s handcuffs were removed 

during this conversation, and that Mahon might have been the agent who removed them. Mahon 

stated in his declaration that he also explained to defendant that he was not under arrest and was 

free to leave at any time. Mahon also stated that “[w]hen asked, NG agreed to come to the South 

San Francisco Police Department on a voluntary basis for an interview regarding this matter. NG 

agreed to such request.” Mahon Decl. ¶ 5. It is undisputed that Ng’s vehicle had recently been in 

an accident, and the officers testified that because Ng could not drive his vehicle to the station, 

they offered to transport him in an unmarked police car. The officers also testified that prior to 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 4 of 9
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

leaving the house, defendant walked inside the residence and grabbed a T-shirt and his belongings. 

The officers testified that during the drive, defendant sat in the front passenger seat and that he 

was not handcuffed.

Lino was interviewed first, and her interview took about an hour. Ng’s interview began 

around 10:00 am. SA Madden, TFO Sena and TFO Mahon all testified that defendant was told 

that he was not under arrest and was free to leave any time, and that defendant agreed to provide a 

voluntary statement. The agents testified that the door for the interview room remained unlocked

during the interview, and that at no time was defendant handcuffed. The agents testified the

interview lasted for approximately 45 min. The agents testified that during the interview 

defendant never asked for any food or drink. Defendant did use the bathroom while at the station, 

however all visitors at the police department must be escorted the entire time while in the building. 

The agents testified that at no time did anyone threaten or coerce defendant to provide a statement, 

but that they did tell defendant that he could help himself out by providing information about the 

drug conspiracy. The agents testified that defendant was calm, cooperative and forthcoming 

during the interview, and that he provided detailed information about the involvement of himself, 

Lino, and co-defendant Michael Pon regarding two completed methamphetamine deals and a third 

attempted deal.

DISCUSSION

Defendant and his two codefendants, Flavia Lino and Michael Pon, are charged with 

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, and with 

distribution and possession of methamphetamine. Defendant moves to suppress the statements he 

gave during the August 4, 2014 interview on the ground that the agents violated defendant’s Fifth 

Amendment rights by failing to provide Miranda warnings in what amounted to a custodial 

interrogation. 

In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), the Supreme Court held that certain warnings

must be given before a suspect’s statement made during custodial interrogation can be admitted in 

evidence. Miranda warnings are required “only where there has been such a restriction on a 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 5 of 9
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

person’s freedom as to render him ‘in custody.’” Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495 (1977). 

In determining whether someone is in custody, “the ultimate inquiry is simply whether there [was] 

a ‘formal arrest or restraint on freedom of movement’ of the degree associated with a formal 

arrest.” California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1125 (1983) (quoting Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 

U.S. at 495)). It requires that a reasonable person would not “have felt he or she was not at liberty 

to terminate the interrogation and leave,” given the totality of the circumstances. Thompson v. 

Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). “The custody determination is objective and is not based upon 

‘the subjective views of the officers or the individual being questioned.’” United States v. 

Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879, 883 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969, 973

(9th Cir. 2002)).

Neither Miranda nor its Supreme Court progeny set down any bright line rule or specific 

test for determining when someone is in custody and instead suggest that the totality of the 

circumstances of each case must be examined to determine whether there was custody. See 

Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U.S. 652, 661-62 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has identified five 

factors relevant to the custody determination: “(1) the language used to summon the individual; 

(2) the extent to which the defendant is confronted with evidence of guilt; (3) the physical 

surroundings of the interrogation; (4) the duration of the detention; and (5) the degree of pressure 

applied to detain the individual.” Bassignani, 575 F.3d at 883 (citation and quotation marks 

omitted). However, these factors are not exhaustive, as other factors may be pertinent to, or even 

dispositive of, the custody question. 

In the Court’s view, the more prudent course would have been for the officers to provide

defendant with Miranda warnings and thus obviate the current dispute. However, after careful 

consideration of the testimony presented, the Court concludes that under the totality of the 

circumstances, defendant was not in custody. On the first factor, the Court does not find credible 

defendant’s testimony that the agents told him that he had no choice but to accompany them to the 

station. The Court does find it credible that the officers told defendant that they had found drugs 

at his residence during the probation search, that the officers asked defendant if he would go to the 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 6 of 9
7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

station to provide a statement, and that defendant agreed to do so.3 This factor weighs heavily in 

favor of finding the interrogation non-custodial. The Supreme Court has several times found no 

custody where the defendant went to the police station voluntarily and left freely after questioning. 

See Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318 (1994); Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121; Mathiason, 429 U.S. 

492; see also United States v. Crawford, 372 F.3d 1048, 1059 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc); United 

States v. Norris, 428 F.3d 907, 912 (9th Cir. 2005).

The Court also does not find credible defendant’s testimony that he was kept in handcuffs 

until he was placed in the interview room. All of the officers consistently and credibly testified 

that defendant was handcuffed for approximately 15-20 minutes at the beginning of the search, 

and that the handcuffs were then removed. This is also consistent with the August 6, 2014 report 

prepared by agent Mahon which states that “NG and LINO were unhandcuffed and transported 

under their consent to the South San Francisco Police Department for interview.” Dkt. No. 66-2 ¶

10.4 Defendant testified that he was permitted to smoke in the backyard during the search, and it 

is not clear how he would be able to do so with his hands cuffed. The Court also finds significant 

the fact that defendant admitted to being a drug addict, and that he had probably used drugs the 

night before the search. Although defendant testified that he did not believe his drug use affected 

his memory of the events in question, the Court finds that the fact that defendant is an addict who 

used drugs the night before is a factor that must be considered when evaluating defendant’s 

credibility.

On the second factor, the Court examines “the extent to which the defendant was 

confronted with evidence of guilt.” “The Ninth Circuit has found a defendant in custody when the 

interrogator adopts an aggressive, coercive, and deceptive tone.” Bassignani, 575 F.3d at 884. 

Compare United States v. Beraun-Panez, 812 F.2d 578, 579 (9th Cir. 1987) (holding defendant 

 

3

 The Court also notes that the government entered into evidence a “Consent to Search” 

form signed by defendant on August 5, 2014, in which defendant consented to a search of his cell 

phone. The Court finds that this consent supports a finding that defendant went to the police 

station voluntarily.

4

 Defendant argues that “unhandcuffed” in this sentence is a verb. For the reasons set 

forth above, the Court is not persuaded by this argument. 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 7 of 9
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

was in custody where “[t]he officers demanded to know why [Beraun-Panez] was lying and said 

they knew the truth. They told him that witnesses had placed him at the scene, even though their 

two witnesses had in fact stated only that they had seen a tan truck, like that Beraun–Panez used, 

within several miles of [the site of the alleged crime].”), with Norris, 428 F.3d at 913 (holding 

defendant was not in custody when the officers “did not attempt to challenge [the defendant’s] 

statements with other ‘known facts’ suggesting his guilt, they merely asked [him] about the 

allegations.”). The Court finds that on balance this factor weighs somewhat towards a finding of 

no custody. Defendant claims that the agents threatened him that if he did not cooperate his wife 

would “do” 25 years; the agents testified that they informed defendant about the investigation and 

told him that they had enough evidence to put defendant’s wife in prison for 25 years and 

defendant in prison for a long time. However, there is no evidence that the agents challenged any 

of defendant’s statements with facts suggesting his guilt or that the agents used deception. All of 

the agents testified that defendant was forthcoming and volunteered considerable information 

during the interrogation. Further, defendant was aware based on the probation search that agents 

had seized drugs at his house. 

The third factor − the physical surroundings of the interrogation − weighs in favor of a 

custodial finding. However, in Mathiason, the Court acknowledged that the environment at the 

police station was coercive, but that Miranda does not apply simply because a coercive 

atmosphere exists. Mathiason, 429 U.S. at 495. 

Turning to the fourth factor, the Court finds that the duration of the interrogation was 

somewhere between 45 minutes and an hour. The Ninth Circuit has found a defendant not in 

custody when he was interrogated for “more than one hour” (following a detention during a parole 

search), Crawford, 372 F.3d at 1052, and “approximately 45 minutes.” Norris, 428 F.3d at 911. 

Thus, this factor supports a finding that defendant was not in custody.

Finally, the Ninth Circuit has “consistently held that a defendant is not in custody when 

officers tell him that he is not under arrest and is free to leave at any time.” Bassignani, 575 F.3d 

at 876 (discussing cases). Here, the Court credits the officers’ testimony that defendant was told 

that he was not under arrest and that he was free to leave, and this factor supports a non-custodial 

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 8 of 9
9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

finding.

Accordingly, the Court finds that under the totality of the circumstances, defendant was not 

in custody when he was interrogated on August 5, 2014.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES defendant’s motion to suppress.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 30, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cr-00323-VC Document 99 Filed 09/30/16 Page 9 of 9