nghia tran statement in us vs edward sullivan
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
1/20
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
MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)United States Attorney
J. DOUGLAS WILSON (DCBN 412811)Acting Criminal Chief
ANDREW S. HUANG (CABN 193730)Assistant United States Attorney1301 Clay Street, Suite 340SOakland, CA 94612Telephone: (510) 637-3680Fax: (510) 637-3724E-Mail: [email protected]
ALECIA RIEWERTS WOLAK (NYBN 4012241)Trial AttorneyCriminal Division, Child Exploitation and Obscenity SectionU.S. Department of Justice
1400 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20530Telephone: (202) 353-3749Fax: (202) 514-1793E-Mail: [email protected]
Attorneys for the United States of America
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
EDWARD LEE SULLIVAN,a/k/a Three Stacks,
Defendant.
)))))))))))
No.CR 09-00167 DLJ
DECLARATION OF PAROLE AGENTNGHIA TRAN IN SUPPORT OF THEUNITED STATESS OPPOSITION TOTHE DEFENDANTS MOTION TOSUPPRESS
Date: October 29, 2010Time: 9:00 a.m.
I, NGHIA TRAN, hereby declare as follows:
1. I am a Parole Agent with the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR), Division of Adult Parole Operations. I have been employed in
this capacity since December 2006.
NO.CR09-00167
DECL.PAROLE AGENT TRAN 1
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
2/20
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
2. From on or about January 10, 2008 to on or about May 6, 2008, I was the
agent of record (AOR) for the defendant in the above-captioned case, Edward Lee
Sullivan. As the AOR, my responsibilities included supervising the defendant, obtaining
information about the defendant from other parole agents and other law enforcementpersonnel, and maintaining the defendants parole file. To the best of my knowledge, this
Declaration is based upon these sources of information, my training and experience, and
my personal observations.
3. The defendant is a child sex offender who was paroled from custody on or
about November 4, 2007. He was convicted in California state court of unlawful sex with
a minor, prostitution of a minor under 16 years of age, and pandering of a minor under 16
years of age.
4. Due to the defendants crimes of conviction, the CDCR designated him a
High Control Parolee and he was subject to Jessicas Law, which, among other things,
placed restrictions on where the defendant could live.
5. The defendant was subject to specific conditions of parole. These
conditions are set forth in a standard form Notice and Conditions of Parole and an
addendum Special Conditions of Parole. The defendant was required to review the
standard form Notice and Conditions of Parole prior to being released from custody and
he was required to review and acknowledge both documents upon first reporting to the
CDCR parole office after his release from custody. True and correct copies of these
documents, which bear the defendants initials and signature, are attached to this
Declaration as Attachments 1 and 2, respectively.
6. The defendants parole file indicates that before I became the defendants
AOR his compliance with his conditions of parole was unsatisfactory. Specifically, in
December 2007, the defendants parole status was revoked and the defendant was
incarcerated. At the time, the defendant was a transient and therefore, under Jessicas
Law, was required to call his AOR once a day. His parole status was revoked because he
failed to comply with this requirement. He was released from custody on or about
NO .CR09-00167
DEC L.PAROLE AGENT TRA N 2
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42 Filed10/18/10 Page2 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
3/20
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
January 9, 2008 and reported to me as his AOR on or about January 10, 2010.
7. On March 24, 2008, the mother of a 14-year old girl contacted Parole Agent
III Sandra Wooden, my unit supervisor, and accused the defendant of, among other
things, the kidnapping, rape, and pimping of her daughter. The mother also indicated thatBerkeley Police Department (BPD) had a report concerning those allegations. That
same day, CDCR parole agents went to the Bay Breeze Inn in Oakland, California, which
was the defendants last known Residence of Record (ROR), to arrest him based on this
information, but learned from the hotel manager that the defendant had moved out of the
Bay Breeze Inn on March 17, 2008. The Board of Parole Hearings issued a
Miscellaneous Decision, which functions as a parole arrest warrant, on March 25, 2008
for the arrest of the defendant. See Attachment 3 (Miscellaneous Decision).
8. The defendant never reported to me that he had contact with the Oakland
Police Department on March 17, 2008. He also never reported to me that he moved out
of his ROR, the Bay Breeze Inn, on March 17, 2008. Under his conditions of parole, he
was required to promptly convey both items of information to me. The defendant
reported to me on March 21, 2008, but never mentioned his move or his contact with law
enforcement.
9. Based on information from my CDR colleagues, I called the defendant on
March 25, 2008, and made arrangements to meet the defendant at the parking lot of the
Bay Breeze Inn. That day, CDCR parole agents arrested the defendant in the parking lot
of the Bay Breeze Inn.
10. Incident to the defendants parole arrest, on March 25, 2008, CDCR parole
agents, including me, conducted a parole search of the defendants vehicle and recovered
several items, including a laptop computer, a digital camera, a book about pimping, and a
cellular telephone. Given the allegations that were made against the defendant and his
prior criminal history, I seized these items because they were and/or could contain
evidence in any parole revocation proceedings involving the defendant.
NO .CR09-00167
DEC L.PAROLE AGENT TRA N 3
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42 Filed10/18/10 Page3 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
4/20
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
11. To the best of my knowledge, prior to the defendants parole arrest and
seizure of evidence, CDCR had no contact with any other law enforcement agencies
regarding the allegations made by the mother of the 14-year old girl.
12. To prepare the Charge Sheet/Revocation Tracking/Scheduling Request andReport to Board of Prison Terms (Violation Report), I contacted BPD after the
defendants parole arrest and seizure of evidence and obtained the BPD report as part of
my parole investigation. The Violation Report set forth eight (8) charges for the Board of
Prison Terms to consider in revoking the defendants parole status. A copy of the
Violation Report is attached to this Declaration as Attachment 4.
13. At the time I submitted the Violation Report, I did not know that the items
seized from the defendant contained child pornography. The basis of Charge 8,
possession of sexually oriented material, concerned pornographic pictures on the
defendants cellular telephone that did not appear to depict children.
14. While parole charges and criminal charges may involve common facts,
parole proceedings are conducted independent of any criminal proceedings involving a
parolee. In my experience, CDCR frequently pursues parole revocation even in instances
where criminal charges were not filed or filed, but subsequently dropped.
15. I understand that evidence, including digital evidence, obtained from the
parole search and seizure of the defendant was transferred to BPD. CDCR does not have
internal capacity to forensically analyze digital evidence. Consequently, CDCR
frequently relies upon outside law enforcement agencies to analyze evidence recovered by
parole agents. Although custody of evidence may be transferred to outside agencies,
CDCR still considers the evidence as potentially pertinent to parole proceedings and,
therefore, maintains an interest in the results of the analyses performed by outside
agencies.
16. The practice described in paragraph 15 is not unique to digital evidence.
For example, CDCR does not have internal capacity to analyze controlled substances.
Therefore, as a matter of practice, CDCR relies upon outside law enforcement agencies to
NO .CR09-00167
DEC L.PAROLE AGENT TRA N 4
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42 Filed10/18/10 Page4 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
5/20
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42 Filed10/18/10 Page5 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
6/20
ATTACHMENT 1
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-1 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 2
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
7/20ELS-66
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-1 Filed10/18/10 Page2 of 2
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
8/20
ATTACHMENT 2
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
9/20ELS-67
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page2 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
10/20ELS-68
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page3 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
11/20ELS-69
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page4 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
12/20ELS-70
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page5 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
13/20ELS-71
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-2 Filed10/18/10 Page6 of 6
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
14/20
ATTACHMENT 3
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-3 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 2
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
15/20ELS-64
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-3 Filed10/18/10 Page2 of 2
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
16/20
ATTACHMENT 4
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-4 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
17/20ELS-224
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-4 Filed10/18/10 Page2 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
18/20ELS-225
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-4 Filed10/18/10 Page3 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
19/20ELS-226
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-4 Filed10/18/10 Page4 of 5
-
8/7/2019 Nghia Tran statement in US vs Edward Sullivan
20/20
Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-4 Filed10/18/10 Page5 of 5