nghia tran statement in us vs edward sullivan

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


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



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




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




5/20

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



6/20

ATTACHMENT 1

Case4:09-cr-00167-DLJ Document42-1 Filed10/18/10 Page1 of 2


7/20ELS-66



8/20

ATTACHMENT 2



9/20ELS-67



10/20ELS-68



11/20ELS-69



12/20ELS-70



13/20ELS-71



14/20

ATTACHMENT 3



15/20ELS-64



16/20

ATTACHMENT 4



17/20ELS-224



18/20ELS-225



19/20ELS-226



20/20


nghia tran statement in us vs edward sullivan

Documents