In Re Matter of Cyril Giltamag, Minor

THE STATE COURT OF YAP

IN THE TRIAL DIVISION

Cite as In re Matter of Giltamag,

(Yap St. 1994)

IN RE MATTER OF

CYRIL GILTAMAG,

MINOR

JV. Case No. 1994-018

RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS

The minor moved this court to suppress any, and all confessions and or evidence obtained illegally from him while in custody without the presence of his parent. The motion is hereby denied.

As this court has stated before, whenever there exists a provision in the code, regulations, court rules of procedure, etc., relating to familial relationships, the Yapese definition will be applied. Thus the court must agree with the state in refusing to suppress the evidence as the person present at the interrogation, although not the parent, is one with traditional authority over the minor.

There was evidence in open court that the police attempted to notify the parent, and having failed, the minor's matam stepped in as one with authority and control. Having first attempted to contact the parent and failing, this court holds that the proper steps were followed and the matam could have properly signed the advise of rights form. This shall not in any way be taken as an avenue for police officers to, for the convenience of advancing their normal duties, disregard or overstep the requirements of section six of the State Juvenile act.

The State must show specific reasons why certain requirements in the Act are not strictly followed. Further; the state must provide reasons why the presence of a minor's relative other than that of his parents) during his interrogation is valid. In this case, valid reasons were shown.

Dated: 12/08/94 /s/

Judge C. Yinug

Filed: 12-08-94 /s/

Clerk of Court


	THE STATE COURT OF YAP IN THE TRIAL DIVISION *Cite as In re Matter of Giltamag,* (Yap St. 1994) IN RE MATTER OF CYRIL GILTAMAG, MINOR JV. Case No. 1994-018 RULING ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS The minor moved this court to suppress any, and all confessions and or evidence obtained illegally from him while in custody without the presence of his parent. The motion is hereby denied. As this court has stated before, whenever there exists a provision in the code, regulations, court rules of procedure, etc., relating to familial relationships, the Yapese definition will be applied. Thus the court must agree with the state in refusing to suppress the evidence as the person present at the interrogation, although not the parent, is one with traditional authority over the minor. There was evidence in open court that the police attempted to notify the parent, and having failed, the minor's matam stepped in as one with authority and control. Having first attempted to contact the parent and failing, this court holds that the proper steps were followed and the matam could have properly signed the advise of rights form. This shall not in any way be taken as an avenue for police officers to, for the convenience of advancing their normal duties, disregard or overstep the requirements of section six of the State Juvenile act. The State must show specific reasons why certain requirements in the Act are not strictly followed. Further; the state must provide reasons why the presence of a minor's relative other than that of his parents) during his interrogation is valid. In this case, valid reasons were shown. Dated: 12/08/94 /s/ Judge C. Yinug Filed: 12-08-94 /s/ Clerk of Court