A fortnight ago news broke that Cleber Rene Rizerio Rocha, better known as the
TelexFree money mattress mule
, wanted evidence obtained against him suppressed.

Cleber claims statements he made after his arrest were obtained “in violation of (his) Fifth Amendment right to counsel”. Evidence obtained from his phone meanwhile was obtained “without a warrant and without consent”.

In a June 27th response filing, the DOJ paint a different story.

While the DOJ acknowledge an “underlying substance to some of Rocha’s claims”, the regulator states his motion “mischaracterizes the (arresting) agent’s behavior”.

As is obvious from the video recordings of the event, the agents were always polite and not particularly aggressive with Rocha; they did not “threaten” him and although they surely tried to induce his cooperation, this did not amount to “intimidation.”

Rocha strains to paint the agents as improperly aggressive because he cannot otherwise contest his own waiver of rights and consent to search.

Interestingly, the DOJ claim Rocha “lied during nearly all” of his first interview.

Allegedly, it was only when Rocha (right) was informed he’d be “transported to jail” that he caved and spilled the beans.

After being told he would be transported to jail, Rocha asked why he had to go to jail and began explaining that he was just doing someone a favor.

The agent stopped him, asked if he wanted to talk to them, and Rocha confirmed that he did.

This is enough.

With respect to Rocha’s Fifth Amendment violation claims, the DOJ contend

Fifth Amendment violations only prevent the use of defendants’ statements at trial; they do not support suppressing physical evidence obtained via consent, so long as that consent was voluntary (in the literal sense).

Rocha knowingly and voluntarily consented to a search of his apartment.

Had Rocha not given consent, the DOJ claim they would have obtained a warrant anyway as the apartment was in the name of Esdras Freitas, ‘
the ex-wife of a TelexFree founder and a name already known to the agents
‘.

As to Rocha’s cellular telephone, the agents seized when he was arrested, but the government has never searched it.

The arresting agents secured access to the phone by putting it into airplane mode and then into a Farraday bag, after which it was entered into evidence pending a search warrant (which the government agrees is required).

Rocha has requested an evidentiary hearing on the matter. The DOJ has asked an affidavit Rocha filed be stricken, on the basis he hasn’t consented to cross-examination.

Rocha cannot put his own self-serving testimony into the record but then block the government from testing his claims on crossexamination.

Given Rocha has already lied to federal agents, I think that’s a fair request.

Rocha lied during most of the interview, claiming to know nothing about a stash of money or what was in the suitcase he delivered.

Perhaps the most compelling aspect of Rocha’s motion was the alleged ignoring

🤖 Quick Answer

Did Cleber Rene Rizerio Rocha successfully argue that evidence against him should be suppressed?

No. The DOJ contested Rocha's motion in a June 27th filing, acknowledging some substance to his claims but arguing the arresting agents behaved appropriately. Video recordings showed agents were polite and non-aggressive, contradicting Rocha's allegations of Fifth Amendment violations and unauthorized phone evidence collection.

🔗 Related Articles

- Feds seize Sebastian Greenwood’s prison cell phone
- Firoz Patel turning himself in to face Payza money laundering charges
- OneCoin money launderer David Pike to plead guilty
- Owner of Ju Ding Ponzi scheme arrested
- Rodrigues out on bail, $200,000 bond & home detention