Jury won't hear statements given to officers by accused Google trade secrets thief

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — Officers who questioned a former Google software engineer facing federal trade secret theft and economic espionage charges violated his Miranda rights, leading a judge on Tuesday to suppress the statements given to authorities.

However, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria also ruled that Linwei Ding willingly gave passwords to officers, and that evidence gained from his electronic devices can reach a jury.

Ding, also known as Leon Ding, faces accusations that he stole confidential information from Google, which hired him in 2019 to help develop its supercomputing data centers. Authorities in his indictment claimed that the Chinese national started to transfer files in May 2022 from Google’s network to a personal cloud account, uploading more than 500 files over a year.

The information included foundational data that Google used to train and host large artificial intelligence models. Authorities have said Ding had secret links to two China-based tech companies and appeared poised to become the chief technology officer of a new company.

Over a dozen armed FBI officers descended in January 2024 on Ding’s Bay Area home to execute a search warrant. Officers placed Ding in a car, removed his handcuffs and told him he wasn’t under arrest. He remained in the vehicle for over three hours.

Chhabria, a Barack Obama appointee, wrote that he examined several factors, including the time spent in interrogation, when determining if a Miranda violation occurred.

“Both sides agree that Ding was subject to questioning and did not receive Miranda warnings,” the judge wrote. “The sole remaining issue, then, is whether Ding was ‘in custody’ during his interview, such that a reasonable person in his position would not have felt free to end the questioning and leave.”

Miranda v. Arizona , a cornerstone of American law, provides certain rights to someone in custody, including the right to stay silent and not speak to authorities and the right to an attorney. Officers must inform people of these rights when arrested.

In Ding’s case, government officials argued that officers told Ding he wasn’t under arrest and was “free.” While important, Chhabria wrote that simply making that statement doesn’t mean someone can leave.

“It depends on the circumstances,” the judge wrote. “And in many cases, it almost seems as if officers believe that they need only utter the magic words ‘not under arrest’ or ‘free to leave’ to inoculate themselves from a claim that their otherwise-highly-coercive detention and interrogation triggered the Miranda obligation."

Chhabria noted that when officers first encountered Ding, they had their weapons drawn and ordered him into a marked vehicle. They also confronted Ding with evidence of his guilt, parrying his answers with their evidence.

Additionally, officers separated Ding from his family. He then remained in the “police-dominated” environment of the vehicle, the judge wrote.

“As to the agents’ statements about Ding’s status, while Ding was informed he was ‘free,’ he was not informed that he was free to terminate the interview or leave,” Chhabria wrote. “Certainly after being placed in a police car, it would be difficult for any reasonable person to believe and act on the implication that he was free to leave.”

Ding had argued that the passwords he gave to officers also should be suppressed, though the judge disagreed with him on this point. Miranda is intended to protect someone from self-incrimination. However, Chhabria ruled that the passwords for devices he controls aren’t inherently incriminating, and possessing passwords doesn’t equate to him admitting he stole any trade secrets found on his electronic devices.

“We are obviously very pleased that the court agreed that Mr. Ding’s statements were obtained during a custodial interrogation without receiving a constitutionally mandated Miranda warning, and ordered his statements suppressed,” said attorney Grant Fondo, who represents Ding, in a statement.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California declined to comment.