Court filing
First Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 149, C.D. Cal.)
Filed March 15, 2021 in USA v. Ayvazyan et al.; one of 233 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-03-15 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 149 · 2021-03-15 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
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
Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr.
Mesereau Law Group, P.C.
10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
mesereau@mesereaulaw.com
310-561-9960
Jennifer J. Wirsching
1935 Alpha Rd. 216
Glendale, CA 91208
wirschinglaw@outlook.com
424-901-9280
Counsel for Defendant Artur Ayvazyan
Fred G. Minassian
Law Offices of Fred G. Minassian, Inc.
101. N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1970
Glendale, CA 91203
fgminassian@yahoo.com
818-240-2444
Counsel for Tamara Dadyan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD AYVAZYAN,
MARIETTA TERABELIAN,
ARTUR AYVAZYAN,
TAMARA DADYAN,
Defendants.
Case No. 20-CR-00579-SVW
DEFENDANTS ARTUR
AYVAZYAN’S AND TAMARA
DADYAN’S NOTICE OF MOTION
TO SUPPRESS AND RETURN
PROPERTY SEIZED IN SEARCH
OF SUBJECT PREMISES-4 AND
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
Date: April 12, 2021
Time: 11:00a.m.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 1 of 15 Page ID
#:1098
1
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
NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUPPRESS AND RETURN PROPERTY
SEIZED IN SEARCH OF SUBJECT PREMISES-4
TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on Monday, April 12, 2021 or as soon as this
counsel may be heard in Courtroom 10A of this Court at 350 W. 1st Street, 10th Floor,
Los Angeles, CA 90012, Defendants Artur Ayvazyan (“Ayvazyan”) and Tamara
Dadyan (“Dadyan”), through undersigned counsel, will move the Court to suppress and
return property seized in search of Subject Premises-4. This motion is based on this
notice, the accompanying memorandum of points and authorities, the Declaration of
Tamara Dadyan filed concurrently with this motion, any reply that Ayvazyan and/or
Dadyan may make, such other evidence and arguments as may be presented at or prior
to the hearing, and all records and files in this action.
Dated: March 15, 2021
/s/Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr.
Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr.
Mesereau Law Group, P.C.
10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
mesereau@mesereaulaw.com
310-561-9960
/s/Jennifer J. Wirsching
1935 Alpha Rd. 216
Glendale, CA 91208
wirschinglaw@outlook.com
424-901-9280
Counsel for Defendant Artur Ayvazyan
/s/ Fred G. Minassian
Fred G. Minassian
Law Offices of Fred G. Minassian, Inc.
101. N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1970
Glendale, CA 91203
fgminassian@yahoo.com
818-240-2444
Counsel for Tamara Dadyan
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 2 of 15 Page ID
#:1099
2
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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Defendants Artur Ayvazyan and Tamara Dadyan, through undersigned counsel,
move this Court to suppress evidence collected during the unlawful search of their
family’s home, Premises-4, and for the return of unlawfully seized property. As
discussed below, this relief is necessary because the Warrant lacked particularity, and
was overbroad.
I.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The search warranted executed on November 5, 2020 in Encino authorized a
search of a husband, his wife and the home they share with their two young daughters.
The warrant failed to adequately limit those searches. Instead, it allowed agents to seize
any item or document they chose to seize. Such overbroad and unparticularized
searches violate the abiding belief that a family’s home is their sanctuary. Such
warrants also violate the 4th amendment which the framers drafted with that exact
protection of home and hearth in mind.
The overbreadth, and lack of particularity were not the result of mistake or lack
of information about what items may be related to the pending charges. The alleged
PPP loan fraud purportedly ran from March 27, 2020 when the CARES Act was passed
until approximately July 2020. See Affidavit1 ¶ 16 (stating that the alleged scheme
began in or around March 2020 and “continu[ed] through at least in or around July
2020” in the summary of Probable Cause); see also Dkt. 1, Complaint, Statement of
Facts Constituting the Offense (same). The probable cause statement related to conduct
beginning on March 27, 2020 did not justify the seizure of property obtained prior to
that date. While the government needs to link supposed proceeds of the alleged offense
to property, in this case, they seized items which could obviously not have been
proceeds.
1 The terms “Affidavit” and “Warrant” refer to the Application for a Warrant by Telephone or Other
Reliable Electronic Means for Premises-4 issued on November 3, 2020, docketed at In re Search of
[Redacted], Tarzana, CA 91356, No. 2:20-mj-5282, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020) and produced to
the defense as DOJ_PROD_0000002552
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 3 of 15 Page ID
#:1100
3
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
In an exacerbation of the overbreadth and lack of particularity of the Warrant, the
agents themselves made no attempt to limit their actions in their execution. Rather, they
acted with abandon. They seized a child’s pink birthday card and the envelope
containing the card and her savings. Because the Warrant’s overbreadth and execution
in this case was unconstitutional, sections IV.A, and IV.B, below request that the Court
suppress the evidence seized from Search Premises-4 and order its return.
Setting aside the question of suppression, Section IV.C and Section IV.D request
the return of non-responsive physical property and any digital device data that has not
been marked responsive now that the time for doing so has expired.
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS REGARDING SEARCH OF SUBJECT
PREMISES-4
A.
Dangerous and Inappropriate Misconduct at a Family Home
At dawn on November 5, 2020, approximately 30 law enforcement officers
dressed for war ransacked the home of defendant Artur Ayvazyan and his wife and co-
defendant Tamara Dadyan. They did so under the color of law, brandishing a deeply
flawed warrant as a hall pass to do whatever they wished.
Despite the non-violent, white-collar nature of the allegations in this case, the
officers dressed and behaved as though they were soldiers entering a terrorist camp in a
war zone instead of officers entering a peaceful family home. From their days of
observation, the officers knew who was home: Ayvazyan, Dadyan, their 14-year-old
daughter A.A., and their 13-year-old daughter N.A. The affidavit alleged no threat of
violence or resistance and of course, the officers encountered none. This was a search
of a family home typically conducted by law enforcement in a peaceful manner to avoid
injuring or traumatizing children and relatives. The opposite occurred in this case.
Approximately 30 agents—many loaded onto a military-style vehicle and
accompanied by an armored Humvee—carried assault rifles and wore camouflage body
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 4 of 15 Page ID
#:1101
4
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
armor and helmets.
Ayvazyan, hearing a loud bang ran to the front door and was standing in front of
it when the door exploded inward. Ayvazyan stood there with his hands up pleading
“DON’T SHOOT, I’M UNARMED! MY WIFE AND CHILDREN ARE HERE!” In
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 5 of 15 Page ID
#:1102
5
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
response agents threw a smoke grenade into the hallway where Ayvazyan was standing.
Agents, brandishing assault rifles, threw more smoke grenades into the home, one
landing inside N.A.’s bedroom, and hitting her in the foot. With laser beams pointed at
the chests of Ayvazyan, Dadyan and their terrified young daughters, agents continued
shouting “DON’T MOVE, LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS” and “FBI – I’LL SHOOT,
LET ME SEE YOUR HANDS” at the terrified family.
Despite repeated assurances of compliance, the agents brandished their assault
rifles at the children and continued shouting. The terrified family peacefully walked
outside with their hands above their heads. The traumatized family was then lead
barefoot, and in their pajamas, approximately half a block away in full view of their
neighbors.
//
//
//
//
//
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 6 of 15 Page ID
#:1103
6
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
The officers’ execution of the warrant was unprecedented in its flagrant disregard
for the trauma they were inflicting. Ayvazyan and Dadyan’s young daughters have
since reported suffering from trauma related to the violent raid including nightmares
and PTSD brought on by loud noises like a doorbell. The officers inflicted this
punishment—at best—in reckless disregard for the fact that the warrant did not
authorize it.
B.
Seizure of Valuables Unrelated to the Alleged Probable Cause
The officers shot, broke, covered up and redirected the home’s security cameras
to avoid having their search warrant execution memorialized. They had already used a
truck to pull apart the gate surrounding the home - despite lacking probable cause or
permission for a no-knock warrant. The destroyed gate was then pulled open by a tow
line to allow an armored vehicle into the front area of the yard. The agents then
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 7 of 15 Page ID
#:1104
7
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
proceeded to break down the front door of the home with a battering ram. Agents
appear to have seized anything that looked like it was valuable without probable cause
to believe that the valuable items were evidence, instrumentalities, or proceeds of the
alleged fraud scheme (which spanned from March 27, 2020 when the CARES Act was
passed until approximately July 2020, see Affidavit 2¶ 16 (stating that the alleged
scheme began in or around March 2020 and “continu[ed] through at least in or around
July 2020” in the Summary of Probable Cause); Complaint, Statement of Facts
Constituting the Offense (same).
The officers seized two of Ayvazyan’s navigations system for his truck. These
devices function to calculate truck weights, width, and navigation to/from destinations.
Agents even took the pink envelope with A.A.’s first name written on it, containing the
14year-old’s life savings of $2,600 from birthdays and other holidays.
C.
Underlying Affidavit and Search Warrant for Search of Subject
Premises-4
As summarized in the Affidavit’s “Statement of Probable Cause,” there was no
probable cause justifying these seizures. The Affidavit summarizes an alleged
PPP/EIDL loan fraud scheme running from those programs’ initiation on March 27,
2020 through approximately July 2020. See Affidavit ¶ 16. The probable cause to
search Subject Premises-4 is set out in two sections of the Affidavit’s Statement of
Probable Cause (Part VI):
• Part VI Section E (“Statement of Probable Cause” for “Subject Premises-4”)
alleges that the premises are occupied by Ayvazyan and Dadyan. And that PPP
loans were obtained from companies using the home as an address. Affidavit ¶
39.
• Part VI Section I (“Statement of Probable Cause” “that Evidence, Fruits, and
Instrumentalities of the Subject Offenses Will Be Found at Subject Premises 1-7
2 In re Search of [Redacted], Tarzana, CA 91356, No. 2:20-mj-5282, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020)
and produced to the defense as DOJ_PROD_0000002552
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 8 of 15 Page ID
#:1105
8
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
and on the Subject Persons”) alleges a variety of practices that the affiant thinks
are typical in his experience. No allegations specific to Ayvazyan or Dadyan are
included. Affidavit ¶ 62.
In short, the Affidavit argues that there is probable cause to believe that since the
passage of the CARES Act on March 27, 2020, and that proceeds from these post-
March 27, 2020 loans exist in some unspecified form in Ayvazyan and Dadyan’s home.
There is no allegation that any proceeds are in the form of truck navigation systems, or
a child’s birthday card and savings acquired before March 27, 2020 are evidence,
instrumentalities, or proceeds from the alleged scheme.
The Warrant for Subject Premises-4 however, goes much further than the
Affidavit’s allegations. Instead of cabining the seizures to the evidence,
instrumentalities, and proceeds of the alleged March-July 2020 scheme, the Warrant
appears to leave officers with discretion to seize whatever they wish.
The opening paragraph of the Warrant renders the rest of the document irrelevant
by defining all items and records related to Ayvazyan or Dadyan (or either of their co-
defendants) as “evidence” to be seized. Paragraph 1.a of the “Items to be Seized”
instructs officers to seize all “[r]ecords or items concerning [Ayvazyan and/or Dadyan’s
business or a series of businesses affiliated with Ayvazyan, Dadyan, and their co-
defendants], or any affiliated … individuals.” Warrant Attach. B ¶ 1.a. Because
Ayvazyan and Dadyan were alleged to be the owners of the referenced companies,
Ayvazyan and Dadyan were encompassed within the expansive term “affiliated
individuals.” This first paragraph—standing alone—granted officers discretion to seize
any item related to Ayvazyan or Dadyan anywhere in their own home without regard to
content or time period.
The first paragraph, however, does not stand alone. Instead, the Warrant went
further—endowing the officers with discretion to seize:
• Any cash irrespective of whether it was a proceed of the alleged fraud. Warrant
¶ 1.r (noting that as long as there was over $1,000 in the premises and the
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 9 of 15 Page ID
#:1106
9
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
persons to be searched then officers were given discretion to seize any cash on
hand).
• Any “financial records” including tax, bank, corporate, and “other financial
records” regardless of which person or company they regarded. Warrant ¶ 1.i.
• Any “[b]anking and financial records” regardless of whether they related to the
alleged scheme. Warrant ¶ 1.m.
• Any travel records and passports regardless of who they relate to encompassing,
for example, the children’s passports. Warrant ¶ 1.p.
• Any digital device capable of storing data regardless of the apparent owner.
Warrant ¶ 6.
The warrant defined each item in these categories as evidence, instrumentalities,
or proceeds of the alleged scheme despite the patent inaccuracy from that definition.
The officers seized upon that discretion to rummage through the Ayvazyan/Dadyan
family’s home and seize property with impunity.
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
The Legal Standard contained in Section III of Richard Ayvazyan’s Motion to
Suppress and Return Property Seized in Search of Subject Premises-1 applies equally to
the search warrant and search of Subject Premises-4. We hereby adopt it in full and
incorporate it by reference here.3
//
//
//
//
//
3 Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized in Search of Subject Premises
-1 and Memorandum in Support by Richard Ayvazyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Dkt. 146, at 12-13.
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 10 of 15 Page ID
#:1107
10
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
IV.
ARGUMENT
A. The Seized Property Should be Suppressed and Returned Because
the Search Warrant Lacks Particularity
The unconstitutional lack of particularity summarized in Section IV.A of
Richard Ayvazyan’s Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized in Search of
Subject Premises-1 applies equally to the search warrant for Subject Premises-4.
Indeed, the pertinent language was identical.4 We hereby adopt Section IV.A of
Richard Ayvazyan’s argument in full and incorporate it by reference here.
The Warrant authorized seizures lacking the probable cause alleged by the affiant
and was therefore unconstitutionally lacking in particularity. The property seized
pursuant to that warrant should be suppressed and returned.
B. The Seized Property Should Be Suppressed and Returned Because
the Warrant Was Overbroad
The unconstitutional overbreadth summarized in Section IV.B of Richard
Ayvazyan’s Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized in Search of Subject
Premises-1 applies equally to the search warrant and search of Subject Premises-4. The
pertinent language was identical5 and the overseizure was similar. We hereby adopt
Section IV.B of Richard Ayvazyan’s argument in full and incorporate it by reference
here. Further, the warrant allowed for the seizure of a child’s birthday card and its
envelope containing her savings, and two truck navigation systems that function to aid
in weigh-station compliance. The affidavit contains no allegations that proceeds of an
alleged offense had been used to purchase trucking implements, nor that somehow a 14-
year-old child’s savings were in any way related to the allegations.
The result of the affiant’s choices was a warrant that authorized seizures beyond
4 In re Search of [Redacted], Tarzana, CA 91356, No. 2:20-mj-5282, Dkt. 1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2020)
and produced to the defense as DOJ_PROD_0000002552
5 Id.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 11 of 15 Page ID
#:1108
11
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
the probable cause alleged by the affiant and was therefore unconstitutionally
overbroad. The property seized pursuant to that warrant should be suppressed and
returned.
C. All Non-Responsive Property Should be Returned Regardless of
Suppression
The non-responsive property should be returned regardless of suppression. In
this case, the non-responsive property is A.A.’s birthday savings, and two truck
navigation systems. It should be returned promptly for the same reasons explained in
Section IV.D of Richard Ayvazyan’s Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized in
Search of Subject Premises-1.6
As explained supra in section I.B, the warrant fails to establish probable cause to
continue the seizure of the following property and it should therefore be returned:
• A.A.’s Birthday Savings
• Two Truck Navigation Systems
• Any other property for which the government lacks probable cause or which the
government concludes is non-responsive.
These items are non-responsive, and their seizure is not justified by the affidavit’s
claimed probable cause.
D. All Digital Device Data Not Marked Responsive by March 5, 2021
Should Be Returned Regardless of Suppression
The argument in Section IV.E of Richard Ayvazyan’s Motion to Suppress and
Return Property Seized in Search of Subject Premises-1 applies equally to the property
6 Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress and Return Property Seized in Search of Subject Premises
-1 and Memorandum in Support by Richard Ayvazyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Dkt. 146, at 12-13.
(C.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2021)
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 12 of 15 Page ID
#:1109
12
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
seized from Subject Premises-4. We hereby adopt Section IV.E of Richard Ayvazyan’s
argument in full and incorporate it by reference here.
The 120-day period expired on March 5, 2020. As a result, any data from a
digital device seized during the search of Premises-4—including laptops, phones,
routers, or any other digital device—that was not marked as responsive and segregated
when the Warrant’s authorization expired on March 5, 2020, must immediately be
returned.
V.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should grant Artur Ayvazyan and Tamara
Dadyan’s motion and suppress any evidence seized during the search of Premises-4
(and any fruits of that evidence). Separately, all non-responsive property, as well as any
data from digital devices that was not marked and segregated as responsive by March 5,
2021 should be returned for the reasons set forth above.
Dated: March 15, 2021
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr.
Thomas A. Mesereau, Jr.
Mesereau Law Group, P.C.
10100 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
mesereau@mesereaulaw.com
310-561-9960
/s/ Jennifer J. Wirsching
Jennifer J. Wirsching
1935 Alpha Rd. 216
Glendale, CA 91208
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 13 of 15 Page ID
#:1110
13
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
wirschinglaw@outlook.com
424-901-9280
Counsel for Defendant Artur Ayvazyan
/s/Fred G. Minassian
Fred G. Minassian
Law Offices of Fred G. Minassian, Inc.
101. N. Brand Blvd., Suite 1970
Glendale, CA 91203
fgminassian@yahoo.com
818-240-2444
Counsel for Tamara Dadyan
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 14 of 15 Page ID
#:1111
14
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on March 15, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the clerk of the
U.S District Court, Central District of California, using the electronic case filing system of the court to the
following parties.
/s/ Jennifer J. Wirsching
Jennifer J. Wirsching
1935 Alpha Rd, Suite 216
Glendale, CA 91208
424-901-9280
wirschinglaw@outlook.com
Attorney for Artur Ayvazyan
Christopher Fenton
United States Attorney's Office
1400 New York Ave, NW
Bond Building
Washington. D.C. 20530
202.320.0539
Christopher.fenton@usdoj.gov
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 149 Filed 03/15/21 Page 15 of 15 Page ID
#:1112File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.149.0.pdf
- Size
- 308,758 bytes
- SHA-256
- e11a6a5a656dd4dc2e3e7f763e6a6687a1096a033cfa491c0f13c9debb865f13
- Original
- PACER (login required)