Court filing
Reply in Support First Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress — USA v. Ayvazyan et al. (Dkt. 241, C.D. Cal.)
Filed April 1, 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 | 2021-04-01 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 241 · 2021-04-01 · 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
JOINT REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND
RETURN PROPERTY SEIZED
FROM SUBJECT PREMISES-4
Hon. Stephen V. Wilson
Date: April 12, 2021
Time: 11:00a.m.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 1 of 9 Page ID
#:2132
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
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The Government sought a nearly limitless search warrant at odds with a limited
probable cause statement that effectively granted officers complete discretion to seize
whatever records or items they found in the personal residence of Ayvazyan, Dadyan,
and their children. The Government compounded its errors by engaging in serious
misconduct risking the lives of private citizens. The Affidavit failed to adduce probable
cause to justify the seizure of the property in question. The warrant was unreasonably
executed as a military-style raid on a family home. The warrant was not executed in
good faith.
I.
FACTUAL INACCURACIES IN THE OPPOSITION
The Opposition relies primarily on misrepresentations and obfuscations in an
attempt to justify the Government’s misconduct. Indeed, the primary focus of the
Government’s opposition seeks to excuse the shocking manner of execution of the
warrant. These excuses focus on unfounded character assassination in an attempt to
paint Ayvazyan, Dadyan and their children as posing a serious risk of danger who
should be considered armed and dangerous. Notably, none of these unfounded
accusations had been made when seeking the warrant. Agent safety precautions such as
requesting a “no knock” warrant were not applied for. It is only in retrospect that the
Government attempts to shift the blame for the appalling military-style storming of the
home to the family.
On September 23 and October 26, 2020, the government filed surveillance
requests for three residences and multiple people. Ayvazyan and Dadyan were among
the people listed as subjects of the surveillance. The requests for surveillance certified
in writing that the subjects of surveillance were not potentially dangerous:
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 9 Page ID
#:2133
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
“Is the subject of this request considered armed and dangerous or do the circumstances
of the case involve a potentially dangerous environment (high-crime locations, known
associates, etc.)? No”1
See Ram Declaration (DOJ_PROD_0000152041;DOJ_PROD_0000152446)(emphasis
added)
A. Dangerous Law Enforcement Misconduct at a Family Home
The Opposition does not deny that “the Affidavit alleged no threat of
violence or resistance and of course, the officers encountered none.” Dkt. 149 at 3.
Nor does the Opposition deny that the government employed overwhelming, military-
style force despite knowing that Ayvazyan and Dadyan would be at home with their
two children. The Opposition does not deny that the government officers
inappropriately held the children at gunpoint, threw smoke bombs into the home hitting
a child in the foot. Dkt. 149 at 6. The Opposition instead claims that this misconduct
was consistent with executing a search in “a professional manner.” Opp’n at 8.
B. Misrepresentations About an Unrelated Person’s 2009 Conduct
Faced with government misconduct that it cannot deny, the Opposition further
attempts to shift blame to the victims of their conduct by attempting to tie them to an
unrelated person. The Opposition tries to paint a non-violent Encino family as violent
gang members in an effort to justify the needlessly violent actions of the Government.
It is important to be clear on this point: neither Ayvazyan nor Dayan are associates of
1 Joint Reply in Support of Motions to Suppress and Return Property Seized from Subject Premises -1
by Richard Ayvazyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Dkt. 222 Attachment 1.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 3 of 9 Page ID
#:2134
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
the Armenian gang referenced multiple times throughout the Opposition. The
Government does not allege that they are associates, and they are not. Instead, the
Opposition attacks Ayvazyan and Dadyan through allegations about a person they have
no relation to, Artur Pembejian.
The Opposition misrepresents Pembejian’s case in an effort to smear Ayvazyan
and Dadyan. Pembejian pled guilty to delivering a gift antique rifle from an Armenian
gang member to a visiting politician from Armenia, discussing the potential purchase of
three other firearms that he neither bought nor sold, and discussing police presence at a
restaurant, all of which occurred in 2009. Factual Basis, Plea Agreement, United States
v. Pembejian, No. 11-cr-72, Dkt. 2598 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 5, 2013); Def’t’s Sent’g Mem.
at 2, Pembejian, Dkt. 2874 (Jan. 23, 2014). Pembejian’s conduct was sufficient to
qualify as an “associate,” but the government agreed that he played a “minor role,” and
that his actions did not merit jail time. Plea Agreement at 9 (recommending probation
only). Critically, the Plea Agreement did not allege that Pembejian was a member of
the gang, and to the contrary, Pembejian averred that “[h]e [wa]s not a member of the
Armenian Power,” Def’t’s Sent’g Mem. at 2 (emphasis added). There is no indication
that the government contested this fact, and Pembejian thereafter received the minimum
term of probation (two years below the government’s request) indicating that any such
protest was overruled.
The Opposition posits that a person seen driving a car registered to Pemejian at a
property not owned by Ayvazyan nor Dadyan could have been Dadyan. The accusation
is absurd, unfounded, and irrelevant. The Opposition then states that an empty
ammunition was box was found days later in the trash. The Opposition fails to mention
that this box was found in the garbage in front of someone else’s residence. The box
was not found outside Ayvazyan and Dadyan’s home. Yet, somehow Ayvazyan and
Dadyan are being tarred with the brush of someone else’s trash.
The Opposition exaggerates, misstates, and misrepresents Pembejian’s conduct
in a desperate attempt to justify the use of military-style force during the execution of a
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 4 of 9 Page ID
#:2135
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
search warrant for a non-violent crime at a family home. Even if Pembejian’s home
were the one being searched, this use of force would have been inappropriate. Because
the home being searched was not Pembejian’s—but was in fact a family with zero
connection to the 2009 events or any gang—the government’s military-style raid was
inexcusable misconduct.
The Opposition also spends considerable space implying that Ayvazyan’s lawful
and responsible maintenance of firearms in a gun safe is somehow “proof” that military
force was necessary. The Opposition goes so far as saying that “these steps proved
necessary” as firearms were seized. Opp’n at 6. However, the uncontested fact that
Ayvazyan, his wife and children complied with all requests, and peacefully exited the
home shows that those steps were not necessary. Items discovered after a search are
irrelevant to the force used to execute a search warrant at Ayvazyan and Dadyan’s
home.
II.
THE SEIZED PROPERTY SHOULD BE RETURNED REGARDLESS
OF SUPPRESSION (DKT. 149 §§ IV.C, IV.D)
The government does not contest that property seized without probable cause—
whether it was because the warrant went beyond the scope of probable cause or the
executing officers did so—should be returned regardless of whether that violation
occurred in good faith or bad faith. See Dkt. 149 § IV.C. The government should
therefore be required to return (A) physical property seized without supporting probable
cause, and (B) digital device data for which the review period has expired.
A.
Physical Property Seized Without Probable Cause Should Be
Returned
1.
The Government Seized Property Without Adducing
Probable Cause That the Property Was Traceable to the Alleged
Crime
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 5 of 9 Page ID
#:2136
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
The legal arguments and conclusions contained in Section II (A) (1) of Richard
Ayvazyan’s Joint Reply in Support of Motions to Suppress and Return Property Seized
from Subject Premises - 1 applies equally to the property seized from of Subject
Premises-4. We hereby adopt it in full and incorporate it by reference here.2
The specific non-responsive property seized from the Ayvazyan and Dadyan
home are:
• A.A.’s Birthday savings in a pink envelope
• Two truck navigation systems
B.
Digital Device Data Should Be Returned
The legal arguments and conclusions contained in Section II (B) of Richard
Ayvazyan’s Joint Reply in Support of Motions to Suppress and Return Property Seized
from Subject Premises - 1 applies equally to the digital device data seized from of
Subject Premises-4. We hereby adopt it in full and incorporate it by reference here.3
III.
THE SEIZED PROPERTY SHOULD BE SUPPRESSED AND
RETURNED BECAUSE THE WARRANT WAS EXECUTED
UNREASONABLY
The Opposition attempts to call on the frequent government favorite “good faith”
to navigate a middle ground, but the facts of this case explain why the Court should
reject that attempt. No reasonable attorney or officer could think that suspicion of a
crime justifies the warrant execution in this case. As discussed, supra, the
government—after observing in internal documents that the residents posed no threat—
2 Joint Reply in Support of Motions to Suppress and Return Property Seized from Subject Premises -1
by Richard Ayvazyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Dkt. 222, at 9. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021)
3 Joint Reply in Support of Motions to Suppress and Return Property Seized from Subject Premises -1
by Richard Ayvazyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, Dkt. 222, at 19. (C.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2021)
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 6 of 9 Page ID
#:2137
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
treated the Ayvazyan/Dadyan family like second- or third-class citizens. The
government launched an invasion-style execution to the detriment of Ayvazyan’s
children. The government terrified those children and held them at gunpoint.
There is no justification for holding children at the end of a military assault rifle.
To make matters worse, the government disabled the cameras to avoid being recorded
while they did this. Although the Opposition claims that this was out of fear of local
truck driver Artur Ayvazyan and his wife Tamara Dadyan, it continued disabling
cameras even after Ayvazyan and Dadyan had been handcuffed and led out of the
home. The Opposition’s claims are false and should not be credited. These warrants
were not executed in good faith, and the resulting seizures should be
suppressed and returned.
Dated: April 1, 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
wirschinglaw@outlook.com
424-901-9280
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 7 of 9 Page ID
#:2138
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
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 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 8 of 9 Page ID
#:2139
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on April 1, 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 241 Filed 04/01/21 Page 9 of 9 Page ID
#:2140File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.241.0.pdf
- Size
- 170,742 bytes
- SHA-256
- 8353f89bcff4a74a590e0beb11c2592d58e6e91cd9c648c9ef8836ecd52925dd
- Original
- PACER (login required)