Court filing

Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements and Evidence Seized from His Luggage — United States v. Choi (Dkt. 27, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

A notice of motion and motion to suppress the defendant's statements and evidence seized from his luggage, filed August 31, 2026 for defendant Bruce Choi by attorney Christopher J. Cannon in United States of America v. Bruce Choi, Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, set for hearing October 9, 2026. It states that Choi is charged in Counts One through Four with wire fraud affecting a financial institution under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and in Count Five with transactional money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, and that on December 20, 2024 he was leaving his Los Angeles apartment with carry-on luggage containing a bitcoin hardware wallet. The motion explains bitcoin wallets and argues that the warrantless search of his luggage and seizure of the wallet, and his statements to agents, must be suppressed.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Filed August 31, 2026 in Bruce Choi; one of 1 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Filed	2026-08-31

Cite this document

“Notice of Motion and Motion to Suppress Defendant’s Statements and Evidence Seized from His Luggage — United States v. Choi (Dkt. 27, C.D. Cal.).” U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, No. 2:25-cr-00799, Doc. 27, filed 2026-08-31. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-bruce-choi-cacd-990417/2026-08-31-gov-uscourts-cacd-990417-27-0-doc-27/, SHA-256 2ec7937c550e9d76abb55bac7df5358057793d392251e9bab650bf2329ad5243.

Full text

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:140

CHRISTOPHER J. CANNON, State Bar No. 88034
1
Sugarman & Cannon
2 737 Tehama No. 3
San Francisco, CA 94103
3 Telephone: (415) 362-6252
Facsimile: (415) 362-6431
4
chris@sugarmanandcannon.com
5
Attorney for Defendant,
6 Bruce CHOI.
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9

11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1
12
Plaintiff, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION
13 TO SUPPRESS DEFENDANT’S
v. STATEMENTS AND EVIDENCE SEIZED
14
FROM HIS LUGGAGE.
15 BRUCE CHOI,
Date: October 9, 2026
16 Defendant. Time:10:00 a.m.
Honorable Judge Michelle Williams Court
17

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 2 of 23 Page ID #:141

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2

3
I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 1
4

5 II. A SHORT BITCOIN WALLET EXPLANATION ................................................................... 8
6
III. ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 9
7
IV. THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF MR. CHOI’S LUGGAGE AND
8
SEIZURE OF THE BITCOIN WALLET MUST BE SUPPRESSED..................................... 11
9 A. The Separation of Assets vs. Access Methods ................................................................ 11
10 B. The Seizure Warrant vs. Search Warrant Distinction. ..................................................... 13
11 C. Riley v. California and the Heightened Protection for Digital Access Devices. ............. 16

12
D. There Was No Consent To The Search. .......................................................................... 17

13 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................... 19
14

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 3 of 23 Page ID #:142

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
1

2
Cases Page(s)
3
California v. Beheler,
4
463 U.S. 1121, 103 S. Ct. 3517, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1275 (1983) ....................................................... 8
5
Miranda v. Arizona,
6 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)....................................................passim
7 Riley v. California,
573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) ................................................. 15, 16
8

9 In Re Search of One Address in Washington, D.C, Under Rule 41
512 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2021) .............................................................................. 14, 16, 17
10
Snitko v. United States,
11
90 F.4th 1250 (9th Cir. 2024) .................................................................................................. 14
12
Stansbury v. California,
13 511 U.S. 318, 114 S. Ct. 1526, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1994) ......................................................... 8
14 Thompson v. Keohne,
516 U.S. 99, 116 S. Ct. 457, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995)............................................................. 8
15

16 United States v. $557,933.89, More or Less, in U.S. Funds, Seized from Ramis
Mercado-Filpo,
17 287 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2002) ...................................................................................................... 11
18 United States v. Albarado,
19
495 F.2d 799 (2d Cir. 1974) .................................................................................................... 11

20 United States v. Bassignani,
575 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 9
21
United States v. Chandler,
22
18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998) ........................................................................................ 13
23
United States v. Craighead,
24 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. 9, 10
25 United States v. Place,
26
462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983)......................................................... 11

27 United States v. Reynoso,
769 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.P.R. 2025) (D.P.R. 2025) .................................................................. 15
28

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 4 of 23 Page ID #:143

United States v. Robbins,
1
21 F.3d 297 (8th Cir. 1994) ..................................................................................................... 12
2
United States v. Washington,
3 387 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................... 16, 17, 18
4 Constitutional Provisions
5
Fourth Amendment .................................................................................................................passim
6
Fifth Amendment ............................................................................................................................. 1
7
Sixth Amendment ............................................................................................................................ 1
8
18 U.S.C. § 1343.............................................................................................................................. 1
9

10 18 U.S.C. § 1957.....................................................................................................................passim

11 Other Authorities
12 App. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/electronic-
travel-authority-601 ................................................................................................................... 2
13

14 Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B) .......................................................................................................... 14

15 https://www.bitstack-app.com/en/learn-bitcoin/understanding-bitcoin-
addresses?c=EUR ...................................................................................................................... 7
16
https://trustwallet.com/blog/academy/what-is-a-seed-phrase-and-why-is-it-
17
important, July 17, 2026. ........................................................................................................... 7
18
Protect It. Patrick Dike-Nduleue, March 12, 2026
19 https://tangem.com/en/blog/post/private-key-simply-
explained/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=network:
20
google|plt:pmax|sem:general|lngg:eng|country:eu_uk|name:1_plus_1|date:0605
21 26&utm_term=|&utm_content=cid:23819526921|adid:|gid:|tgid:|src:|dev:c|pn:|k
eyword:|mt:|expansion:|site:|csite:|devmod:|lockw:|locphy:9061268|nw:x&gad_
22 source=1&gad_campaignid=23829362353&gbraid=0AAAAACWic4d34AuAg
9QN8tZy2ZyFtoodB&gclid=CjwKCAjw4dDTBhAqEiwAkHYmSvracJv2ncA
23
_69SN_nqMl5rdqSGES8oyRYA4sUKoNB-
24 UURFaw0o4hRoCB3wQAvD_BwE ........................................................................................ 7

iii

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 5 of 23 Page ID #:144

1
NOTICE OF MOTION
2
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on or about October 9, 2026, Defendant BRUCE CHOI,
3
through counsel, hereby moves to suppress any and all incriminating statements, whether written
4

5
or oral, and material seized through his warrantless detention on December 20, 2024. The

6 Defense requests an evidentiary hearing on October 9, 2026, or another date at the convenience of
7
the Court. This motion is based upon the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the
8
Constitution, the argument made below, the entire file and record in this matter and any other
9
material brought to the attention of the Court prior to a decision in this matter.
10

11 MOTION

12 I. BACKGROUND
13 Bruce CHOI is charged in Counts One through Four with Wire Fraud Affecting a
14
Financial Institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and in Count Five with Transactional
15
Money Laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.
16

17 On Friday, December 20, 2024, Choi was leaving his apartment at “The Mercury,” Unit

18 810, 3810 Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles. 1 He was carrying a piece of carry-on luggage,
19
containing a bitcoin hardware wallet inside a small mobile phone box. A picture of that luggage
20
is attached as Exhibit A. Choi had called for an Uber, and a car was on the way to take him to the
21
airport, Uber message attached as Exhibit B, where he and his sister had nonrefundable tickets on
22

23 a Qantas Flight to Australia leaving at 9:20 pm. Copy of ticket information attached as Exhibit C.

24 Choi’s sister made the flight. Choi did not because, as he was leaving his apartment, he was
25
detained by four-armed agents, interrogated, searched, and forced to turn over a hardware bitcoin
26

27
1
We have attempted to redact all PII and will be happy to provide that information to the
28 Court if desired.

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 1
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 6 of 23 Page ID #:145

wallet containing 19.56747569 BTC worth approximately $ 1,542,168.72 as of August 26, 2026.
1

2 Although the government had a seizure warrant (attached as Exhibit H) for “all virtual currency

3 held in the electronic wallet bearing address: bc1qync0rq89gq5jpqtnljmwg0sy3hgf6mqv0rmx6e,”
4
it did not have an arrest warrant for Choi, or a search warrant authorizing a search for an
5
electronic wallet, the box the wallet was in, the hardware wallet it seized from Choi, nor the carry-
6

7
on luggage that Choi had with him.

8 That interrogation was recorded and does not contain Miranda warnings.
9 The day prior to Choi’s detention, the agents had come to his apartment building looking
10
for Choi to interview him. Transcript USAO_1590 2, Exhibit L. But when he did not answer the
11
door, they went to interview his sister, who lived in the same building. She told the agents that
12

13 her family was going to Australia the next day, and she hoped Bruce was coming, but she thought

14 he may have a problem with his visa.3
15
The armed agents returned the next day in the early evening, and again Special Agent J.J.
16
Kasich said: “We're going to go interview Bruce Choi.” Transcript USAO_1595, Exhibit N at
17
0:01-0:012, p.1.
18

19
2
20 There are three separate transcripts of three audio recordings on December 19th and
20th, 2024. Those transcripts are described in and attached as Exhibits L, M, and N and
21 authenticated by the contemporaneously filed Declaration of counsel.
The transcript USAO_0001590, Exhibit L, of the interrogation on December 20, 2024, is
22
the most important and most cited transcript and will be simply referred to as “TX”.
3
23 She may have been misinformed about the Visa because all that is required for
Americans to visit Australia is an ETA, or electronic visa, which can be obtained immediately by
24 simply using an App. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/electronic-
travel-authority-601 (Last accessed 7.31.26); and Choi had obtained a Visa on December 18,
25
2024. Exhibit J.
26

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 2
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 7 of 23 Page ID #:146

Again, Choi did not answer the door, but when he came out of his apartment to take his
1

2 Uber to the airport, he was detained, searched, and interrogated. The Memorandum of that

3 Interview is remarkably brief. It states only that:
4
At the above listed date and time, and at the above listed
5 location, the above listed special agents interviewed Bruce
Choi and executed a seizure warrant for a hardware wallet 4
6 that contained cryptocurrency. The interactions between
7
Choi and the special agents was audio recorded and a copy
of that recording is attached to this memo.
8
Exhibit K, Memo of Interview (MOI); USAO_00001589.
9
While the MOI does not contain a specific date for the interrogation and seizure, it does
10

11 indicate the interrogation took place from “Approximately 19:00 to 22:00.” Id.

12 The computer file of that interrogation seems to be missing some time at the beginning of
13
the interrogation because it begins with a discussion of jewelry. There is no indication that Choi
14
was given a Miranda warning.
15

16
While the interrogation is long and rambling, it is clear that the agents told Choi that he

17 was not free to leave, saying:
18
[Choi] Is there a chance we can do it like after?
19 [Interviewer 1] (12:56): No, it's gotta be right now.
[Choi] (12:58): It's got to be right now?
20 [Interviewer 1] : Yeah. I tried contacting you yesterday,
earlier today. This is the first time I've been able to get ahold
21
of you. I called you. Everything. We had security call you.
22 We were trying to get ahold of you, so we didn't have to
make you miss the flight. But this is the first time we've been
23 able to contact you. So now we gotta do this. Right now. So,
where is the wallet?
24

25
TX at 12:46-13:18, p.15.

4
27 This description is an example of the agents’ mischaracterization of the seizure warrant.
That warrant authorized the seizure of for “all virtual currency held in the electronic wallet
28
bearing address: bc1qync0rq89gq5jpqtnljmwg0sy3hgf6mqv0rmx6e. The warrant did not
authorize the seizure of a hardware wallet such as the one seized by the agents.
Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 3
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 8 of 23 Page ID #:147

The agents knew Choi had a plane to catch and played on his desire to catch that plane by
1

2 telling him that:

3 [Interviewer]: The quicker we do this, you...
[Interviewer 1]: Yeah, you still... You have a chance to make
4
it, but...That's because you got a carry on. So you don't have
5 to check your bag.
[Choi]: I mean, you're right about that.
6 [Interviewer 1]:So, like, the faster we can do this, the faster
7
you can get out. So where's the wallet?

8 TX at 13:24-13:38, p.15-16.

9 Choi told the agents he knew he was going to be interrogated because he had spoken to his
10
sister about the agents' arrival at her door the prior day and he told the agents:
11
[Choi] (18:02 - 18:28) Yeah. I was going to call you guys
12 when I was, uh, on my way, essentially. You know, 'cause
you -- what was that? -- um, 'cause I know -- 'cause I heard
13
that you guys wanted to ask me questions. That's what I
14 heard -- well, at least when my, uh -- when I talked to my
sister, she said you were going to ask me questions. So that's
15 how I knew. Um, but yeah. You guys were coming here in
L.A. yesterday, you said?
16

17 TX at 18:02-18:28, p.23.

18 This statement is consistent with Choi’s declaration that he did not feel free to go and had
19 to answer the agent’s questions. The agents did nothing to clear up Choi’s misunderstanding of
20
his legal rights. To the contrary, they exploited them.
21
There is no indication that the agents indicated Choi was free to go or gave him the
22

23 required Miranda warning before the interrogation and seizure.

24 To the contrary, Choi told them that he had a flight and that an Uber was on the way, and
25
the agents told him if he did not cooperate with them right now, he would be arrested, but that if
26
he cooperated there was a chance he could catch his flight. See. Bruce Choi’s Declaration
27
attached.
28

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 4
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 9 of 23 Page ID #:148

The agents told Choi that if he did not cooperate, comply, and answer the questions they
1

2 would put him in handcuffs and take him to a detention center; and he could not escape because

3 there were police downstairs, he was under arrest and would be held unless he cooperated with
4
them and that if he did cooperate with them, he would be able to catch the fight no problem at all.
5
The agents told Choi he had no choice, should not make a scene, and should just cooperate now.
6

7
Choi did as he was told, since he did not believe he had a choice.

8 The interview began with the agents confronting Choi with PPP loan documents and
9 questioning him about the contents of those documents.
10
The agent asked:
11
“Are those numbers accurate on this form?” TX at 3:09 - 3:11 p.6.
12

13 “Do you remember filling that out?” TX at 3:21 - 3:38, p. 6.

14 “Is that how much you said the business made? Was that how much you were
15
making?” TX at 4:24-4:37, pg.8.
16
“Yeah. Just look at the top. Is this your Social Security number right there?” TX
17
at 5:03 - 5:05, p.8.
18

19 “Where did you bank at that time? TX at 5:25 - 5:43, p.8.

20 “Did you ever have a Chime account?” TX at 5:48-5:49, p.8.
21
The interrogation was interrupted when Choi got a message on his Uber app, which the
22
agents noticed and led to Choi telling the agents: “I feel sorry for the guy.” TX at 6:44 - 6:46, p.9.
23

24
To which the agents responded: “You can get another one real quick. Did he call you?”

25 TX at 6:48 - 6:54, p.9.
26 To which Choi responded: “He says he'll be blocking traffic if he has to wait.”
27
The agents did not react to the Uber information; they just continued to inquire:
28

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 5
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 10 of 23 Page ID
#:149

[Interviewer 1] Just, can you confirm your, uh, S—your signature on that? On the
1
back page?
2 [Choi] This one right here?
[Interviewer 1] Yeah.
3 [Choi] Signature? Um, it says my name on it.
4
TX at 6:59-7:03, p.10.
5
The interrogation continued with the agent asking:
6
[Interviewer 1]: So in May of 2020, you got the loan for 1.9
7
million dollars from the PPP loan. Correct?. . . .And wh-what
8 did you do with the money. . . Okay. Invest it? [...]
I keep showing you documents. I kind of know the answers.
9 I'm-I’m asking questions to. So, like, you moved the money
to Prime Trust. Right? To Binance? [..] The 2 million? Or
10
at least part of it?
11
TX at 8:08-10:13, p.11-13.
12
Choi again tried to terminate the interview saying: I would prefer to do this after […] TX
13

14 at 10:41-10:46, p. 13.

15 And again, the agent just continued the questioning, asking: “But 7-you guys were—you
16
were talking to Binance. Right?” TX at 20:46 p. 13.
17
Significantly, the agents did not even mention they had a seizure warrant until 12 minutes
18
into the recording. And when the agents told Choi they had a warrant, they mischaracterized the
19

20 seizure warrant for bitcoin as a seizure warrant for the wallet, rather than a seizure warrant for
21 bitcoin at a particular address, telling Choi that:
22
I know you moved twenty bitcoin into a wallet. A self-custody
23 wallet. And I have a seizure warrant here for that wallet.
24 TX at 10:54-12:30, p. 14.
25
In fact, the agents did not have any type of warrant for a self-custody wallet. They only
26
had a seizure warrant for: “All virtual currency held in the electronic wallet bearing address:
27

28
be 1 qync0rq89gq5jpqtnljmwg0sy3hgf6mqv0rmx6e.” Exhibit H, Seizure Warrant

USAO_00001702.
Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 6
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 11 of 23 Page ID
#:150

The agents then told Choi: “Help me get that bitcoin. Right now. I need. I need your
1

2 help.” TX at 10:54 - 12:30, p.15.

3 Choi again indicated he would “like to do it after” (he returned from Australia) and the
4
agent told him:
5
[Interviewer 1] Nah. It's gotta be right now.”
6
[Choi]: It's gotta be right now?
7

8 [Interviewer 1]: Yeah. I tried contacting you yesterday,
earlier today. This is the first time we've been able to get a
9 hold of you. I called you, everything. We had security call
you. We were trying to get a hold of you, so we didn't have
10
to make you miss the flight. But this is the first time we’ve
11 been able to contact you. So now we’ve got to do this thing
right now [..] So where is the wallet?”
12
TX. at 12:58 - 13:18, p.15
13

14
Choi was clearly in custody since he was prevented from taking his Uber to the airport and

15 getting on with his previously planned trip. The agents told him he had to talk to them “right
16
now.” Choi did not know he had the right to remain silent or decline to answer questions. By the
17
time the interrogation was over, Choi’s plane had already departed.
18
After the agents told Choi they had a seizure warrant for the wallet, they told him:
19

20 (timestamps) “The faster we can do this, the faster you can get out. But where's the wallet?” TX.

21 At 13:34, p. 16.
22
The agent asked: “[What…] Do you have it on you?” TX at 13:57 - 13:58, p.16
23
And Choi responded (13:58) “Yeah, it’s here.” referring to his suitcase. Id.
24
As requested, Choi began to open his suitcase, slowly, because “I’m sorry. Yeah, you guys
25

26 have guns, right?”, TX 14:02-14:05, p.16, and he said “So I will do it slow. […] I will do it very,

27 very, very, slow […] I will not make any fast moves.” TX at 14:07-14:11, p.17. The female
28
agent interrupted and asked if she could open it instead. TX at 14:42. P. 18. She opened the

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 7
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 12 of 23 Page ID
#:151

suitcase, searched it, found a box containing a hardware wallet, and with Choi’s help, accessed the
1

2 bitcoin in that wallet.

3 II. A SHORT BITCOIN WALLET EXPLANATION
4
Bitcoin is a digital currency represented by an entry on the blockchain. 5
5
Even though bitcoins exist on the blockchain, individuals generally store the information
6

7
that allows them to access their bitcoin in wallets. When a crypto wallet is created, the wallet

8 software uses a random number generator to create a seed phrase, which is then used to generate a
9 private key. Once the private key exists, the public key is derived from that private key using
10
elliptic curve cryptography (ECC) to create an alphanumeric wallet address that can be used to
11
receive funds.
12

13 A bitcoin wallet address is similar to a mailing address that is used to receive mail. Unlike

14 a postal address, however, which remains the same for all letters received, bitcoin wallets can
15
generate multiple receiving addresses
16
Once bitcoins are received at an address, the only way to move them again is to provide
17
proof of ownership with the corresponding private key or the seed phrase.
18

19
5
20 This information is taken from What is a Private Key, How it Works, and How to Protect
It. Patrick Dike-Nduleue, March 12, 2026 https://tangem.com/en/blog/post/private-key-simply-
21 explained/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=network:google|plt:pmax|se
m:general|lngg:eng|country:eu_uk|name:1_plus_1|date:060526&utm_term=|&utm_content=cid:23
22
819526921|adid:|gid:|tgid:|src:|dev:c|pn:|keyword:|mt:|expansion:|site:|csite:|devmod:|lockw:|locph
23 y:9061268|nw:x&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=23829362353&gbraid=0AAAAACWic4d34A
uAg9QN8tZy2ZyFtoodB&gclid=CjwKCAjw4dDTBhAqEiwAkHYmSvracJv2ncA_69SN_nqMl5
24 rdqSGES8oyRYA4sUKoNB-UURFaw0o4hRoCB3wQAvD_BwE (Last accessed 8.6.26).
And Everything you need to know about Bitcoin addresses:
25
https://www.bitstack-app.com/en/learn-bitcoin/understanding-bitcoin-addresses?c=EUR
26 (Last accessed 8.6.26.).
What is a seed phrase, and why is it important? Published on January 17, 2025; updated
27 on July 17, 2026. https://trustwallet.com/blog/academy/what-is-a-seed-phrase-and-why-is-it-
28
important

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 8
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 13 of 23 Page ID
#:152

Since the blockchain is public, it is easy to see which addresses secure what quantity of
1

2 bitcoins.

3 If the crypto owner loses a hardware wallet or forgets the address or password to a
4
software wallet, the owner can use the seed phrase to recover his wallet and access his crypto.
5
III. ARGUMENT
6

7
Miranda warnings are required when a person is subjected to custodial interrogation.

8 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966) defined custodial
9 interrogation as questioning initiated by law enforcement after a person has been taken into
10
custody or otherwise deprived of freedom of action in any significant way. The Supreme Court
11
has consistently held that the ultimate inquiry is whether there was a restraint on freedom of
12

13 movement of the degree associated with a formal arrest. California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121,

14 103 S. Ct. 3517, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1275 (1983); Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S. Ct.
15
1526, 128 L. Ed. 2d 293 (1994). The test is objective: courts examine the totality of the
16
circumstances surrounding the interrogation and ask whether a reasonable person in the suspect's
17
position would have felt free to terminate the interrogation and leave. Thompson v. Keohne, 516
18

19 U.S. 99, 116 S. Ct. 457, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995).

20 The Ninth Circuit applies a five-factor test to the custody determination, examining: (1)
21
the language used to summon the individual; (2) the extent to which the defendant is confronted
22
with evidence of guilt; (3) the physical surroundings of the interrogation; (4) the duration of the
23

24
detention; and (5) the degree of pressure applied to detain the individual. United States v.

25 Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2009)(citing United States v. Kim, 292 F.3d 969 (9th Cir.
26 2002)).
27
These factors are non-exhaustive; other circumstances may be pertinent to and even
28
dispositive of whether a reasonable person would have believed they could freely walk away.

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 9
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 14 of 23 Page ID
#:153

United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879 (9th Cir. 2009). The Ninth Circuit frames the ultimate
1

2 question as whether a reasonable person in such circumstances would conclude that after brief

3 questioning he or she would not be free to leave. United States v. Bassignani, 575 F.3d 879 (9th
4
Cir. 2009).
5
The custody determination is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo on appeal
6

7
by federal appellate courts, while the underlying factual findings are reviewed for clear error. Id.

8 In United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit held that
9 when the circumstances transform the familiar home surroundings into a police-dominated
10
atmosphere, custody exists. The court identified four relevant factors:
11
(1) the number of law enforcement personnel and whether they were
12
armed;
13 (2) whether the suspect was at any point restrained, either by physical
force or by threats;
14
(3) whether the suspect was isolated from others, which the court
15 identified as perhaps the crucial factor; and
16 (4) whether the suspect was informed that questioning was voluntary and
that he was free to leave or terminate the interview.
17

18
United States v. Craighead, 539 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008).

19 In Craighead, eight-armed officers from three agencies entered the home; the defendant

20 was escorted to a back storage room with an officer blocking the door, and he was isolated from a
21
support person—these facts established custody even though the defendant was told he was free to
22
leave. Id.
23

24
Here, there were four-armed officers, and Choi was told there were additional police

25 downstairs. Choi knew they were there to question him because his sister had told him of the
26 attempt on the prior day. Choi did not understand that he did not have to speak to the agents.
27
The tape itself shows that he believed he had to talk to the agents. The first 12 minutes of the
28
interrogation consist of the agents confronting Choi with documents as evidence of his guilt and

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 10
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 15 of 23 Page ID
#:154

asking Choi to explain those documents. Choi was told he had to cooperate. He asked if he could
1

2 do this later. He was told he had to answer questions right now. No reasonable person with non-

3 refundable tickets would want to miss even a day of their highly anticipated family trip to visit a
4
new country for the first time. He was not free to go and was specifically told that the process
5
would take some time. He was not given a Miranda warning.
6

7
Accordingly, his statements and the fruits of that statement must be suppressed.

8 IV. THE RESULTS OF THE WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF MR. CHOI’S LUGGAGE
AND SEIZURE OF THE BITCOIN WALLET MUST BE SUPPRESSED
9

10
The Fourth Amendment requires that a warrant particularly describes both the place to be

11 searched and the things to be seized. A warrant describing only the asset to be seized, such as a
12
quantity of bitcoin, does not describe any physical location or container to be searched. Just as a
13
warrant to seize funds in a bank does not authorize the search and seizure of all employees and
14
containers in that bank, a warrant that authorizes seizure of a digital asset does not, by
15

16 implication, authorize a physical search of every container the suspect might be carrying to find

17 the means of accessing that asset.
18
A. The Separation of Assets vs. Access Methods.
19
A warrant authorizing the seizure of a digital asset is legally distinct from a warrant
20
authorizing a search for the means of access. If the supporting affidavit fails to provide a specific
21

22 factual nexus showing that a seed phrase or hardware wallet is located inside a particular bag or

23 container, searching that container violates the Fourth Amendment.
24
In United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696, 103 S. Ct. 2637, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110 (1983), the
25
Supreme Court held that “in the ordinary case, the Court has viewed a seizure of personal
26

27
property as per se unreasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment unless it is

28 accomplished pursuant to a judicial warrant issued upon probable cause and particularly

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 11
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 16 of 23 Page ID
#:155

describing the items to be seized.” Luggage and personal bags are paradigmatic examples of
1

2 personal property in which individuals retain a strong expectation of privacy.

3 In United States v. Albarado, 495 F.2d 799, 802-03 (2d Cir. 1974), the Second Circuit held
4
that searches of carry-on luggage constitute “searches” within the meaning of the Fourth
5
Amendment. The Second Circuit reaffirmed this principle in United States v. $557,933.89, More
6

7
or Less, in U.S. Funds, Seized from Ramis Mercado-Filpo, 287 F.3d 66, 80-81 (2d Cir. 2002),

8 rejecting the government's argument that airline passengers have no reasonable expectation of
9 privacy in their carry-on luggage.
10
Here, the closed luggage was in Choi’s possession, and he was told he had to open it.
11
A government seizure warrant for cryptocurrency at a particular address — standing alone
12

13 — does not authorize searching a person's physical luggage, bags, or containers to locate a

14 hardware wallet, seed phrase, or other access device. Under well-established Fourth Amendment
15
doctrine, a warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the items to be seized.
16
A warrant that identifies only a specific cryptocurrency wallet address does not, by its terms,
17
authorize a physical search of luggage or containers for the physical instruments needed to access
18

19 that asset.

20 To lawfully search luggage for a hardware wallet or seed phrase, the government must
21
either” (1) obtain a separate search warrant specifically describing the physical location to be
22
searched and the physical items to be seized, or (2) rely on a properly drafted combined warrant
23

24
that explicitly authorizes both the seizure of the cryptocurrency and the physical search for access

25 devices. Absent such explicit authorization, a physical search of luggage constitutes an
26 unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Robbins, 21 F.3d 297 (8th
27
Cir. 1994) is the most directly analogous precedent. In that case, police executed a search warrant
28

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 12
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 17 of 23 Page ID
#:156

at a business and seized the defendant's wallet, later discovering incriminating documents inside
1

2 it.

3 The Eighth Circuit held that the seizure violated the Fourth Amendment because the wallet
4
itself was not described in the warrant. The court articulated the governing rule:
5
A search warrant does not give police license to seize
6 personal property not described in the warrant on the ground
7
that such property might contain items that the warrant does
describe; it only allows police to search such property at the
8 place where the warrant is being executed if the property
“legitimately might contain the [items] specified in the
9 warrant,” and then to seize the described items they find
10
inside or, under certain circumstances, the property itself
once it is found to contain described items.
11
United States v. Robbins, 21 F.3d 297 (8th Cir. 1994)
12

13 The court explicitly rejected the government's argument that “because the warrant

14 authorized officers to search inside the wallet, it also authorized them to seize the wallet,” calling
15
this “a fundamental misapprehension of Fourth Amendment law.”
16
The Robbins framework enlightens the situation here. A cryptocurrency seizure warrant
17
authorizes the government to take control of the digital asset. It does not authorize agents to seize
18

19 a person's luggage, open it, and rummage through it to look for a hardware wallet that may be

20 used to obtain the specified bitcoin unless that physical item was specifically described in the
21
warrant as an item to be searched, or unless the warrant also authorizes a search of the specific
22
physical location where they are stored.
23

24
B. The Seizure Warrant vs. Search Warrant Distinction.

25 A critical threshold issue is the distinction between a warrant authorizing the seizure of
26 specific property and a warrant authorizing a search for that property.
27

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 13
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 18 of 23 Page ID
#:157

In United States v. Chandler, 18 F. Supp. 2d 1240 (D. Kan. 1998), the court held that “a
1

2 seizure warrant cannot be used as a general search warrant” and that to do so would constitute the

3 sort of "exploratory rummaging" barred by the Fourth Amendment.
4
The court acknowledged that “the authority to seize an item involves some authority to
5
search for the item but emphasized that this incidental search authority is strictly limited — it does
6

7
not extend to unspecified locations or containers. Id. A warrant that requests authority to search

8 for items to seize without identifying those items with particularity violates the Fourth
9 Amendment. Id.
10
This principle applies directly to cryptocurrency seizure warrants. When the government
11
obtains a warrant to seize specific bitcoin — identified, for example, by its blockchain address —
12

13 that warrant authorizes the government to take control of the digital asset at that address. It does

14 not, without more, authorize agents to search a person's physical luggage to locate the hardware
15
wallet, Ledger device, Trezor device, seed phrase card, or other physical access credential needed
16
to execute the transfer. The digital asset and the physical access device are legally distinct
17
objects. The seizure warrant describes only the crypto stored at a particular address. It does not
18

19 describe the hardware wallet that was in Choi’s suitcase.

20 In Snitko v. United States, 90 F.4th 1250 (9th Cir. 2024), the Ninth Circuit addressed the
21
difference between a warrant to seize items and the search of the seized items. There, the FBI
22
obtained a warrant to seize the nests of safe deposit boxes at a private vault company. The
23

24
warrant did not authorize a criminal search or seizure of the contents of the safety deposit boxes,

25 even though the warrant referred to normal inventory procedures. The Ninth Circuit held that the
26 government exceeded the scope of the warrant by conducting a criminal search of the boxes'
27
contents without obtaining a separate warrant, even though agents had probable cause to believe
28
criminal proceeds would be found inside. The intrusion in this case is much worse because the

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 14
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 19 of 23 Page ID
#:158

seizure warrant here only authorized the seizure of bitcoin at a particular address. There was no
1

2 warrant authorizing the search of Choi’s luggage and hardware wallet. Nevertheless, the agent

3 falsely told Choi he had a warrant for the hardware wallet.
4
Here, the closed luggage, containing a box, containing a bitcoin wallet, was in Choi’s
5
possession, and he was told he had to allow it to be searched.
6

7
Fed. R. Crim. P. 41(e)(2)(B) outlines the procedure for warrants seeking “electronically

8 stored information” or data. “A warrant under Rule 41(e)(2)(A) may authorize the seizure of
9 electronic storage media or the seizure or copying of electronically stored information. Unless
10
otherwise specified, the warrant authorizes a later review of the media or information consistent
11
with the warrant.”
12

13 Accordingly, the agents could have obtained a warrant to seize Choi’s hardware wallet,

14 which is a piece of electronic storage media, but they did not. The warrant only authorized the
15
seizure of virtual currency held at a particular address.
16
Although there is not an abundance of authority discussing crypto seizure warrants, two
17
district court opinions demonstrate how the government can obtain a warrant that authorizes both
18

19 the seizure of cryptocurrency and the physical search for access devices. In In Re Search of One

20 Address in Washington, D.C., Under Rule 41, 512 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2021), a magistrate
21
judge approved a cryptocurrency warrant that explicitly authorized the seizure of “all unhosted
22
wallets and any information used to access hosted or unhosted cryptocurrency wallets,” including
23

24
“wallet recovery seeds, and usernames, passwords, mnemonic pins, PGP keys and 2FA devices.

25 Id. at n. 6.
26 Warrants like this show that the government can and should obtain explicit authorization
27
for physical access devices when it anticipates needing them. No such warrant was obtained here.
28

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 15
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 20 of 23 Page ID
#:159

In United States v. Reynoso, 769 F. Supp. 3d 107 (D.P.R. 2025) (D.P.R. 2025), the
1

2 defendant was held in contempt after his counsel received a warrant authorizing the seizure of

3 bitcoin. That warrant contained specific language that: “the subject shall not obstruct, impede, or
4
interfere with the seizure of the SUBJECT ASSETS.” “It also command[d] that he transfer the
5
119.65 BTC to a specific government-controlled wallet.” United States v. Reynoso, 769 F. Supp.
6

7
3d 107, 118 (D.P.R. 2025), modified, 814 F. Supp. 3d 262 (D.P.R. 2026)

8 This warrant contained no such language requiring Choi to assist in the seizure.
9 C. Riley v. California and the Heightened Protection for Digital Access Devices.
10
The Supreme Court's landmark decision in Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct.
11
2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014) reinforces this analysis.
12

13 In Riley, the Court held that police generally may not, without a warrant, search digital

14 information on a cell phone seized incident to arrest. The Court reasoned that cell phones contain
15
“immense storage capacity” and that “many of the more than 90% of American adults who own a
16
cell phone keep on their person a digital record of nearly every aspect of their lives,” and that the
17
traditional justifications for warrantless searches — officer safety and evidence preservation — do
18

19 not apply to digital data. Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430

20 (2014). The Court's analysis emphasized that digital data stored on cell phones receives
21
heightened Fourth Amendment protection and the police should: “get a warrant.” Id. A hardware
22
wallet is, in essence, a physical key to a person's cryptocurrency holdings stored on the
23

24
blockchain.

25 Under Riley's reasoning that digital devices containing extensive personal information
26 require heightened Fourth Amendment protection, the mere fact that the government has a warrant
27
to seize the cryptocurrency does not mean it has the authorization to search for the physical key
28
— the hardware wallet or seed phrase — in a person's luggage without additional warrant

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 16
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 21 of 23 Page ID
#:160

authority. The hardware wallet itself is a digital device containing private cryptographic keys; its
1

2 contents are entitled to the same heightened Fourth Amendment protection that Riley extended to

3 cell phones. Even if agents lawfully seize a hardware wallet under a properly described warrant,
4
they would need separate authority to access its contents.
5
D. There Was No Consent To The Search.
6

7
The government may try to contend that Bruce Choi consented to the search of his luggage

8 and hardware wallet. That argument fails because any alleged consent was the project of the
9 initial, illegal detention and interrogation.
10
This case is much like United States v. Washington, 387 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004),
11
where the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court after finding that any alleged consent was tainted
12

13 by the illegal seizure, stating:

14 Under the Fourth Amendment, “evidence obtained
subsequent to an illegal investigation is tainted by the
15
illegality and thus inadmissible, notwithstanding. . .
16 .consent, unless subsequent events have purged the taint. ”
United States v. Bautista, 362 F.3d 584, 592 (9th Cir.2004)
17 (quoting United States v. Chavez–Valenzuela, 268 F.3d 719,
727(9th Cir.2001), amended by, 279 F.3d 1062 (2002), and
18
holding that “consent was tainted and the evidence obtained
19 pursuant to it should have been suppressed”); see also
United States v. Hotal, 143 F.3d 1223, 1228 (9th Cir.1998)
20 (“Consent to search that is given after an illegal entry is
tainted and invalid under the Fourth Amendment.”).
21

22 United States v. Washington, 387 F.3d 1060, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004)

23 In Washington, a suspected meth cooker was confronted by six officers in the hallway of
24
his apartment and thrice told that he was facing an arrestable charge of failing to register with the
25
police. As in this case, Washington was never told he had a right to refuse to answer questions or
26
terminate the encounter. The Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s alleged consent was vitiated
27

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 17
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 22 of 23 Page ID
#:161

by the initial illegal detention and suppressed Washington’s statements and a gun found in his
1

2 room. The facts in this case are even more egregious.

3 The officers knew Choi had a plane to catch and used that information to induce him to
4
cooperate, telling him that he had to do this right now, and if he cooperated, he might be able to
5
catch his plane.
6

7
The contents of the interrogation demonstrate that Choi thought he had to talk to the

8 agents. The agents told Choi:
9 I know you moved 20 Bitcoin into a wallet -- a self-custody
10
Wallet -- and I have a seizure warrant here for that wallet.
So I'm here to get that Bitcoin from you.
11 TX. at 10:54-12:30, p. 14.
12 After Choi said “Okay,” the agent repeated:
13
So, here's the seiz-, here’s the warrant, signed by a judge.
14 This is your copy. And I need you to help me get that Bitcoin
right now. I need, I need your help. Id.
15
Choi indicated he heard what the agent was saying and asked: (12:46 - 12:56) “I mean...
16

17 Okay, I see what you're saying. Is there a chance we can do it like after?” TX at 12:46-12:56, p.

18 15.
19
The agents responded: “No, it's gotta be right now.” TX at 12:56-12:59, p. 15.
20
Choi asked again: (12:58 - 12:59) “It's gotta be right now?” Id.
21
And the agent told him because they had been unable to contact him yesterday “ So now
22

23 we gotta do this. Right now […] So, where is the wallet?” TX at 12:56-12:59, p. 15.

25
/
26
/
27

28
/

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 18
Mtn to suppress

Case 2:25-cr-00799-MWC Document 27 Filed 08/31/26 Page 23 of 23 Page ID
#:162

When Choi asked if he could do this when he came back, the officers just continued to
1

2 interrogate 6. The officers misrepresented the scope of the warrant, telling Choi:

3 I know all of -- like, I followed all the money. All right? So
what I have here is that I know you moved 20 Bitcoin into a
4
wallet -- a self-custody wallet -- and I have a seizure warrant
5 here for that wallet. So I'm here to get that Bitcoin from you.

6 TX. at 10:54 - 12:30, p.14.
7
As indicated above, there was no seizure warrant for any wallet. There was only a seizure
8
warrant for the virtual currency held in a particular wallet bearing the address: “be1qync0rq89gq5
9
jpqtnljmwg0sy3hgf6mqv0rmx6e.”
10

11 This was simply an unwarranted search as a result of an illegal detention and interrogation,

12 and the results of that search must be suppressed.
13
CONCLUSION
14
Based on the foregoing, the defense respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion
15
and exclude any and all of Bruce Choi’s alleged incriminating statements, whether written or oral,
16

17 in their entirety; as well as the bitcoin fruit of the UnMirandized statement and unwarranted

18 detention and search.
19

20 Date: August 28, 2026 s/ Christopher J. Cannon
Christopher J. Cannon
21
Counsel for Bruce CHOI
22

26
6
Similarly, earlier in the conversation, Choi told the agents, “I would prefer to do this
27 after,” but they ignored his request and just continued with their questioning. TX at 10:41 - 10:46,
p.13.
28

Case No. 2:25-cr-00799-MWC-1 U.S. v. Bruce Choi 19
Mtn to suppress

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.cacd.990417.27.0.pdf
Size: 251,389 bytes
SHA-256: 2ec7937c550e9d76abb55bac7df5358057793d392251e9bab650bf2329ad5243
Our copy: gov.uscourts.cacd.990417.27.0.pdf
Original: archive.org