Criminal Complaint — United States v. Andrew Marnell (Dkt. 3, C.D. Cal. No. 2:20-cr-00319)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00319-RGK · Doc. 3 · 2020-07-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 1 of 6   Page ID #:33

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
in which case the government is also permitted to disclose the
sealed information.
This ex parte application is based on the attached memorandum
of points and authorities, the declaration of AUSA Kerry L. Quinn,
and the records and files in this case.
Dated: July 15, 2020
Respectfully submitted,
NICOLA T. HANNA
United States Attorney
BRANDON D. FOX
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
/s/
KERRY L. QUINN
Assistant United States Attorney
Major Frauds Section
Attorneys for Applicant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 2 of 6   Page ID #:34

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
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
The government requests that this Court seal the complaint and 
arrest warrant, as well as this ex parte application and all 
supporting documents, to maintain the integrity of its
investigation.  Approval from this Court to seal these documents is 
required under Local Rule 79-5.1.  The Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit has held that district courts have the inherent power 
to seal affidavits in support of warrants.
In re Sealed Affidavit 
(Agosto), 600 F.2d 1256 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (holding that 
even aside from Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 “courts have 
inherent power, as an incident of their constitutional function, to 
control papers filed with the courts within certain constitutional 
and other limitations”); see also Offices of Lakeside Non-Ferrous
Metals, Inc., 679 F.2d 778, 779-80 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Agosto).
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has rejected the 
proposition that pre-indictment disclosure of a search warrant
affidavit is required under either constitutional principles or 
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41.
In re EyeCare Physicians of 
America, 100 F.3d 514 (7th Cir. 1996).  In doing so, the Seventh 
Circuit held:
By the very nature of a secret criminal investigation of 
this type, the target of an investigation more often than 
not remains unaware of the specific grounds upon which a 
warrant was issued.  If preindictment disclosure of sealed 
warrant affidavits was required to satisfy due process 
(assuming there had been a predicate deprivation of life, 
liberty or property), the hands of law enforcement would 
be needlessly tied and investigations of criminal activity 
would be made unduly difficult if not impossible.
Id. at 517.
Accord In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 115 F.3d 1240, 
1247 (5th Cir. 1997).
Similar principles apply to a complaint and 
attached affidavit.
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 3 of 6   Page ID #:35

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
Here, for the reasons described in the attached declaration, 
sealing is necessary to maintain the integrity of the government’s
investigation.
Accordingly, the government requests that the
documents described in the attached declaration be kept under seal 
until further order of the Court, or until the government determines
that these materials are subject to its discovery obligations, at 
which time they may be produced to defense counsel, or the 
government otherwise determines that disclosure would be in the 
public interest or would otherwise serve a law enforcement purpose, 
in which case the government is also permitted to disclose the
sealed information.
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 4 of 6   Page ID #:36

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
DECLARATION OF AUSA KERRY L. QUINN 
I, Kerry L. Quinn, declare as follows: 
1.
I am an Assistant United States Attorney in the United
States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California.  I 
represent the government in the investigation of this matter, in 
which the government has submitted an affidavit in support of a 
complaint and arrest warrant.
2.
The arrest warrant in this case has not yet been executed,
and a related search is being planned at the time of the arrest.
The likelihood of discovering the items sought in the search warrant 
would be diminished if the affidavit in support of the arrest 
warrant in this case were made publicly available before the warrant 
was executed. 
3.
Further, public disclosure of the warrant or the
information in the warrant application could seriously jeopardize 
other aspects of the investigation, which is ongoing.  The 
investigation is still in a covert stage, and to the best of my 
knowledge, the primary target does not know about the investigation, 
much less the status of the investigation and evidence gathered to 
date.  In this situation, disclosure of the warrant to the target or 
associated individuals could lead to: (1) flight from prosecution; 
(2) destruction of or tampering with evidence; (3) intimidation of
potential witnesses; or (4) otherwise seriously jeopardizing the
investigation.  Further, to the extent that all of the potential co-
conspirators involved in the crimes under investigation have not yet
been identified, public disclosure of the warrant and information in
the warrant application could lead individuals involved in criminal
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 5 of 6   Page ID #:37

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
activity to take steps to mask their identity and their criminal 
activity, all of which would seriously jeopardize the investigation. 
4.
Accordingly, the government requests that the complaint
and arrest warrant and all attachments thereto, as well as this ex 
parte application, the memorandum of points and authorities, this 
declaration, and this Court’s sealing order, and all documents 
subsequently filed under this same case number until such time as a 
unsealing order is issued, be kept under seal until further order of 
the Court, or until the government determines that these materials 
are subject to its discovery obligations, at which time they may be 
produced to defense counsel, or the government otherwise determines 
that disclosure would be in the public interest or would otherwise 
serve a law enforcement purpose, in which case the government is 
also permitted to disclose information the sealed information.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United 
States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and that 
this declaration is executed at Los Angeles, California, on July 15, 
2020.
KERRY L. QUINN
Case 2:20-cr-00319-RGK     Document 3     Filed 07/15/20     Page 6 of 6   Page ID #:38

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.3.0.pdf

Size

177,678 bytes

SHA-256

a70f5ea64127989ec900635c7ad1d09f27f03a6a6ab324b637e2a2ce1fca33e8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cacd.790198.3.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)