Criminal Complaint — United States v. Angel Ramos-Corrales (Central District of California, Document 1)

Summary

This Criminal Complaint and supporting affidavit name Angel Ramos-Corrales as the defendant, charging a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 48(a)(1) (Animal Crushing) on or about February 13, 2021, in the county of Riverside. The complaint bears the signature text of FBI Special Agent Colin L. Schmitt, whose affidavit states that the Riverside Police Department received a report on February 13, 2021 that Ramos-Corrales had posted on Snapchat a video of a dog whose throat had been slit. The affidavit concludes that probable cause supports a criminal complaint. It is attested by telephone before Magistrate Judge Sheri Pym on April 23, 2021.

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

Cite this document

“Criminal Complaint — United States v. Angel Ramos-Corrales (Central District of California, Document 1).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-5-21-mj-00309-dkt-1-c-d-cal-5409ab1f5b/, SHA-256 772ab157ab79917be0493360977e4397a542608e7eb68811ac18f686c1168656.

Full text

Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:1
AO 91 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint (Rev. by USAO on 3/12/20) ‫ ܆‬Original ‫ ܆‬Duplicate Original

LODGED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FILED
04/23/2021 for the CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AP
BY: ____________BB______ DEPUTY

Central District of California April 23, 2021
United States of America,
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
v. KC
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

Case No. 5:21-mj-00309
Angel Ramos-Corrales,

Defendant.

CRIMINAL COMPLAINT BY TELEPHONE
OR OTHER RELIABLE ELECTRONIC MEANS

I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

On or about the date of February 13, 2021 in the county of Riverside in the Central District of California, the

defendant violated:

Code Section Offense Description

18 U.S.C. § 48(a)(1) Animal Crushing

This criminal complaint is based on these facts:

Please see attached affidavit.

_ Continued on the attached sheet.
/S/
Complainant’s signature

FBI Special Agent Colin L. Schmitt
Printed name and title
Attested to by the applicant in accordance with the requirements of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4.1 by telephone.

Date: April 23, 2021
Judge’s signature

City and state: Riverside, California Hon. Sheri Pym, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Printed name and title

AUSA: Julius J. Nam (213-590-6188)
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:2

AFFIDAVIT

I, Colin L. Schmitt, being duly sworn, declare and state as

follows:

I. PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT

1. This affidavit is made in support of an application

for a criminal complaint charging Angel RAMOS-CORRALES (“RAMOS-

CORRALES”) with a violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 48(a)(1) (Animal Crushing).

2. The facts set forth in this affidavit are based upon

my personal observations, my training and experience, and

information obtained from various law enforcement personnel and

witnesses. This affidavit is intended to show merely that there

is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrants and does

not purport to set forth all of my knowledge of or investigation

into this matter. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all

conversations and statements described in this affidavit are

related in substance and in part only.

II. BACKGROUND OF AFFIANT

3. I am a Special Agent (“SA”) with the FBI, and have

been so employed since April of 1997. I am currently assigned

to the Palm Springs Resident Agency of the Los Angeles Field

Office, where I investigate crimes involving Frauds and

Swindles, Drug Trafficking and Violent Crimes. I have a

Bachelor of Science in Accounting and a Bachelor of Science in

Business Administration from the University of Missouri-

Columbia. I have a Master of Business Administration from
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:3

Northeastern University. I am a Certified Fraud Examiner as

designated by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. I

am a Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialist as designated by

the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists.

I have received training and gained experience in interviewing

and interrogation techniques, arrest procedures, search warrant

applications, the execution of searches and seizures, computer

crimes, computer/telephone evidence identification,

computer/telephone evidence seizure and processing, and various

other criminal laws and procedures. I have personally

participated in the execution of search warrants involving the

search and seizure of computer equipment, smartphones, documents

and other indicia of criminal activity. As an FBI SA and

Supervisory SA, I have participated in and supervised various

federal investigations and prosecutions. Through training and

discussions with the United States Attorney’s Office, I have

become very familiar with violations of Title 18, United States

Code, Sections 48(a)(1) (Animal Crushing), 48(a)(2) (Creating

Animal Crush Videos), and 48(a)(3) (Distributing Animal Crush

Videos).

4. Through my training, and experience, I have become

familiar with the methods of which persons injure and kill

animals. I am also familiar with analysis and posting of

digital media through various child porn investigations that I

have participated. I have attended various general fraud, money

laundering, drug trafficking, violent crime, healthcare fraud

and white-collar investigative trainings sponsored by the FBI

2
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:4

and other organizations. I have participated in and supervised

investigative activities, arrest and search warrants,

interviews, consensually-recorded conversations, trial

preparation, bank record analysis, telephone toll record

analysis and subpoena preparation. As a result of my training

and experience, I am familiar with federal laws relating to

animal crushing, as well as, investigative techniques related to

investigation of violent crime.

III. THE ANIMAL CRUSH VIDEO PROHIBITION ACT OF 2010 AND
THE PREVENTING ANIMAL CRUELTY AND TORTURE ACT OF 2019,
18 U.S.C. § 48

5. This investigation concerns alleged violations of

Title 18, United States Code, Section 48(a), which generally 1

prohibits any person to (1) “purposely engage in animal crushing

in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or within the

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United

States,” (2) “knowingly create an animal crush video if the

person intends or has reason to know that the animal crush video

will be distributed in, or using a means or facility of,

interstate or foreign commerce, or the animal crush video is

distributed in, or using a means or facility of, interstate or

1 Notably, the statute “does not apply with regard to any
conduct, or a visual depiction of that conduct, that is (A) a
customary and normal veterinary, agricultural husbandry, or
other animal management practice; (B) the slaughter of animals
for food; (C) hunting, trapping, fishing, a sporting activity
not otherwise prohibited by Federal law, predator control, or
pest control; (D) medical or scientific research; (E) necessary
to protect the life or property of a person; or (F) performed as
part of euthanizing an animal.” 18 U.S.C. § 48(d)(1). The
statute also does not apply to “unintentional conduct that
injures or kills an animal.” 18 U.S.C. § 48(d)(3).

3
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:5

foreign commerce,” and (3) “knowingly sell, market, advertise,

exchange, or distribute an animal crush video in, or using a

means or facility of, interstate or foreign commerce.”

6. The following definitions and descriptions apply to

this Affidavit:

a. “Animal crushing,” as defined in 18 U.S.C.

§ 48(f)(1), means “actual conduct in which one or more living

non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, or amphibians is purposely

crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, impaled, or otherwise

subjected to serious bodily injury (as defined in [18 U.S.C.

§ 1365] and including conduct that, if committed against a

person and in the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction

of the United States, would violate [18 U.S.C. §§ 2241 or

2242]).”

i. “Serious bodily injury” is defined in 18

U.S.C. § 1365(h)(3) as “bodily injury which involves -- (A) a

substantial risk of death; (B) extreme physical pain;
(C) protracted and obvious disfigurement; or (D) protracted loss

or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or

mental faculty.”

ii. “Bodily injury” is further defined in 18

U.S.C. § 1365(h)(4) as “(A) a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn, or

disfigurement; (B) physical pain; (C) illness; (D) impairment of

the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty; or

(E) any other injury to the body, no matter how temporary.”

iii. “Serious bodily injury,” as referenced in 18

U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2242, is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 2246(4) as:

4
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 6 of 22 Page ID #:6

“bodily injury that involves a substantial risk of death,

unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted and obvious

disfigurement, or protracted loss or impairment of the function

of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty.”

b. “Animal crush video,” as defined in 18 U.S.C.

§ 48(f)(2), means “any photograph, motion-picture film, video or

digital recording, or electronic image that -- (A) depicts

animal crushing; and (B) is obscene.”

IV. SUMMARY OF PROBABLE CAUSE
7. On February 13, 2021, the Riverside Police Department

(“RPD”) in Riverside, California received a report that RAMOS-

CORRALES had posted on Snapchat, a multimedia messaging

application used on smartphones, a video of a dog whose throat

had been slit (“Snapchat Video”).

8. That day, RPD officers met with the reporting person

and reviewed the Snapchat Video on that person’s smartphone.

The video showed a small brown dog lying on its right side with

a large laceration to the neck. The accompanying caption at the

bottom of the video read, “Tha next one rinnin issa soal.” The

video also captured a person believed to be RAMOS-CORRALES

saying, “I smoked his little ass. Like that homie, this is real

life. I ain’t no bitch, I’m cold hearted. Mo-fucker is dead.”

9. On the evening of February 13, 2021, RPD officers

arrived at a residence on Lou Ella Lane, Riverside, California,

which officers knew to be RAMOS-CORRALES’s residence. Officers

found RAMOS-CORRALES at the residence with fresh blood stains on

his clothes, fresh cut wounds on his hands, and illegal brass

5
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 7 of 22 Page ID #:7

knuckles on his person. During a subsequent safety sweep of the

residence, officers found a small brown dog lying on a bed with

a deep gash on the throat.

10. An RPD officer read RAMOS-CORRALES his Miranda

warnings, and he agreed to answer questions. RAMOS-CORRALES

stated the dog had become “moody” with him due to pooping inside

his cage. The dog nipped RAMOS-CORRALES which caused him to

lose control. RAMOS-CORRALES called himself a “cold blooded

killer” and said he could not stop himself from hurting the dog.

RAMOS-CORRALES identified his cellphone as a silver Samsung

Galaxy with a black case, which was later recovered by the RPD.

11. RAMOS-CORRALES consented for RPD to search his

bedroom. RPD Officers found two silver knives, black brass

knuckles, and a silver Samsung Galaxy cellphone. RPD Officers

took digital photos of the room that captured blood splatters on

the bedroom floorboard, sheets, and the wall. RAMOS-CORRALES’s

bathroom had blood splatters on the floorboard, sink and
bathtub. The photographs of RAMOS-CORRALES showed blood on

RAMOS-CORRALES’s sweatshirt and bite marks on his hands.

V. STATEMENT OF PROBABLE CAUSE
12. Based on my review of the reports produced and

evidence gathered, conversations with law enforcement officers

and witnesses, and participation in this investigation, I am

aware of the following.

///

6
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 8 of 22 Page ID #:8

Riverside Police Investigation

13. On March 4, 2021, I reviewed an RPD report submitted

by RPD Officer Devan HUSSEY (“HUSSEY”) in File number 210004466,

dated February 24, 2021, and learned the following:

a. On February 13, 2021, at approximately 7:45 p.m.,

HUSSEY and RPD Officer Devin DURAN responded to a residence on

Lou Ella Lane, Riverside, California for a potential animal

cruelty investigation.

b. Before going to that address, HUSSEY contacted

the initial reporting person (“RP”). The RP told HUSSEY that

she was contacted at around 6 p.m. that day by an acquaintance

of RAMOS-CORRALES who asked the RP to report RAMOS-CORRALES’s

posting of a video of a dog with its throat slit on Snapchat.

The RP said RAMOS-CORRALES had admitted to the killing and

stated there was more to follow. The RP gave HUSSEY RAMOS-

CORRALES’s name and his residential address on Lou Ella Lane in

Riverside. The RP described RAMOS-CORRALES as a 19-year-old
Hispanic male.

c. The RP also provided a copy of the video (the

“Snapchat Video”), which RAMOS-CORRALES’s acquaintance had sent

the RP, to HUSSEY. HUSSEY reviewed the copy of the Snapchat

Video on the RP’s phone, which was approximately 20 seconds

long. HUSSEY described the video as follows:

“A small brown dog is seen laying on its right side with a

large laceration to the neck. Next to the dog was an open

bottle of hydrogen peroxide and a black collar, which

appear cut. A caption at the bottom of the screen read,

7
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 9 of 22 Page ID #:9

‘Tha next one rinnin issa soal.’ The dog is heard whaling

and gasping for air 2 as [RAMOS-CORRALES] stands over the
body. The video captures [RAMOS-CORRALES] saying, “I

smoked his little ass. Like that homie, this is real life.

I ain’t no bitch, I’m cold hearted. Mo-fucker is dead.”

During these statements, [RAMOS-CORRALES] made finger

gestures at the dog’s body, similar to portraying gang

signs. At no point did [RAMOS-CORRALES] attempt to help

care for the dog. The video concluded after the

statement.”

d. Upon arrival at the Lou Ella Lane address, HUSSEY

observed a young Hispanic adult male wearing a light gray

hoodie, dark jeans, and black shoes, exit the residence. The

man appeared to fit the description of RAMOS-CORRALES that the

RP had given and the clothing worn by the person in the Snapchat

Video. When the man saw the police vehicle, he started to

retreat back into the residence. HUSSEY asked the man to come

over to the officers before he entered the residence. The man

complied and came toward the officers, but he appeared to be

very nervous and suspicious.

2 Based on my further investigation, I do not believe the
wailing and gasping sound was coming from the dog. Instead, as
confirmed to me later by RAMOS-CORRALES’s sister, J.R., the
wailing sound was coming from J.R. who was crying due to the
injury to the dog, which J.R. shared with RAMOS-CORRALES.
Because J.R. was crying while the Snapchat Video was being video
recorded by J.R.’s boyfriend using a different phone, the sound
of J.R.’s wailing was recorded with the Snapchat Video.

8
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 10 of 22 Page ID #:10

e. The man identified himself as RAMOS-CORRALES.

HUSSEY observed fresh blood stains on RAMOS-CORRALES’s hoodie

and cut wounds on his hands.

f. Based on the suspected animal cruelty conduct and

potential weapons involved in that conduct, HUSSEY did a patdown

search of RAMOS-CORRALES and found black brass knuckles, an

illegal weapon in violation of California Penal Code Section

21810. After the discovery of the illegal weapon, RAMOS-

CORRALES was detained and handcuffed.

g. HUSSEY asked RAMOS-CORRALES about other occupants

inside the Lou Ella Lane residence. He stated he had a roommate

who was inside, but he refused to say where his roommate would

be located inside.

h. Due to the reported violence at the residence,

RAMOS-CORRALES’s fresh wounds and blood stains, recovered

weapon, and suspicious behavior, and acknowledged presence of a

roommate inside the residence, HUSSEY believed there was an
exigent circumstance to enter the residence to ascertain the

safety of the roommate.

i. HUSSEY entered the residence and conducted a

safety sweep of the residence. During the sweep, HUSSEY

observed a small brown dog laying on a bed with its throat cut.

HUSSEY continued the sweep and found the roommate, M.C., in a

different bedroom. HUSSEY escorted M.C. out of the residence.

j. After exiting the residence, HUSSEY told RAMOS-

CORRALES that she was doing an animal cruelty and brass knuckles

possession investigation. HUSSEY read RAMOS-CORRALES his

9
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 11 of 22 Page ID #:11

Miranda rights and asked him if he was willing to speak about
the incident. RAMOS-CORRALES agreed to answer HUSSEY’s

questions and gave the following statements:

i. RAMOS-CORRALES said he was inside his room

most of the day, alone with the dog, and smoking marijuana.

ii. He stated the dog became “moody” and pooped

inside his cage. The dog was also nipping at RAMOS-CORRALES,

which caused him to lose control.

iii. RAMOS-CORRALES claimed he did not recall

exactly what he did to the dog, but stated the dog was “still

breathing.” He referred to himself as a “cold blooded killer”

and said he could not stop himself from hurting the dog. But he

also said he felt remorse for what he did to the dog and said he

even put cleaning alcohol on the dog to help after cutting the

dog’s throat.

iv. RAMOS-CORRALES stated that after his brother

had been transformed by gang violence, he became “cold” and

wanted to cause pain.

v. When asked why he posted the Snapchat Video,

RAMOS-CORRALES refused to answer, but asked how RPD discovered

his posts. He did identify his cellphone as the silver Samsung

Galaxy with a black case on the bed.

vi. RAMOS-CORRALES could not identify the knife

used to injure the dog but kept saying he hurt the dog because

he was a cold blooded killer.

10
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 12 of 22 Page ID #:12

vii. RAMOS-CORRALES stated he did not have mental

health issues, that he had not previously harmed an animal, or

that he was homicidal.

k. RAMOS-CORRALES then gave consent for the officers

to search his bedroom. During the search, HUSSEY recovered a

short silver knife on RAMOS-CORRALES’s bed and a longer silver

knife near the residence’s front door. RAMOS-CORRALES’s silver

Samsung Galaxy cellphone was recovered from his bed.

l. The Samsung Galaxy, in addition to the black

brass knuckles and other evidence gathered, was booked into RPD

Evidence.

m. Officer DURAN took 88 digital photographs of the

crime scene and attached them to RPD File Number 210004466.

14. On March 4, 2021, I reviewed an RPD report submitted

by RPD Officer Sergio MERCADO (“MERCADO”) in File number

210004466-001, dated February 24, 2021, and learned the

following:
a. Sometime after 7:42 p.m. on February 13, 2021,

while Officers HUSSEY and DURAN were investigating RAMOS-

CORRALES, MERCADO arrived with his partner, RPD Officer LaPoint,

and assisted with the interview of M.C. in Spanish, outside

RAMOS-CORRALES’s residence.

b. M.C. said he rented a room in RAMOS-CORRALES’s

residence and knew that RAMOS-CORRALES was the landlord’s son.

c. M.C. said at approximately 5:00 p.m. that day, he

returned to the residence and saw that RAMOS-CORRALES appeared

to be upset and yelling unknown words in his bedroom.

11
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 13 of 22 Page ID #:13

d. M.C. said he saw the puppy wrapped in a bathroom

floor rug, while RAMOS-CORRALES was in his room yelling.

e. M.C. said he also saw blood splatters and became

concerned for his own safety, so M.C. then locked himself in his

own bedroom.

f. M.C. said he did not witness RAMOS-CORRALES

harming the dog.

15. Later in the evening of February 13, 2021, Riverside

County Animal Control arrived at the Lou Ella Lane address and

took custody of the dog, which was still alive. Based on my

review of the report from Animal Control dated February 13, 2021

at 10:05 p.m., I am aware of the following:

a. When the dog was examined by a veterinarian with

Animal Control, the dog was determined to be about 10 weeks old.

b. The dog exhibited “rythmic [sic] tremors

affecting all 4 legs,” had “apparently experienced severe blunt

trauma to the head and face bilateral[ly],” with the head
“distorted with severe swelling and deformity.

c. The dog suffered from a “clean cut laceration . .

. of neck on the jugular region measuring 4.4 cm,” with the

laceration “cut through dermis.”

d. The dog nonetheless had a pulse of 80 beats per

minute, although it was non-responsive.

e. An X-ray of the dog showed that it had bilateral

zygomatic arch fractures and left rib fracture.

12
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 14 of 22 Page ID #:14

f. The dog was subsequently euthanized through the

use of an injection, after which the dog “died

instantly/peacefully.”

Review of Snapchat Video and Digital Photographs

16. On March 4, 2021, I reviewed the Snapchat Video

referenced in HUSSEY’s RPD report, in File Number 210004466. My

observation of the Snapchat Video was generally consistent with

the observations made by HUSSEY. The video was approximately 20

seconds long.

17. On March 4, 2021, I reviewed the digital photographs

referenced in HUSSEY’s RPD report, in File Number 210004466, and

saw the following, among many others:

a. Photo File L2E80108.jpg depicted a brown dog

lying on his right side on top of a bed along with a silver

Samsung cellphone and a silver knife. Blood stains were shown

on the floorboard in front of the bed.

b. Photo File L2E80129.jpg depicted a blood stain on
the wall next to the bed in which the dog was lying.

c. Photo File L2E80143.jpg depicted a blood stains

on the bathroom sink used by RAMOS-CORRALES.

d. Photo File L2E80155.jpg depicted feces inside a

dog cage.

e. Photo File L2E80157.jpg depicted RAMOS-CORRALES

after his arrest, wearing a light gray hoodie that appeared to

have a blood stain.

f. Photo File L2E80166.jpg depicted RAMOS-CORRALES’s

hands that appeared to have bite marks.

13
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 15 of 22 Page ID #:15

18. On March 4, 2021, during my review of the RPD File

Number 210004466, I reviewed an RPD Notice to Appear, serial

number 801860, written to “Angel Ramos,” with a date of birth in

2002. The charges, both felonies, were listed as PC 597(B),

Animal Cruelty, and PC 21810, Possession of Metal Knuckles.

19. Also on March 4, 2021, I queried law enforcement

database and found the California Driver’s License (“CDL”)

information for RAMOS-CORRALES under CDL ending in 5939. I

reviewed the photo for CDL ending in 5939 and compared the

attached photo with photo file L2E80157.jpg, described above.

The persons depicted in both photos appeared to be the same

person. As further discussed below, on March 5, 2021, I met

with RAMOS-CORRALES and confirmed that he was the same person

depicted the RPD photos and CDL photo.

Follow-up Interviews of RAMOS-CORRALES and Witnesses

20. On March 4 and 5, 2021, FBI SA Travis Rankin, Jazmin

Vidana, and I conducted interviews of witnesses in this
investigation, as well as a Mirandized interview of RAMOS-

CORRALES. The following are summaries of those interviews

relevant to this search warrant application.

21. On March 4, 2021, FBI SA Rankin, Vidana, and I met

with RAMOS-CORRALES at his Lou Ella Lane residence. I gave a

Miranda warning to RAMOS-CORRALES, and he agreed to speak with
us. RAMOS-CORRALES said the following to us:

a. RAMOS-CORRALES identified himself as the person

who posted the Snapchat Video but claimed he did not recall the

details of what he did. He claimed that he had taken a mix of

14
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 16 of 22 Page ID #:16

drugs and alcohol.

b. RAMOS-CORRALES said the name of the dog was

“Canelo,” which he bought for $30 from a family that placed the

dog for sale through a posting on Craiglist, online classified

advertisements website. RAMOS-CORRALES said he bought the dog

about four or five months earlier when the dog was a small

puppy.

c. When RAMOS-CORRALES was shown a photograph of the

Samsung Galaxy that RPD took on February 13, 2021, he

acknowledged that the phone was his.

d. RAMOS-CORRALES also acknowledged that he used

Snapchat and Instagram, as his social media. RAMOS-CORRALES

provided his Snapchat and Instagram names. His Snapchat display

name is “Chencho” and user name “bln00100”. His Instagram user

name is “minis_6”.

e. Although RAMOS-CORRALES said he did not recall

what exactly he did to Canelo, he admitted he had flashbacks of
the incident and recalled pouring alcohol over the dog. He also

stated that he posted to Snapchat at least one photo of himself

drinking alcohol on the same night of the incident.

22. On March 4, 2021, FBI SA Rankin, Vidana, and I met

with J.R., sister of RAMOS-CORRALES, at the Lou Ella Lane

residence. J.R. said the following to us:

a. J.R. said she was RAMOS-CORRALES’s older sister

and she also lived in the Lou Ella Lane residence.

b. J.R. said she learned about RAMOS-CORRALES’s

slitting of his dog while she was traveling in Mexico. One of

15
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 17 of 22 Page ID #:17

her cousins called J.R. to let her know that RAMOS-CORRALES had

posted a video of injury to the dog on social media.

c. J.R. said she was not aware of RAMOS-CORRALES

harming animals or posing other similar videos of causing injury

to animals.

d. J.R. said her oldest brother was in and out of

prison. She said RAMOS-CORRALES was a sort of a “poser” who

might have wanted to impressed other people by posting the

Snapchat Video. She thought RAMOS-CORRALES might be trying to

impress their older brother who is currently in prison.

e. After listening the audio of a video recording of

the Snapchat Video that the RPD obtained from the RP, J.R. said

the sound of wailing heard in the video is that of herself

crying over the injury to the dog.

23. On March 5, 2021, FBI SA Rankin, Vidana, and I met

with RAMOS-CORRALES for a follow-up interview at the Lou Ella

Lane residence. I gave a Miranda warning to RAMOS-CORRALES, and
he agreed to speak with us. RAMOS-CORRALES said the following

to us:

a. RAMOS-CORRALES had been home all day on the day

he slit the dog’s throat. He had started drinking in the

morning, listened to music, and exchanged text messages with

other people, including on Snapchat.

b. RAMOS-CORRALES still said he did not recall the

details of what he did to the dog and why he did it.

c. RAMOS-CORRALES said a cousin (whose name he said

he did not recall) called him at some point after he posted the

16
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 18 of 22 Page ID #:18

video to ask what he was doing.

d. RAMOS-CORRALES said he “freaked out” after he

realized that he had slit the dog’s throat.

e. RAMOS-CORRALES said he did not recall how many

people viewed, responded to, or saved the video he posted.

24. During the same interview on March 5, 2021, RAMOS-

CORRALES showed us his Snapchat account on his new cellphone and

agreed to have us take a look at his postings and chats from

February 13, 2021. We reviewed RAMOS-CORRALES’s “friend” list

and saw that there were 19 people on the list.

Interview of Individuals Who Sold the Dog to RAMOS-CORRALES

25. On March 30, 2021, FBI SA James Lamothe and Steven

Gale interviewed J.G. and D.R., husband and wife, in their

residence in Apple Valley, California. During the interview,

J.G. stated that he and his wife sold a dog to RAMOS-CORRALES,

as identified through a photograph of RAMOS-CORRALES. Based on

my review of the report completed by SA Lamothe and Gale and my
conversation with the two SAs, I am aware of the following:

a. When shown a photograph of RAMOS-CORRALES, J.G.

stated that he recognized the male in the photograph as the

person who bought a dog from J.G. and his family. J.G. stated

that his family had posted a Craigslist ad using D.R.’s email

address to sell a recently born puppy that the family had. J.G.

said when RAMOS-CORRALES came to buy the puppy, he was

accompanied by a female, short in height.

b. J.G. said that the puppy was being sold for $30,

and there were two people interested in buying the puppy. J.G.

17
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 19 of 22 Page ID #:19

said RAMOS-CORRALES was eager to buy the puppy and offered to

pay $45 to come pick the puppy up as soon as possible.

c. J.G. recalled that RAMOS-CORRALES was driving

from Riverside.

26. During the interview, J.G. and D.R. provided SAs

Lamothe and Gale with copies of emails and messages showing

communications concerning the sale of the dog.

Execution of Search Warrants

27. On March 9, 2021, the Honorable Sheri Pym, United

States Magistrate Judge, approved two search warrants in this

investigation for (1) RAMOS-CORRALES’s Snapchat account under

username “bln00100” and display name “Chencho,” in case number

ED 21-MJ-150, and (2) a Samsung Galaxy belonging to RAMOS-

CORRALES, in case number ED 21-MJ-151.

28. Between March 9 and 23, 2021, I conducted a search of

RAMOS-CORRALES’s Samsung Galaxy pursuant to the search warrant

in case number ED 21-MJ-151. During that search, I found the
following, among others:

a. Text/instant messages showing that RAMOS-CORRALES

bought the deceased dog on November 16, 2020 from a person who

had the telephone number of 909-831-XXXX, residing in Apple

Valley, California, with the same address as J.G. and D.R.

b. A message string with 909-831-XXXX detailing

conversations regarding the dog purchase transaction on November

15, 2020.

29. On April 21, 2021, Snapchat produced information and

digital data responsive to the search warrant pursuant to 18

18
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 20 of 22 Page ID #:20

U.S.C. § 2703 in case number ED 21-MJ-150.

a. Within that production were copies of the

Snapchat Video depicting a dog with the throat slit, along with

the “overlay” file that showed the text associated with the

Snapchat Video, “The next one I rinnin issa soal,” dated

February 13, 2021, at 6:42 p.m.

b. After watching the Snapchat Video, I confirmed

that that video was the same video that the initial reporting

party (RP) provided to the RPD on February 13, 2021, but without

the wailing sound that I previously learned was made by RAMOS-

CORRALES’s sister, as described above.

c. I also saw that, toward the end of the Snapchat

Video, RAMOS-CORRALES kicked the dog callously and said, “Mo-

fucker is dead.”

d. Also in the same production was the content of

Snapchat messages exchanged between RAMOS-CORRALES’s account

bln00100 and his Snapchat friends, which included other
individuals addressing bln00100 as “Angelllll” and bln00100

providing RAMOS-CORRALES’s Lou Ella Lane address to another

person.

e. The Snapchat message content included messages

exchanged starting at 6:43 p.m. on February 13, 2021. 3 Those

messages showed RAMOS-CORRALES’s bln00100 account sending out

multimedia messages to several others at 6:43 p.m., consistent

3The time marks on the chat log are in Universal Time
Coordinated (“UTC”) time, which was eight hours ahead of Pacific
Standard Time (“PST”) on February 13, 2021. Thus, chat messages
logged as taking place on February 14, 2021 at 2:43 a.m. UTC was
on February 13, 2021 at 6:43 p.m.

19
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 21 of 22 Page ID #:21

with the posting of a video to a group. At 6:44 p.m., one

individual wrote to bln00100, “Eww.” At 7:13 p.m., another

individual wrote, “Foo I hope you didnâ€™t [sic] do that [J.R.]

is doing the most rn.” At 7:31 p.m., a third individual wrote,

“You just need to stop hanging out with the wrong crowd.”

f. Also in the same Snapchat production was another

video dated February 25, 2021, showing a man in possession of

what appears to be marijuana and making the same “gang sign”

finger gesture with the left hand in the same manner that RAMOS-

CORRALES made a finger gesture in the Snapchat Video. Although

the man’s face is not visible, the man is wearing the same

colored and brand of shoes as RAMOS-CORRALES in the Snapchat

Video and the flooring shown on this video is the same as the

flooring shown in the Snapchat Video.

///

20
Case 5:21-mj-00309-DUTY Document 1 Filed 04/23/21 Page 22 of 22 Page ID #:22

VI. CONCLUSION
30. Based upon the evidence described above, I submit that

probable cause exists to support the issuance of a criminal

complaint against Angel RAMOS-CORRALES (“RAMOS-CORRALES”) with a

violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 48(a)(1)

(Animal Crushing).

Attested to by the applicant in
accordance with the requirements
of Fed. R. Crim. P. 4.1 by
23rd day of
telephone on this ____
April 2021.

HONORABLE SHERI PYM
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

File and source

File: 1.pdf
Size: 378,859 bytes
SHA-256: 772ab157ab79917be0493360977e4397a542608e7eb68811ac18f686c1168656
Our copy: 1.pdf
Original: No public link identified.