AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS

Transcription

1 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 1 of 27 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATIONS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS I, Patrick A. Westerhaus, being duly sworn, states the following: I. BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE OF AFFIANT. 1. As set forth herein, the affiant respectfully submits that there is probable cause to believe that, at the locations enumerated below, there exists evidence and instrumentalities of violations of federal criminal law, including, but not limited to, the following statutes: (i) Title 18, United States Code, Section 201 (Bribery of a Public Official); (ii) Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343, 1346 (Honest Services Wire Fraud); (iii) Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 (Attempt and Conspiracy to Commit Honest Service Wire Fraud); and (iv) Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (Conspiracy). 2. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI ) and have been so employed since March I am assigned to the Public Corruption Squad of the Washington, D.C., FBI field office. I investigate public corruption matters in the Washington metropolitan area. My duties include investigation of various criminal allegations, including those involving bribery and corruption of public officials, bank fraud, mail and wire fraud, government fraud, and other violations. I have training and experience in the enforcement of the laws of the United States, including the preparation and presentation of search warrant affidavits and in conducting search warrants. 3. I make this affidavit based upon personal knowledge derived from my participation in this investigation, upon my experience as an FBI agent, and upon information I believe to be reliable from sources including, among others, the following: (i) oral and written reports about this and other investigations that I have either written or received from other law enforcement officers;

2 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 2 of 27 (ii) physical surveillance in which I have personally participated or that has been reported to me; (iii) public records; (iv) records obtained by grand jury subpoenas; (v) review of pen register and trap and trace information, telephone toll records, and subscriber information; (vi) interviews of witnesses; (vii) consensual recordings, performed both in person and over the telephone; (viii) court-ordered wire interceptions; (ix) review of materials obtained from the execution of search warrants on accounts; and (x) news media reports. 4. This affidavit is submitted in support of a search warrant; it does not set forth each and every fact known to me or the other investigators about this investigation. Rather, this affidavit sets forth only those facts necessary to establish the requisite foundation for the requested warrants. II. LOCATIONS TO BE SEARCHED. 5. XXXX, Washington, D.C. Ted Loza s Residence and Sublet Room. Apartment No. X is described as follows: the apartment, which is on the fourth floor of the building located at XXXX, NW, has a red door marked with the number X. This apartment includes the Loza residence and a room sublet to Jose Sanchez ( J.S. ), further identified in paragraphs 50 through 52 below. At the main entrance to XXXX there is a typical call box used by visitors to contact residents. On July 28, 2009, agents accessed the call box and determined that apartment X is assigned to a resident named Loza. As of July 31, 2009, personnel records for the District of Columbia government, where Loza is employed, list XXXX, Washington, D.C. as Loza s address of record. Additionally, records associated with Loza s bank account at the District of Columbia Employees Federal Credit Union, as of the end of 2008, listed XXXX, Washington, D.C., -2-

3 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 3 of 27 as Loza s address of record. In an FBI interview on August 17, 2009, Loza advised that he currently resides at XXXX, Washington D.C. 6. XXXX, Washington, D.C. Ted Loza s Office. Loza s Office is described as follows: it is located on the first floor of XXXX, NW, within 1 an office suite, which is designated as X. A source ( CS-1 ) who has met Loza in his office numerous times most recently on August 3, 2009 described Loza s office within Suite X in this way: it is adjacent to the office of Calvin Woodland, another staffer who works in Suite X, and in front of the main entrance to Suite X. On August 11, 2009, an agent visited Suite X, and he confirmed the presence of an office adjacent and to the left of an office marked with a green sign that reads Calvin Woodland. On August 17, 2009, Loza confirmed this as his office. 7. Person of Ted Loza This affidavit is also being submitted in support of a search warrant for the person of Ted Loza, wherever he may be found, as more fully described in Attachment A to the search warrant for the person of Ted Loza. 8. In my training and experience, I have learned that individuals who are involved in long term schemes to accept bribes (as here) often maintain in their offices and residences instrumentalities of the crime, and notes, receipts, records, and other papers, etc., related to these activities. Moreover, given the nature of these documents, they are likely to be maintained and not destroyed. Given the length of the criminal activity here almost two years and the nature of the 1 On June 4, 2009, CS-1 agreed to cooperate in the hope of eventually receiving a lesser sentence; prior to that CS-1 was a participant in the criminal activities. Although CS-1 has not yet pleaded guilty, it is anticipated that CS-1 will. Much of the information provided by CS-1 has been independently corroborated. -3-

4 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 4 of 27 evidence it is likely that individuals associated with the commission of these crimes maintain evidence of the criminal activity in their offices and residences. 2 Additionally, in this investigation, Loza and others have used computers and wireless devices to make pertinent communications. For example, during the August 17, 2009 interview of Loza, he had on his person and used a wireless and telephone device. At that time, Loza indicated that he receives messages concerning official business on the device. Thus, it is likely that evidence of the criminal activity would be located on computers and wireless devices. I am aware that, given the nature of computer technology, files and other information stored in electronic form may be accessed for years after creation, even, in many instances, after individuals have attempted to delete such files or information. III. RELEVANT STATUES 9. Title 18, United States Code, Section, 201(b)(2)(A), the bribery statute, provides, in relevant part, that [w]hoever being a public official * * * directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for * * * being influenced in the performance of any official act * * * shall be [guilty of this offense]. 10. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, the wire-fraud statute, provides in relevant part, that [w]hoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or 2 As noted in paragraphs 51 through 53 below, Loza s residence is the same address as that of J.S., who agreed to and did provide things of value based on demands by Loza to Fiesta DC, an entity receiving a $100,000 earmark from the D.C. city council. -4-

5 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 5 of 27 television communication in interstate or foreign commerce * * * for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be [guilty of this offense]. 11. Title 18, United States Code, Section, 1346, the honest-services provision of the wirefraud statute, provides, in relevant part that the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. 12. Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349, provides that any person who attempts or conspires to commit [honest services wire fraud] shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for [honest services wire fraud.] 13. Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, the conspiracy statute, provides, in relevant part, that [i]f two or more persons conspire * * * to commit any offense against the United States * * * and one or more of such persons to any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be [guilty of this offense]. IV. SUMMARY. 14. In or about July 2008, the City Council enacted a moratorium barring the issuance of multi-car taxicab company licenses. Given this moratorium, new taxicab company licenses may not be issued, rendering taxicab company licenses a valuable commodity. 15. Ted Giovanny Loza (hereinafter Loza ) was born on or about XXXX, in Ecuador; he is a lawful permanent resident. Loza is employed as the Chief of Staff to Jim Graham, a District of Columbia City Council Member, Public Official No. 1 ("PO-1"). Loza has worked for PO-1 since on or about May 16, As part of his official duties, Loza performs the following acts, among others: -5-

6 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 6 of 27 (a) Loza is the head of PO-1 s office and exercises supervisory authority over a staff of approximately eleven full- and part-time employees; (b) Loza is an advisor to PO-1 on District of Columbia legislative matters, including matters related to the regulation of the taxicab industry in Washington, D.C.; (c) Loza helps promote legislation, including legislation and policies governing the taxicab industry in Washington, D.C.; (d) Loza interacts with city officials and employees and discusses legislation with them, including legislation and policies governing the taxicab industry in Washington, D.C.; (e) Loza interacts with private citizens and discusses legislation with them, including legislation and policies governing the taxicab industry in Washington, D.C. 16. An individual with financial interests in the taxicab industry, Abdul Kamus ( CS-1"), has engaged in repeated and longstanding efforts to limit the number of taxicab company licenses issued and to create an exemption to that limitation. More specifically, CS-1 has attempted improperly to influence Loza, the Chief of Staff to PO-1, regarding taxicab legislation. PO-1 is the Chair of the District of Columbia City Council s Committee on Public Works and Transportation. That is the legislative committee in Council with direct oversight and regulatory authority over the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission specifically and taxicab issues generally. -6-

7 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 7 of CS-1 sought enactment of the moratorium on the issuance of taxicab company licenses. Later, at the behest of Pete Maroun, an undercover agent ( undercover agent ), CS-1 sought the adoption of an exception to the moratorium under the guise of an allowance for the issuance of licenses for companies using environmentally friendly vehicles. 18. As part of CS-1 s efforts to secure advantages in the taxicab industry in the District of Columbia, CS-1 provided a stream of things of value to Loza, including, but not limited to, cash, the use of vehicles, and trips. 19. In return for that stream of things of value, Loza performed official acts in his capacity as PO-1's Chief of Staff, including, but not limited to, (1) setting up meetings for CS-1 and the undercover agent with PO-1, (2) speaking with PO-1 about CS-1 s and the undercover agent s preferences for taxicab legislation, and (3) promoting legislation that was favorable to CS-1's and the undercover agent s stated personal financial interests. CS-1 is not a constituent of PO-1. Moreover, the undercover agent represented to Loza and others that he also does not live in the District. V. FACTS. A. The 2007 El Salvador Trip 20. In or about November 2007, Loza, a public official, solicited funds from CS-1 for a trip to El Salvador, at a time when CS-1 was actively seeking legislative changes from the District of Columbia City Council. Thus, on or about November 27, 2007, at approximately -7-

8 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 8 of :52 a.m., CS-1, well before CS-1 had been approached openly by law enforcement officers, received a monitored call from Loza. They had the following conversation: Hello. Hello, [CS-1]. Yes sir. Yes. How are you? Thank you for returning my call. * * * So that s number one. Number two I wanted you you know [PO-1] and I are leaving on a conference to talk about gang issues to Honduras and El Salvador. Aha. We re leaving this Saturday, for a week. OK. And then, when I come back, I m only coming back for three four days, and I am going to Ecuador with my family. Aha. Ya but you know, [UI] a request I have for you if possible we have for you if possible: Can you raise a little money for us to go to this trip? A ahh. See what you can do. 3 The times used in this affidavit were obtained from several sources, including times noted by agents and officers, times obtained from pen register and trap and trace devices, and times in toll records. These different sources of time are not perfectly calibrated, so there may be slight discrepancies among them. -8-

9 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 9 of 27 No I will do something about it. You know so a and the conference is paying for the conference talking about much. I don t know. Whatever you can do. OK. I will be in a good position soon, and CS-1 [UI] dollars. No. No. No. We will do something by today in the afternoon, I will call you back. Thank you. All right sir. Bye On or about November 27, 2007, at approximately 4:15 p.m., CS-1 had a monitored telephone conversation with Loza in which only one side of the call could be heard: *Good afternoon, [PO-1 Staff member], how are you today? I am doing good, good. *Is Ted [Loza] in the office? *Ted [Loza], hello. *Yes sir. *Your request aha, I will see you tomorrow. I have something for you. *Aha. *Yes sir. 4 The transcripts of conversations used in this affidavit are substantially accurate. They are not, however, final, and they are subject to revision upon further review. -9-

10 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 10 of 27 *Yeah, yeah, yeah, I have, I have one question, I want you to help me. There is a guy who has a problem with WMATA. 22. The day after that phone call, on or about November 28, 2007, at approximately 4:24 p.m., CS-1 called PO-1's main office number and reached Loza. CS-1 told Loza that he was on his way and that he would be there in thirty minutes. Approximately thirty minutes later, at 4:55 p.m., CS-1 called Loza s extension at PO-1's office: CS-1 told Loza that he was downstairs waiting for him, and Loza said he would come to meet CS-1. At about this time, law enforcement surveillance observed CS-1 parked in front of XXXX, Washington, D.C. the location of Loza s office. At approximately 4:56 p.m., Loza was seen leaving the building. He got into the passenger side of CS-1 s vehicle. CS-1 and Loza rode around the block and then parked again in front of XXXX. Shortly thereafter, Loza got out of CS-1 s vehicle and went back into XXXX. Based on the previously intercepted conversations and the circumstances of this encounter, there is probable cause to believe that CS-1 gave Loza the money that Loza had requested for his El Salvador and Ecuador trips. Indeed, after cooperating with the government, CS-1 admitted giving approximately $500 to Loza for the trip. 23. As Chief of Staff to PO-1, Loza is required under District of Columbia law to file a financial disclosure statement on or before May 15 of any year; the report filed covers the preceding calendar year. Thus, the report filed by Loza in or about May 2008 disclosed financial information present during calendar year Based on an electronic copy of the financial disclosure report obtained by law enforcement, it appears that Loza prepared the calendar year 2007 Financial Disclosure Report that he filed in or about May 2008 on a computer. -10-

11 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 11 of Question Seven of the Financial Disclosure Form required Loza to [l]ist all gifts with an aggregate value of $100 or more received by you from any business entity (including sole proprietorships, partnerships and corporations) transacting any business with the District of Columbia Government (including any of its agencies, departments, boards, commissions or educational bodies). If none, state none. Despite receiving things of value from CS-1 when CS-1 was engaged in lobbying efforts with the District of Columbia government, Loza answered question seven on his calendar year 2007 Financial Disclosure Report by typing the word none. B. The 2008 Ethiopia Trip. 26. On or about April 1, 2008, PO-1 introduced legislation to close taxicab company licensure in the District of Columbia. 27. On or about July 15, 2008, the taxicab company moratorium legislation was enacted by the Council for the District of Columbia on an emergency basis. 28. For several months, CS-1 had been attempting unsuccessfully to arrange a trip for Loza to Ethiopia. 29. On or about August 13, 2008, at approximately 7:56 a.m., CS-1 placed a call to Loza's personal cellular telephone, and they had the following conversation: Good morning, Teddy [Loza]. Hey, good morning. How are you sir? Life is great. Yeah. Uh, I have a, uh, good position. Alright. -11-

12 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 12 of 27 There s an investor [undercover agent]. Um, who s interested in, uh, you know, investing money in taxi business in D.C. Um. And he invested in real estate as well. And, um, he has the capacity, uh, to send money and, uh, and that s actually for the future plan that you had in South America. You could talk to him as well. Um Um? And um Is he from here? Excuse me? Is he from here? Yeah, he is from here from Florida. He comes up here every, um Atlanta? Excuse me? Is he from Atlanta or from Florida? From Florida. OK. Yeah, uh, and uh I ve been talking to him for a couple of times like maybe two or three times. I met him and talked to him. Uh and uh, back and forth, you know, and he suggested that, you know, I tell him that I ll be traveling to Ethiopia Uh and uh, he would like to cover the travel cost. -12-

13 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 13 of 27 Um Uh and uh What you think? For me to go or you? No, for you to go. Well, when are you leaving? Um, no I will be leaving Saturday. You, you can come next week or, you know, I will be there for a month. Oh, OK. Yeah, yeah. Well I think so. OK. Then could you be able to meet me in the morning today say for five minutes? Yes of course. Alright. Then I ll call him before he leaves for Florida then, then talk to him briefly. OK. Then, uh, you know, you get his number and talk to him later on. OK. Alright. * * * 30. After CS-1 ended the above conversation with Loza, CS-1, through a consensually monitored telephone call, asked the undercover agent if he wanted to meet Loza. In previous discussions with the undercover agent, CS-1 described Loza as being the Chief of Staff to PO

14 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 14 of A few hours later, on that same day, August 13, 2008, CS-1 and Loza met with the undercover agent in Washington, D.C. During the meeting, CS-1 told the undercover agent and Loza that he was traveling to Ethiopia. CS-1 then asked the undercover agent if he would sponsor Loza's trip. The undercover agent then offered Loza $4,000 for his trip to Ethiopia. Loza said that the sum was more than he expected. When the undercover agent placed an envelope with the money on the table, Loza pushed it to CS-1; the undercover agent told CS-1 to make sure the money got to Loza. Thus, during the very first meeting with the undercover agent, 5 Loza agreed to accept $4,000 for a trip to Ethiopia. During an interview of Loza on August 17, 2009, Loza said that CS-1 gave him $3,500 after the undercover agent departed from the meeting. Loza said that he used the $3,500 to purchase a plane ticket to, and as spending money in, Ethiopia. 32. Based on ICE travel records, Loza traveled to Ethiopia on August 29, After Loza and CS-1 returned from Ethiopia, the undercover agent met Loza and CS-1 on September 25, 2008, in Washington D.C. During this meeting, Loza discussed his recent trip to Ethiopia. 34. Significantly, after discussing the trip, Loza told the undercover agent during that meeting, your investment was well spent. Loza, CS-1, and the undercover agent then proceeded to talk about taxicab legislation in the District of Columbia City Council and the taxicab industry in general. CS-1 said taxicab medallions were still under discussion and that 5 During the meeting, CS-1 described Loza as a good friend and supporter, and stated that Loza had previously helped him obtain permits for an event CS-1 organized in the District. -14-

15 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 15 of 27 PO-1, who initially opposed the idea, was now in favor of medallions. Loza stated that PO-1 wanted to enact medallions before the end of PO-1's term, as medallions were perceived to be lucrative. Loza also invited the undercover agent to meet PO-1. Loza said that he would arrange such a meeting at which time the undercover agent could present his ideas on the taxicab industry to PO On or about September 26, 2008, Loza and CS-1 had a conversation during which Loza stated that he was attempting to arrange a meeting between the undercover agent and PO Later that day, Loza used his City Council account to send an to PO- 1's scheduler. The message was also copied to the addresses of three additional recipients: (1) PO-1, (2) David Vacca ( Legislative Analyst ), and (3) CS-1. [CS-1] s requesting a meeting, for the week of Oct. 6, to discuss two main issues. 1. Introduction of [the undercover agent], who would like to contribute towards the building of the taxi cab stand in Adams Morgan. 2. They also would like to talk further on the next steps of Taxi Cab issues, legislation, medallion system, moratorium, etc. 37. On or about September 30, 2008, Loza called CS-1 and stated that CS-1 should let the undercover agent know that the appointment between the undercover agent and PO-1 would be on Wednesday, October 8, 2008, at 3:00 p.m. 38. On or about October 8, 2008, at approximately 3:00 p.m., because of Loza's efforts, PO-1 met in his office with the CS-1, Loza, Legislative Analyst, and the undercover agent. During the meeting in the presence of Loza, the undercover agent spoke with PO-1 about taxicab issues. C Father s Day Gift. -15-

16 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 16 of On or about July 16, 2008, at approximately 6:45 p.m., Loza used his personal cellular telephone to call CS-1, and they had the following conversation: * * * Yeah. I will be back. Is it, you know, are you around, around before ten o clock? Tonight? Yeah. Oh, I am not sure. Give me a call. I don t know if I will be home already. OK. Alright. OK. I will [UI] by at home too, you know, just, you know, drop you a Father s Day gift. [UI] Alright. Bye-bye. Bye. 40. According to CS-1, based on interviews CS-1 gave after cooperating with the government, CS-1 gave Loza $500 in 2008 for Father s Day. D Father s Day Gift -16-

17 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 17 of On June 19, 2009, at approximately 12:00 p.m., Loza met CS-1, now working covertly with law enforcement agents, outside XXXX; they had the following recorded 6 conversation : Yeah, regarding, uh, the, you know I m working with the taxicab small owners regarding the bill the, the legislation with the hybrid cars. Yes. And [the undercover agent] was really pushing, and he was helping us with some fund raising. And, uh, he say [sic] that he has a lot of money to invest in D.C. [nodding] Uh, and, uh, really we need help a lot. The legislation is almost [nodding] How long, how many months left now? About two months left one month left for, uh, for the legislation to be introduced? [PO-1], what did [PO-1] say? The beginning of the next, uh, council session? [Inaudible] Cause we go on break on Jan [sic], on July fifteenth. Ok, there s no way 6 On September 10, 2009, a Federal Grand Jury sitting in this District returned a two-count Indictment, under seal, charging Loza with violations of 18 U.S.C. 201(b)(2)(A), receipt of bribes by a public official, relating to this recorded conversation and a July 10, 2009 recorded conversation described below. -17-

18 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 18 of 27 And then we don t come back until September the fifteenth. ok, there s no way he can [inaudible]? Move what? Like on an emergency basis? I don t know. I would have to speak to [PO-1]. I know that, I thought you d been talking to [Legislative Analyst], no? Yeah, [Legislative Analyst], that s why I called. When I called [Legislative Analyst], he s, he was on vacation. He is. His vacation. That s why I find out from you what s going on. * * * Well, really, I, I, I wanted to buy something for you for father s day, like a tie or something. [laughing] You know, [inaudible]. Don t worry about a thing man. You know, it s just a I have something, I have something for you. I m, I m just happy to see you all the time. Yeah, I know. It s for you. [CS-1 handed an envelope containing $1,000 in cash to LOZA.] What is this? Is this from [the undercover agent]? -18-

19 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 19 of 27 Yeah, [the undercover agent] from me, yeah, mmm-mm. From both of you? From both of us, yeah. Do I just take it, or Yeah. What is this for, though? Just a gift? A Father s Day gift? Yes, sir. What do you want me to do? What do you want me, I ll talk to [PO-1]. And I can call you back later on Ok. if you want Ok. you know. But what, uh, what, according to the last meeting, based on the last meeting that you had, what happened? With [PO-1], not with [Legislative Analyst]. Uh, [PO-1] was suggesting Cause I remember that, I remember I was not at that meeting. Yeah, I know but [PO-1] suggested to talk to [Legislative Analyst], yeah. * * * -19-

20 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 20 of On June 29, 2009, CS-1 met with Loza and PO-1. During the recorded meeting, they discussed legislation that CS-1 and the undercover agent were seeking that would create an exception to the taxicab company moratorium that was introduced by PO-1 in July The exception to the moratorium would allow the issuance of new licenses to operate taxicab companies that operated hybrid vehicles. PO-1 declared that he would introduce the legislation to create the exception. On June 30, 2009, PO-1 introduced that legislation. 43. On July 10, 2009, CS-1 again met with Loza outside XXXX. During the recorded meeting, Loza handed him a copy of the taxicab legislation that PO-1 introduced on June 30, During the meeting, they had the following conversation: I got you two copies here [and then hands CS-1 papers]. Ok, wonderful. And here s all about medallions. You know, um, Muriel Bowser was a cosponsor. Ok. And now comes as I told you the, um, hearing that we ll try to aim for the end of September Ok. after we come back Ok. from recess. Wonderful. I got you an extra copy, and I just sent you an electronic copy of this as well. -20-

21 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 21 of 27 Beautiful, wow, beautiful. Really. I want to thank you very much. Yes, sir. Thank you very much for, you know, arranging meetings with [PO-1]. Yeah. It means a lot for me, and, uh, you know the community. Uh, it s wonderful, you know, and we have a piece of We re on our way! OK. We have a piece of, um the hybrid as well right here on this legislation? Yeah. That s the exception. The exception. OK. Yeah, I really, I mean But, but, read it, and, uh, then let me know if there s something I will, definitely I will that, that raises your eyebrow Oh, sure. or concerns you. Definitely, and I want to thank you very much for this, and, you know Thank you very much. Very helpful for us, you know. Uh, and [undercover agent] wanted to really thank you as well for this. He does? What, didn t he thank me or didn t you guys thank me already? Here here. This is for you. And, uh, thank you very much for him. [CS-1 handed $500 in cash to LOZA.] You know I need it. That s why I take it, you know. -21-

22 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 22 of 27 * * * 44. As Chief of Staff to PO-1, Loza is required under District of Columbia law to file a financial disclosure statement on or before May 15 of any year; the report filed covers the preceding calendar year. Thus, the report filed by Loza in or about May 2009 disclosed financial information present during calendar year Based on an electronic copy of the financial disclosure report obtained by law enforcement, it appears that Loza prepared the calendar year 2008 Financial Disclosure Report that he filed in or about May 2009 on a computer. 46. Question Seven of the Financial Disclosure Form required Loza to [l]ist all gifts with an aggregate value of $100 or more received by you from any business entity (including sole proprietorships, partnerships and corporations) transacting any business with the District of Columbia Government (including any of its agencies, departments, boards, commissions or educational bodies). If none, state none. Despite receiving a string of things of value in calendar year 2008 from individuals connected with entities doing business with the District of Columbia government, most notably the undercover agent and CS-1, Loza answered question seven on his calendar year 2008 Financial Disclosure Report by typing the word none. E. Fiesta D.C. 47. Fiesta D.C. is a non-profit organization located at XXXX, Washington D.C. The mission of Fiesta D.C. is to contribute to the preservation, diffusion, and promotion of Latino culture and heritage in the Washington Metropolitan area. -22-

23 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 23 of Based on interviews of current staff and Board of Directors for Fiesta D.C., and based on an interview of Loza on August 17, 2009, it has been determined that Loza has functioned as a member of the Board of Directors for Fiesta D.C. for a number of years. 49. During the D.C. government fiscal year 2008, PO-1 used his position on the D.C. City Council to earmark $100,000 for Fiesta D.C. in District of Columbia funds. Based on interviews of current staff and Board of Directors of Fiesta D.C., Loza played an integral role in helping to secure the $100,000 earmark from PO In or about November 2008, Loza and PO-1 traveled to El Salvador. At the concurrence of the Board of Directors, Fiesta D.C. agreed to sponsor Loza's trip to El Salvador. Loza also requested that Fiesta D.C. pay for PO-1's travel to El Salvador. Fiesta D.C. denied Loza's request due to a conflict of interest pertaining to the $100,000 earmark. 51. After Fiesta D.C. declined to directly pay for PO-1's travel, Fiesta D.C. executive staff contacted J.S., owner of Prisma Communications, a company providing web development, marketing materials, and graphic design services to Fiesta D.C. The communications company has historically invoiced Fiesta D.C. approximately $30,000 to $40,000 per year. A Fiesta D.C. representative asked J.S. to pay for PO-1's airfare to El Salvador. J.S. thereafter paid for the airfare. 52. After returning from El Salvador, Loza presented a $ hotel invoice for PO- 1's stay in El Salvador to a Fiesta D.C. staff member in charge of bookkeeping for payment to be made to Loza. Subsequently, a check for $ was paid to Loza without the knowledge of Fiesta D.C. executive management and Board of Directors. -23-

24 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 24 of During interviews conducted in September 2009, Fiesta D.C. executive management indicated that J.S. rents a room from Loza at XXXX, Washington D.C. V. Computers, Electronic Storage and Forensic Analysis 54. Based on my knowledge and training and the experience of other agents with whom I have discussed this investigation, I know that to completely and accurately retrieve data maintained in computer hardware or on computer software, to ensure accuracy and completeness of such data, and to prevent the loss of the data either from accidental or programmed destruction, it is often necessary that some computer equipment, peripherals, related instructions in the form of manuals and notes, as well as the software utilized to operate such a computer, be seized and subsequently processed by a qualified computer specialist in a laboratory setting. This is true because of the following: a. The volume of evidence. Computer storage devices (such as hard disks, diskettes, tapes, laser disks, etc.) can store the equivalent of thousands of pages of information. Additionally, a user may seek to conceal criminal evidence by storing it in random order with deceptive file names. Searching authorities are required to examine all the stored data to determine which particular files are evidence or instrumentalities of criminal activity. This sorting process can take weeks or months, depending on the volume of data stored, and it would be impractical to attempt this kind of data analysis on-site. b. Technical requirements. Searching computer systems for criminal evidence can be a highly technical process that can require expert skills and a properly controlled environment. It is often difficult to determine the hardware and software used on a system to be searched before the search is executed, and the vast array of computer hardware and software available -24-

25 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 25 of 27 requires even computer experts to specialize in some systems and applications. As a result, it is difficult to know prior to a search: (1) whether a specific expert or search protocol may be required; (2) if so, which expert may be qualified to analyze the system and its data; and (3) whether and what type of controlled environment may be required. Data search protocols are exacting scientific procedures designed to protect the integrity of the evidence and to recover even hidden, erased, compressed, password-protected, or encrypted files. Because computer evidence can be vulnerable to inadvertent or intentional modification or destruction (both from external sources or from destructive code imbedded in the system as a booby trap ), a controlled environment may be necessary to complete an accurate analysis. Further, such searches often require the seizure of most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, related software, documentation, and data security devices (including passwords) so that, if necessary, a qualified computer expert can accurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other controlled environment. 55. Due to the volume of the data at issue and the technical requirements set for above, it may be necessary that the above referenced equipment, software, data, and related instruction be seized and subsequently processed by a qualified computer specialist in a laboratory setting. Under appropriate circumstances, some types of computer equipment can be more readily analyzed and pertinent data seized on-site, thus eliminating the need for its removal from the premises. One factor used in determining whether to analyze a computer on-site or to remove it from the premises is whether the computer constitutes an instrumentality of an offense and is thus subject to immediate seizure as such or whether it serves as a mere repository for evidence, a particular device can be more readily, quickly, and thus less intrusively, analyzed off -25-

26 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 26 of 27 site, with due considerations given to preserving the integrity of the evidence. This, in turn, is often dependent upon the amount of data and number of discrete files or file areas that must be analyzed, and this is frequently dependent upon the particular type of computer hardware involved. As a result, it is ordinarily impossible to appropriately analyze such material without removing it from the location where it is seized. 56. Based upon my knowledge, training, and the experience of other law enforcement personnel with whom I have spoken, I am aware that searches and seizures of evidence from computers taken from the premises commonly require agents to seize most or all of a computer system's input/output peripheral devices, for a qualified computer expert to accurately retrieve the system's data in a laboratory or other controlled environment. Therefore, in those instances where computers are removed from the premises, to fully retrieve data from a computer system, investigators must seize all the magnetic storage devices as well as the central processing units (CPUs) and applicable keyboards and monitors which are an integral part of the processing unit. If, after it becomes apparent that these items are no longer necessary to retrieve and preserve the data evidence, such materials and/or equipment will be returned within a reasonable time. The analysis of electronically stored data, whether preformed on-site or in a laboratory or other controlled environment, may entail any or all of several different techniques. Such techniques may include, but shall not be limited to, surveying various file directories and the individual files they contain (analogous to looking at the outside of a file cabinet for the markings it contains and opening a drawer capable to containing pertinent files, to locate to evidence and instrumentalities authorized for seizure by the warrant); opening or reading the first few pages of such files to determine their precise contents; scanning storage areas to discover and -26-

27 Case 1:09-mj RCL Document 1-2 Filed 09/16/2009 Page 27 of 27 possibly recover recently deleted data; scanning storage areas for deliberately hidden files; and performing electronic key-word searches through all electronic storage areas to determine occurrences of language contained in such storage areas exist that are intimately related to the subject matter of the investigation. VI. Conclusion. 57. Based on the information provided in this affidavit, I respectfully submit that there is probable cause to search the above listed locations for evidence of, fruits of, and instrumentalities of violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 201, 1343, 1346, 1349, and 371. Subscribed and sworn before me this of September 2009 United States District Court Judge /s/ Patrick A. Westerhaus Special Agent -27-