This specific case involves search warrants executed in Arizona and California.

A Sheriff’s Deputy in AZ gets information from a citizen source (initially confidential but now named) that lives in CA, concerning a counterfeit operation he claimed to know about.
This CI happens to be the husband of my brother’s girlfriend (yes I wrote that correctly).

This Dep. obtains a search warrant for my house in AZ to search for counterfeit money and the items used in their production.

The Dep. added some choice words in his affidavit to support probable cause.

Namely, that the CI had seen me “use counterfeit money in different state/locations.”
I never used counterfeit money at all. And, I no more would have been with this person than I would have gone to lunch with Hitler. No chance.

And, that the CI had “personally seen a product named Awesome”, used to wash money, “in my residence within the past 48 hours.”
I am 1000% sure that the CI did NOT ever see anything like that at my house, nor had he been anywhere near my house in the previous 48 hours.

One last item included in the affidavit is the following paragraph:
  • "On March 27th, 2008 a separate Confidential Informant advised the County Narcotics Task Force Detectives that he/she was aware of information regarding the counterfeiting of U.S. One Hundred Dollar bills, and was willing to provide detectives with the names of individuals involved".

    Is it my imagination or does this appear to be a passage that has been copied and then pasted into this affidavit? It appears that the Deputy did a sloppy job of changing a standard passage to support PC for drugs by independent corroboration, into support for PC of counterfeiting.

    But he forgot to add some details like what kind of information did they specifically have, where on this planet did the information originated, when did he acquire this information, and how did he come to know this information he was "willing to provide". Or the Judge didn't think it relevant or necessary.



The Sheriff Deputies kicked the door in at 10am to execute the warrant.

They did not find any counterfeiting operation or counterfeiting materials at my house.

What they did find was a small baggie that contained .02oz of methamphetamine and a pawn ticket that was folded up inside my wallet that was in a briefcase in my bed room.

The meth was not in my possession or my control, but rather among my roommate’s things.

They then contacted the pawn shop from my home and learned that the item pawned belonged to the county I worked for.
Needless to say I was in trouble for that, if not by the police, then by my supervisors.

They arrested my and took me to jail where bail was set at $500,000.00.

The next day this Dep. testified to a Grand Jury.

I believe that the Dep. lied to the GJ. His testified to receiving vastly different information from the CI than he provided in the affidavit for search warrant. According to the Deputy's affidavit, report, and Grand Jury testimony, the CI was contacted on only one occasion and its the Deputy's representation of that information I find suspicious.

For example, he testified to the Grand Jury that the CI made the following statement: "The informant had also given me information that THE SUSPECT was taking computers to pawnshops to sell them."
Again, I am 1000% sure that he had no information on this and this was not mentioned in the affidavit.

Also, that the CI had seen counterfeit bills IN MY HOUSE within the last 24 hours.
There is more of a chance of the CI seeing GOD then it is for him to see counterfeit bills in my house. Within the past 24 hours or any other time frame. Again, this is not mentioned in the affidavit.

That he had personally witnessed methamphetamine in my house and a pattern of sales.
Not in a million years would he have seen this. Not just because it didn't happen, but he was my brother's bitter enemy. My twin brother. He would not have been in my house for any reason. Not mentioned in the affidavit.

That he had personally witnessed me package methamphetamine in plastic baggies, weigh it out on a digital scale inside the residence, and exchange it for cash. Not mentioned in the affidavit.

He stated that, within a 30-minute time frame, he witnessed that four times with four different individuals entering that residence. Not mentioned in the affidavit.

And this may be insignificant but, in his affidavit the Dep. states that he was contacted by the CI. However, when testifying to the GJ he states that he contacted the CI.

The indictment was handed down and I was charged with 5 Class-2 felonies.
I believe because the Deputy's testimony was crafted to make it appear as if they simply discovered everything the CI had said they would discover during the search. As though there actually was some good investigative work done. When in fact there was none. Unless you count untruthful affidavits, lying to a Grand Jury, and creative report filing as good investigative techniques.

Per the affidavit and GJ testimony the Deputy spoke with the CI only one time and that was before the warrant.

Okay, so let me ask some questions about the Deputy. And please keep in mind that I know this isn’t legal advice and I do already have an attorney.
  • What can I do about the vastly different information contained in this Deputy’s affidavit for search warrant concerning the information he obtained from the CI, and how much the information had changed AFTER the search warrant when he testified to the GJ? The information in the affidavit was strictly concerning counterfeiting. In his GJ testimony the Dep. states he had knowledge of the pawning, drug use, and drug sales. He didn’t state any of that in the affidavit. The GJ did not examine the affidavit, nor do I expect that they would. I'm simply giving facts.

  • I’m certain that it is no coincidence that the “new” information was directly in line with the evidence discovered during the search.

  • And most the information initially quoted by the Dep. as coming from the CI in his affidavit, was not in his GJ testimony. Namely, the CI seeing Awesome in my house (that changed to actually seeing counterfeit money), having to have personally witnessed me use counterfeit money in “different states/locations”, and the information on the so called separate CI.

  • Would it be reasonable to presume, that if in fact, the police had this other information they would have included it in the affidavit for search warrant? Rather than include some irrelevant and ambiguous information about a "secondary Confidential Informant"? My logic is that if they had information on pawning county property, drug possession, drug sales, and having a witness that claims to have seen actual counterfeit money in my home (instead of just some cleaner used in producing it, THAT would have been all the inculpatory evidence they needed? It would have been easily corroborated (pawn shops), it would have been a slam dunk on probable cause, and it would have been the truth.

Let me say again that there was no evidence found that was the focus of the search warrant.

What steps would you take to bring this Deputy's disregard for the truth to light?

And, would it be something worth doing?

I should also add that this Deputy’s father was going to run against the incumbent Supervisor in Dist.1 and he had no reasonable chance of winning running against the incumbent. After being arrested they put the screws to me looking for information to use against this incumbent. It would have been reasonable for him to think that if this type of information existed I would know it. However, it did not exist.

This Deputy has since been fired from the Sheriff's Office due to an assault charge involving his service revolver and his girlfriend.

Also, the County Attorney (at the time) and I had became involved in a serious battle in the press a year earlier concerning unethical behavior on the CA’s part over some improper emails he sent to a State Rep. that he happened to be actively prosecuting on a felony charge. I exposed the way he was misleading the press and provided proof of his improper conduct in refusing access to public documents. I don't know the extent of what was done, or not done, but I am certain this played heavily into the actions of both the CA and the young Deputy.

One last thing, the CI never testified, signed a written statement, or had his conversation with police recorded in any way.

Thank you.