The Search Warrant Affidavit the Public Has Never Seen
Every armed federal raid begins with a sworn affidavit. A federal agent — in this case, almost certainly someone from the CFTC's Division of Enforcement — appeared before a magistrate judge in the District of Oregon and swore under oath that there was probable cause to search my home. The magistrate signed the warrant. The agents came to my door at 6:00 a.m. with weapons.
That affidavit has never been made public.
In the four years since the May 16, 2022 raid, neither the CFTC nor the Department of Justice has disclosed the contents of the warrant application. The public record in CFTC v. Sam Ikkurty, Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.), contains hundreds of filings — but not the affidavit that triggered the most dramatic moment of the entire proceeding.
This matters for a specific reason: the CFTC's lead investigator, Heather Dasso, admitted under oath on September 5, 2023 that she never reviewed the blockchain. The blockchain is the primary evidence in any digital asset fraud case. It is the immutable public ledger that records every transaction. If the investigator never reviewed it, what did the warrant affidavit say about the transactions? What representations were made to the magistrate judge about the evidence?
If the affidavit contained representations about blockchain transactions that the affiant had not actually reviewed, that is a serious problem. Federal law — specifically 18 U.S.C. § 1001 — prohibits false statements to federal officials. The Fourth Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful. A warrant obtained through material misrepresentations can be challenged under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978).
I have filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office seeking the complete warrant application, the supporting affidavit, all attachments, and the identity of the AUSA who authorized the application. I have also requested records showing whether the Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office reviewed this case for criminal prosecution and the reasons for any declination.
The public has a right to know what was in that affidavit. The investors who received a 397% return on their investment have a right to know. The 32 limited partners who filed formal objections with the court have a right to know. The Seventh Circuit, which is now reviewing this case on appeal (No. 24-2684), may find the answer relevant.
Transparency is not a courtesy in federal enforcement. It is a constitutional requirement. The CFTC has spent four years arguing that I was not transparent with investors. I am asking the government to be transparent with the public about the evidence it used to justify an armed raid on a private home.
The FOIA request has been filed. We will see what the government produces.
FOIA Requests Filed
| Agency | Records Requested |
|---|---|
| Oregon U.S. Attorney's Office | Search warrant application, affidavit, criminal declination records |
| DOJ Civil Division | All civil records related to the enforcement action |
| FBI | Any investigation records, referrals from CFTC |
| SEC | Any records related to Rose City Income Fund |
| CFTC | All investigation records, communications |
| CFTC Inspector General | Records of any IG review of investigator conduct |
Legal Framework
The Fourth Amendment requires that warrant affidavits be truthful and based on personal knowledge or reliable hearsay. Under Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), a defendant may challenge a warrant if the affidavit contained deliberate falsehoods or reckless disregard for the truth. If the affiant represented facts about blockchain transactions without having reviewed the blockchain, that is a potential Franks issue.
Case No. 1:22-cv-02465 (N.D. Ill.) | 7th Cir. Appeal No. 24-2684 | Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978)