Only Criminals Don’t Want To Be Gassed By The Government The Tellingly Pathetic Case Against Alejandro Orellana
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California, my former employer, has filed a criminal complaint against Alejandro Orellana, a local immigration activist in Los Angeles. They’ve charged him for distributing face masks to protestors. They specify that the masks are supposed to protect protestors from “chemical splashes and flying debris,” a goal they claim is self-evidently criminal.
The complaint is shameful, a propagandistic paean to authoritarianism. A quarter-century after I left that office it stings that the office brought the complaint, that a magistrate judge I respect signed it, and that a former colleague is prosecuting it. I am repulsed.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office has charged Orellana with conspiracy to commit civil disorder and aiding and abetting civil disorder in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 (which prohibits conspiracy) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 231(a)(3) (which prohibits obstructing and impeding law enforcement officers incident as part of a civil disorder, defined as “any public disturbance involving acts of violence by assemblages of three or more persons, which causes an immediate danger of or results in damage or injury to the property or person of another individual”). You can read the complaint here:
Criminal Complaint in United States v. Alejandro Orellana.pdf 927.57 KB • PDF File Download
In the federal system, law enforcement gets a criminal complaint by providing an affidavit supplying sworn evidence supporting probable cause to a United States Magistrate judge. Here, FBI Special Agent Rene Persaud did so by telephone on June 12, 2025. The rules permit that, though it’s more typically done on a weekend or when the affiant is in a remote place; it’s not clear why this affidavit was presented by telephone in Los Angeles on a Thursday.
Special Agent Persaud’s affidavit is in many ways a classic work of federal law enforcement braggadocio, demanding that the reader accept broad generalizations and law enforcement truisms about crime, suspected criminals, and law enforcement operations. Here, because the subject matter is the June 6, 2025 demonstrations against ICE operations in Los Angeles, the hubris is particularly stark. Let’s begin with the vagueness of the allegations about violence from protestors:
While many of the protests were peaceful, agitators within the crowd continuously engaged in violent activity -- constituting a civil disorder -- directed at private property, government buildings, and both federal and local law enforcement officers. Multiple officers and agents from the Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”), Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (“LASD”), USMS, and the FBI were assaulted, at times requiring medical attention. Multiple federal buildings were also vandalized with graffiti and law enforcement vehicles were damaged by blunt objects swung by violent protestors.
Affidavits in support of federal complaints and search warrants can include hearsay, but they are supposed to include attribution. That means they’re supposed to contain sufficient information to let the Magistrate Judge evaluate the ultimate source of the hearsay and its reliability. For instance, “I read a report from Officer Smith, who said he interviewed Witness Jones, who said he saw Defendant strike the victim” is attributed. For Special Agent Persaud’s affidavit, we have only the boilerplate omnibus attribution at the start:
The facts set forth in this affidavit are based upon my participation in this investigation, my personal observations, my training and experience, my review of evidence, including investigative reports, and information obtained from various law enforcement personnel and witnesses.
... continue reading