RICHARD A. VAN WAGONER (4690) KEITH M.

WOODWELL (7353)
NATHAN A. CRANE (10165) WALTER A. ROMNEY, JR. (7975)
MELINDA K. BOWEN (13150) JAKE TAYLOR (10840)
SPENCER FANE LLP KATHERINE E. PEPIN (16925)
10 Exchange Place, Eleventh Floor CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS
Post Office Box 45000 201 South Main Street, #2200
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-5000 Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 521-9000 Telephone: (801) 322-2516
rvanwagoner@spencerfane.com kmw@clydesnow.com
ncrane@spencerfane.com war@clydesnow.com
mbowen@spencerfane.com jst@clydesnow.com
Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Larsen kep@clydesnow.com
Attorneys for Defendant Jena Marie
Larsen
SCOTT A. HAGEN (4840)
SKYE LAZARO (14071)
JAMIE THOMAS (9420)
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.
36 South State Street, Ste. 1400
PO Box 45385
Salt Lake City, UT 84145
Telephone: (801) 532-1500
shagen@rqn.com
slazaro@rqn.com
jthomas@rqn.com
pburke@rqn.com
Attorneys for Rubicon Contracting LLC,
Scandia Company LLC, Smart Rain
Systems LLC

IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT, FARMINGTON

DAVIS COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

STATE OF UTAH ATTORNEY GENERAL, JOINT MOTION TO VOID SEARCH

WARRANTS, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE,
Plaintiff, RETURN SEIZED ASSETS, AND FOR
A FRANKS HEARING
vs.

RUDY LARS LARSEN Case No. 231702289

Case No. 231702295
Defendant. Case No. 231702293

Judge Rita Cornish

1
 Table of Contents
Page
I. EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED................................................................. 5
II. STANDING/REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY ..................................... 5
1. Relevant Factual Background ............................................................................................ 7
2. Alleged Improper Withholding of Immigration Documents ........................................... 8
3. Alleged Threats of Abuse of the Law or of Legal Process.............................................. 11
4. Alleged Mandatory “Rent Deduction Policy” ................................................................. 15
5. Alleged Theft of H2B Workers’ Money After They Left Rubicon’s Employ .............. 17
III. RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY............................................................................... 19
IV. ARGUMENT THE COURT SHOULD VOID THE WARRANTS, SUPPRESS THE
EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THOSE WARRANTS, ORDER THE
RETURN OF THE SEIZED BANK ACCOUNTS, AND HOLD A FRANKS
HEARING .......................................................................................................................... 22
V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 25

2
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Franks v. Delaware,
438 U.S. 154 (1978) ...........................................................................................5, 21, 22, 23, 24

Mancusi v. DeForte,
392 U.S. 364 (1968) ...............................................................................................................6, 7

O’Connor v. Ortega,
480 U.S. 709 (1987) ...................................................................................................................7

State By & Through Indus. Comm’n v. Wasatch Metal & Salvage Co.,
594 P.2d 894 (Utah 1979) ..........................................................................................................7

State v. Gonzalez,
2021, UT App 83, 494 P.3d 1066 ......................................................................................21, 22

State v. Hebeishy,
2022 UT app 136, 522 P.3d 952 ........................................................................................20, 21

State v. Montayne,
414 P.2d 958 (1966)...................................................................................................................6

State v. Thompson,
810 P.2d 415 (Utah 1991) ......................................................................................................6, 7

United States v. Leary,

846 F.2d 592 (10th Cir. 1988) ...................................................................................................6

United States v. McKissick,

204 F.3d 1282 (10th Cir. 2000) ...............................................................................................21

United States v. Stanert,

762 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1985) ...................................................................................................21

Statutes

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308 ...............................................................................................19, 20, 23

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(b) .................................................................................................24

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(c) ..................................................................................................24

Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(f) ..................................................................................................24

3
Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-309 .................................................................................................8, 20, 23

Utah Code Ann. § § 76-5-308, -310 ................................................................................................8

Other Authorities

FRANKS HEARING via the Green Filing...................................................................................26

https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?timelineID=249646 ................................................10

https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94 ..............................................................9, 10

https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-2b-
temporary-non-agricultural-workers ........................................................................................12

Labor and Homeland Security. This will cause you to have an illegal status, and
you will not be eligible to apply for another visa in the future ................................................15

United States Constitution Fourth Amendment ...................................................................6, 20, 21

4
 Rudy Larsen, Jena Larsen, Clayton Phillips, and Intervenors, through undersigned

counsel, move the court to void the search warrants in this case, order the suppression

and return of all evidence and assets seized pursuant to those warrants (including seized

bank accounts),1 and hold an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438

U.S. 154 (1978). The affidavits supporting each of the warrants in this case (“Affdiavits”)

include multiple false statements and omissions, which were material to the magistrates’

finding of probable cause. Further, the discovery provided by the state thus far indicates

that the affiant for these warrants – the state’s lead investigator – made these false

statements and omissions knowingly and intentionally, or at least with a reckless

disregard of the truth.2 Defendants request oral argument.

I. EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUPPRESSED

The court should suppress all evidence and assets seized as a result of the execution

of the search and seizure warrants in this case.

II. STANDING/REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY

In order to bring this motion and to challenge the search warrants in this case,

Rudy Larsen, Jena Larsen, and Intervenors need only “claim a proprietary or possessory

interest in the searched or seized property.” State v. Montayne, 414 P.2d 958, 960 (1966).

To determine whether a sufficient interest exists, the court must determine whether the

area searched and the evidence seized were subject to “a reasonable expectation of

1Included within what the court should order returned are the seized records the state’s
investigator Agent Jeter reviewed before a taint team was installed, including attorney-
client communications he encountered while serving as both investigator and taint team.
2 The probable cause statements in support of the criminal informations contain the same
and similar false statements and omissions.

5
freedom from government intrusion.” Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 368 (1968).

Rudy Larsen, Jena Larsen, and Intervenors had such a reasonable expectation in the areas

searched and in the items and assets seized pursuant to search warrants. And the state

illegally invaded and violated those expectations of privacy.

First, there should be no question that Intervenors have standing to object to illegal

search warrants executed on company property and to challenge the ongoing seizure of

any company items or assets. United States v. Leary, 846 F.2d 592, 596 (10th Cir. 1988)

(“[I]t seems clear that a corporate defendant has standing with respect to searches of

corporate premises and seizure of corporate records.”). Indeed, “except in rare

circumstances, a warrant is as necessary to support a search of commercial premises as

private premises.” Id. Thus, Intervenors may object to searches and seizures related to

company property, including as to bank accounts (and the funds and records related to

such accounts), which are referenced in the Affidavits.3 See State v. Thompson, 810 P.2d

415, 418 (Utah 1991) (recognizing a Fourth Amendment “right to be secure against

unreasonable searches and seizures of bank statements” and other bank records and

accounts).

Similar rights and interests have also been recognized for individuals such as Rudy

Larsen and Jena Larsen, who are owners of the closely held Intervenor entities identified

in the search warrants that were the subject of the November 20, 2023 search.4 See

3 The referenced Affidavits are Exhibits E and I.

4 Each Affidavit includes a section titled “BUSINESS BREAKDOWN.” Within that
section, Agent Jeter lists the companies he claims are “directly related to Rubicon,” and
which he asserts are tied together under “one umbrella company.” They include Scandia
Company, Scandia Business Partner, Rubicon Contracting LLC, Park Place Auto and
Club, and Smart Rain. See Exhibits A-J.

6
Mancusi, 392 U.S. at 369 (“It has long been settled that one has standing to object to a

search of his office, as well as of his home.”) By operating their business, Rudy and Jena

Larsen have not “thrown open” business records “to the warrantless scrutiny of

government agents.” State By & Through Indus. Comm’n v. Wasatch Metal & Salvage

Co., 594 P.2d 894, 895 (Utah 1979). Instead, Rudy Larsen and Jena Larsen maintain a

reasonable expectation of privacy in their own records and those of the Intervenor

entities. This is particularly true because the areas where records and electronics were

searched and seized were closed to the public. See O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709,

716–17 (1987) (concluding that, even where an office was shared by multiple co-workers,

one of the employees “had a privacy interest in the office sufficient to challenge” a search

where the office was otherwise private). Rudy Larsen and Jena Larsen also have personal

bank accounts referenced in Affidavits, the records and funds of which were seized during

execution of the search warrants.5 They may also challenge the ongoing seizure of this

property. See Thompson, 810 P.2d at 418.6

1. Relevant Factual Background

On November 17, 2023, the state applied for, and various magistrates authorized,

ten warrants to search the premises of Rubicon and certain leased properties and seize

bank accounts. The state claimed to be seeking evidence of (and seizing property and

funds related to) aggravated labor trafficking, as prohibited by Utah Code Ann. § § 76-5-

308, -310 and benefitting from labor trafficking, as prohibited by Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-

5 The referenced Affidavits are Exhibits B, C, and E.

6 Several codefendants also had personal bank accounts and associated records in
which they had expectations of privacy. The state violated and invaded those expectations
of privacy.

7
309. The Affidavits for the ten warrants are virtually identical in their setting forth the

alleged facts that purportedly established probable cause.

Special Agent Jeter was the state’s affiant for each of these warrants.

Each of Agent Jeter’s Affidavits included multiple false statements that the state’s

own discovery demonstrates to be false and misleading, including the following:

2. Alleged Improper Withholding of Immigration Documents

The Affidavits falsely allege that seven alleged victims stated to Agent Jeter that

Rubicon withheld their immigration documents: “Victims did not have their I-797A

forms which would allow them to travel to Mexico and back to the U.S. if need be.”

Exhibits A-J at 5. The Affidavits later assert, “Victims also did not receive their I-797A

from [sic] which is a government issued document and without it restricted their ability

to travel back to Mexico and get back into the United States.” Exhibits A-J at 10. And they

assert that Scandia Company, Smart Rain, and Rubicon “withheld government-issued

documents, threatened deportation, and made threats of law enforcement against the

victims. . . .” Exhibits A-J at 10.

First, the statements are misleading because they falsely imply that (1) H2B Visa

workers had been issued I-797A Forms; (2) Rubicon withheld the H2B workers’ I-797A

Forms and other immigration documents; and (3) I-797A Forms are necessary for H2B

workers to leave the United States. None of this is true. To depart the United States, all

the H2B workers needed was a passport.7

7 See https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94 (providing guidance by U.S.

Customs and Border Protection concerning the I-94 record and how individuals
document that they have lawfully departed the U.S., even if they do not have a physical
record, including an explanation that an individual needs only a passport to travel
internationally or back to his country of origin).

8
 Second, the statements are otherwise false: there is nothing in the state’s

discovery (which includes audio recordings and 1102 statements from the seven alleged

victims) indicating that the victims described Rubicon withholding their immigration

documents. In other words, the alleged victims did not even tell Agent Jeter – who

conducted the interviews – that the company had withheld visa documents, and for

good reason: because there is no evidence that Rubicon actually withheld H2B workers’

documents.

As discussed below, there is ample evidence of the opposite.

For instance, in Agent Jeter’s interview of ADLP (one of the seven alleged

victims) on June 23, 2023, ADLP specifically told Agent Jeter that he kept all his

immigration documents:

Agent Jeter: Okay. Did they take any of your documentation when you guys came
in to – came to work for them, like passports or . . .

ADLP: No, we kept it all. Exhibit K at 11, lines 13-16.

Further, during an August 29, 2023, interview, a former Rubicon employee who

worked in human resources told Agent Jeter, “We didn’t like keep their passports or

anything like that.” Exhibit L at 15, lines 16-17.8

8 On February 13, 2024, the Utah Attorney General’s Office was seeking additional
funding for a human trafficking position from the Utah Legislature. During a hearing
before the House Judiciary Committee, Daniel Burton of the Utah Attorney General’s
Office falsely represented the following to the Committee: “So these employees were
brought here legally through the H2B process. And then once they were here, they handed
over their passports and their visas to their employer, and the employer essentially had
them by the neck.” https://le.utah.gov/av/committeeArchive.jsp?timelineID=249646
beginning at 40:16 through 45:58. This false representation may have been instrumental
in convincing the Utah Legislature that Utah’s chief law enforcement agency was doing
such a great job policing purported human trafficking, lawmakers should hand over more
money to the Attorney General.

9
 During another interview with IGG (another of the seven alleged victims), Agent

Jeter took a photograph of IGG’s H2B visa passport. This was only possible because,

obviously, the passport was in IGG’s possession during the interview. Exhibit M.9

In another interview between Agent Jeter and an alleged victim, JMAM handed

Agent Jeter his Form I-94, an immigration form that verified JMAM’s legal status as of

the date he met with the investigator.10 Agent Jeter took a photograph or made a copy

of it. This, again, reflects that the I-94 was clearly in JMAM’s possession. See Exhibit

O.

The state’s discovery further reflects that Agent Jeter interviewed an anonymous

former employee of Rubicon on August 29, 2023. Exhibit P. In that interview, the

former employee offered that, as work dried up (the work is seasonal and includes snow

removal and landscaping), Rubicon offered to allow H2B workers to “wait it out” with

them or return to Mexico on good terms:

The employee stated they worked at Rubicon for approximately 5 months and
during that time they assisted with the H2B Visa workers. . . . They informed me
around February there was not enough work and Rubicon held a meeting with all
of the workers to go over their plan. . . . The anonymous person explained to me
that the workers were told they could go back to Mexico on good terms or wait it
out.

Exhibit P.

9 IGG further explained to Agent Jeter that after he stopped showing up to work,
Rubicon contacted him and asked him to come to Rubicon’s office so the company could
purchase him a ticket back home. Exhibit N at 13, line 326.
10 Under certain circumstances, the employer receives an I-797B Form for the H2B
worker. The face of the I-797B Form expressly states that the employer must retain the I-
797B Form. See, e.g., Exhibit Q. Only the bottom portion of the form, known as the I-94
Form, is provided to the H2B workers. The I-94 Form is verification of the H2B worker’s
legal status. But a hard copy is not required; a hard copy can be provided, but electronic
copies are always available to H2B workers. See
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/international-visitors/i-94.

10
 3. Alleged Threats of Abuse of the Law or of Legal Process

The Affidavits also falsely allege that Rubicon threatened H2B Visa workers with

deportation. For instance, the Affidavits allege that the seven victims all claimed they

had been threatened they would be sent back to Mexico:

During their employment they had been threatened by Adam Perea and Clayton
Phillips (sic) they would be sent back to Mexico. One victim was told if he was
sent back to Mexico he would be met with Law Enforcement because being sent
back is worse than crossing the border legally.

Exhibits A-J at 5.

The Affidavits later assert, “Victims were threatened to be deported and even

told if they were deported, they would be met with local law enforcement because being

sent back was worse than if they had come into the county illegally.” Exhibits A-J at 10.

They further claim that Perea and Phillipps threatened H2B workers with deportation:

Adam Perea [DOB] handled recruitment, direct involvement with H2B

workers, set up of bank card and threatened to deport them back to
Mexico. Clayton Ray Phillipps [DOB] had direct involvement and
threatened to deport H2B workers back to Mexico.

Exhibits A-J at 9-10. And as noted above, the Affidavits further assert that Scandia,

Smart Rain, and Rubicon “threatened deportation and made threats of law

enforcement against victims.” Exhibits A-J at 10.

First, the Affidavits omit the material fact that Rubicon was legally mandated to

notify the Department of Labor (“DOL”) when H2B workers violated the terms of their

visas. If an H2B worker fails to report to work for five days or leaves the company for

11
which the H2B visa expressly authorized the worker to be employed, the DOL

regulations require the company to report the non-compliance to the DOL.11

Second, Agent Jeter’s interview with one of the seven alleged victims belies his

statements in the Affidavits. For instance, Agent Jeter asked alleged victim JMAM if he

was “ever threatened by anyone at Rubicon,” and JMAM responded that he was told

that if he “left the company, they were going to report us, that we would be illegal

immigrants”:

Agent Jeter: “Okay. And were you ever threatened by anyone at Rubicon?”

JMAM: “They just told us that if we left the company, they were going to report
us, that we would be illegal immigrants. Well, if we were to leave without
fulfilling the contract.”12

In another alleged victim’s 1102, EVRA likewise makes no mention of any

improper threat to be sent back to Mexico – only that H2B workers were told that if

11 See https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary-workers/h-
2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers The DOL regulation provides:
Abandonment/Abscondment/Termination Notification • The employer must
provide the Chicago NPC with written notification when any worker voluntarily
abandons or is terminated for cause from the job before the end of the certified
work period. A worker who fails to report for work at the regularly scheduled time
for five (5) consecutive working days, without the employer’s consent, is
considered to have abandoned the job. o Submit the written notification directly
to the Chicago NPC within two (2) working days of the abandonment or
termination from the job; to make compliance with this requirement simple and
fast, the employer may e-mail the notification directly to the Chicago NPC using
TLC.Chicago@dol.gov with the words “H-2B Abandonment/Termination Notice”
contained in the subject line of the e-mail. Employers without internet access may
also send written notification by facsimile to (312) 886-1688 (ATTN: H-2B
Abandonment and Termination) or by U.S. mail to the following address: U.S.
Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration Office of Foreign
Labor Certification, Chicago National Processing Center 11 West Quincy Court
Chicago, IL 60604-2105 ATTN: H-2B Abandonment and Termination.”
12 Inexplicably, the audio recording of the interview reflects Agent Jeter then told
JMAM to include in his 1102 statement a threat of deportation. JMAM’s 1102 statement
does not include such an allegation. See Exhibits S and T.

12
they did not want to renew their contracts with Rubicon, they would be returned home

(at Rubicon’s expense):

It’s worth noting that on March 31st, our visa was about to expire, which
is why 15 days prior to that, we held a meeting, where Adam Perea,
Clayton, J. Nino and Gaby were present. Saying that they were interested
in renewing our contracts and that we should sign a sheet of paper, and
whoever didn’t sign it would be sent back to wherever we came from. As
for me, I signed the sheet of paper so I could continue to work throughout
April without any document authorizing us to work legally.

Exhibit R.

Agent Jeter’s report also describes an interview with an anonymous former

Rubicon employee who assisted H2B visa workers and had never heard of H2B workers

being threatened:

On August 29, 2023, I met with a former employee of Rubicon

Contracting LLC at the Utah Attorney General's Office. . . . The employee
stated they worked at Rubicon for approximately 5 months and during
that time they assisted with the H2B Visa workers. . . . I asked if they ever
heard or witnessed the H2B Visa workers being threatened. They told me
they did not.

Exhibit P.

Further, on August 22, 2023, former Rubicon employee Crystal Massey provided

Agent Jeter a thumb drive of internal Rubicon documents she downloaded from a

Rubicon server. One document, Exhibit U, reflects advance instructions from Rubicon

to H2B workers should the workers need to return to their country of origin or if they

stopped coming to work:

Important things to keep in mind. a) This type of visa can be extended up to three
(3) years. b) If for any reason, you need to return back to Mexico before your work
or visa expire, please do the following: 1) Contact your direct supervisor and/or
area manager. 2) Contact one of the human resources recruiters, so they can
prepare your return to Mexico and keep your visa in good terms. 3) Wait
instructions from one of the human resources representatives regarding your

13
 return to Mexico. 4) Get your truck and or any other equipment ready to be
returned to your direct supervisor, area manager or your operations manager.
Job Abandonment. • If you decide to leave without notifying the HR team or simply
not notifying anyone, we are required to report you to the Department of Labor
and Homeland Security. This will cause you to have an illegal status, and you will
not be eligible to apply for another visa in the future. • If you decide to resign from
Rubicon, you must come to our office and talk to the HR team so we can arrange
your travel.

The documents Massey supplied to Agent Jeter from Rubicon’s servers also

included a spreadsheet Rubicon kept of H2B workers to track their status, who had left

the company, and why. The spreadsheet identified 142 H2B workers and as to each

worker whether:

 their visa had expired;

 they had resigned;

 they had resigned and were petitioning the Department of Labor to renew their
H2B visa with a company other than Rubicon;

 they had abandoned their work and responsibilities;

 they had fled (disappeared);

 they were no longer interested in working for Rubicon or had violated company
policy; or

 they had requested that Rubicon purchase a ticket for them to turn to their
country of origin and returned to their country of origin.

See Exhibit V.

14
 Finally, nothing in the alleged victims’ statements or interviews, or in the

remainder of the state’s discovery, reflects any alleged victim reporting that they were

told they would be met by law enforcement upon return to their country of origin.13

4. Alleged Mandatory “Rent Deduction Policy”

The Affidavits further misrepresent that Rubicon forced H2B workers to live in

Rubicon’s housing. For instance, the Affidavits state that all seven victims reported

their forced participation in a “Rent Deduction Policy”: “All 7 of the victims stated they

were instructed/told they had to sign and participate in the ‘Rent Deduction Policy.’”

Exhibits A-J at 5. The Affidavits also later assert, “These 7 victims were forced to sign

and participate in a ‘Rent Deduction Policy’ where they were assigned to a residence

and paid between $650.00 to $700.00 dollars a month that was automatically deducted

from their pay checks.” Exhibits A-J at 10.

The state’s discovery, including Agent Jeter’s pre-affidavit interview with at least

one of the alleged victims, reveals these claims to be false.

First, the audio of Agent Jeter’s interview with alleged victim JMAM reveals that

he told Agent Jeter the opposite of what Agent Jeter represented in the Affidavits:

13 The closest anyone comes to claiming as much was that one victim told Agent Jeter that
they had been told that if they left Rubicon, “it was more unlawful than coming here
illegally”:
Well, they just told us that if we left the company, that it was much . . . how do you
say this? More . . . it was more unlawful than coming here illegally. That we could
not leave the company because that was more unlawful that they were going to call
so they could look for us.
Exhibit S at 7-8, lines 218-220. See Exhibit U (“Job Abandonment. • If you decide to leave
without notifying the HR team or simply not notifying anyone, we are required to report
you to the Department of Labor and Homeland Security. This will cause you to have an
illegal status, and you will not be eligible to apply for another visa in the future.”)
(emphasis added).

15
 Agent Jeter: “Okay, when you decided to work for Rubicon, did they have you fill
out this rent paperwork?”

JMAM: “Yes.”

Agent Jeter: “And were you given instructions on which option to select?”

ADLP (as translator): “Were you told which one to choose or given a choice?”

JMAM: “(Inaudible). Yes, yes, I was given a choice.”

ADLP (as translator): “Yes?”

JMAM: “Yes.”

Agent Jeter: “What were you told?”

ADLP (as translator): “What did they tell you?”

JMAM: “No, they just sent it to me by mail and told me that I had to fill it out . .
. (inaudible) choose the program (inaudible) in here I wrote that it is . . . a box.”

Exhibit S at 7-8, lines 219-232.

JMAM’s 1102 statement further contradicts the claims in the Affidavits: “They

gave us a choice of living in a house that they were going to provide, or we could look

for our own house to rent, but if we chose the latter, we had to find our own transport,

so we ended up living in their houses.” Exhibit T at 2, line 1.

The paperwork JMAM provided Agent Jeter further demonstrated that JMAM

(and all H2B workers) had two housing options to choose from: Rubicon’s housing (and

participation in the “Rent Deduction Policy”) or locating housing on their own. The

paperwork required JMAM (and all H2B workers) to select an option and sign the form.

Exhibit W.14

14 Unfortunately, the state’s investigative file appears to be incomplete because it fails

to reveal (1) that a number of prospective H2B workers chose to locate and acquire their
own housing and transportation and not to participate in the rent policy, and (2) whether

16
 5. Alleged Theft of H2B Workers’ Money After They Left Rubicon’s
Employ

The Affidavits misrepresent that Rubicon stole money belonging to H2B workers

by closing their FinTwist accounts after they left Rubicon’s employ. For example, the

Affidavits state that if H2B workers “left the company Rubicon would close the account

even if there was still money in the account belonging to the victims.” Exhibit A-J.

This allegation is false, and the state possessed evidence of its falsity when Agent

Jeter swore the Affidavits. Agent Jeter ignored evidence in his possession and

information that is publicly available and conflated two separate components of H2B

worker pay in making the false allegations.

Most if not all H2B workers who came to work at Rubicon did not have a bank

account in the United States and lacked the ability to open an account, at least initially

and until they could meet sufficient qualifications to satisfy bank requirements.

Rubicon contracted with a payroll company known as Paycom for that part of its

business operation. To accommodate the fact that most H2B workers were unable to

open bank accounts upon their arrival in the United States, Rubicon provided them

virtual accounts through a company known as FinTwist Solutions (“FinTwist”) that the

H2B workers owned. FinTwist provides Comdata Mastercards issued by Regions Bank.

The FinTwist Mastercards operated much the same as debit cards. Hence, Rubicon

provided a means to pay the H2B workers through FinTwist accounts and cards instead

of checks—which the workers would be unable to cash or could cash only at a

substantial fee—or cash which would create its own set of problems. See Exhibit X.

Agent Jeter knew this. Agent Jeter’s failure to include this fact in the Affidavits was
another material omission (if he was aware of it).

17
 The FinTwist website explains:

Though employers implement the FinTwist digital payment solution, the card
belongs to the employee (or cardholder) once they activate their card. This
means that employees can take their card with them to their second job, or to
their next job, regardless of whether they still work for the original employer.
Additionally, cardholders can have government benefits or tax refunds deposited
onto their paycard by using the routing and account number.

The American Payroll Association states that paycards are “80% less expensive
than check cashing services.” With the Fintwist digital payment solution,
employees get access to bill pay, online purchases, money management tools,
and P2P transfers at no cost to the employer. Save money by avoiding check-
cashing fees and money orders.

See Exhibit Y.

Agent Jeter had in his possession the FinTwist paperwork which provided

instructions to the H2B workers, as follows:

To begin using your new FinTwist card simply follow these steps. 1. Validate. You
cannot use your card to transfer money into or out of your account until we have
validated it. If you do not want to use the card please destroy it at once by cutting
it in half and please contact your employer. Validate your card by calling the
phone number on the sticker located on the front of your card. 2. Enter. Enter
your card number and the confirmation number provided by your program
administrator. 3. Listen. Follow instruction to setup a 4-digit PIN for use with
your card. You can also sign up to receive text alerts if you like. 4. Use. Use your
card at any of the millions of locations around the world where Mastercard is
accepted.

See Exhibit Y.

For each pay period, Paycom deposited the H2B workers’ payroll into their

FinTwist accounts at Regions Bank, and the H2B workers could then use the FinTwist

cards to purchase items, pay bills, and withdraw cash.15 When H2B workers stopped

working for Rubicon, the payroll company Paycom naturally limited the former

15Agent Jeter was also aware from an interview with a former employee that Rubicon
supplied letters to banks verifying employment for H2B workers who sought to open bank
accounts. See Exhibit L at 12-13.

18
employees’ access on the Paycom app. The workers could still access some information,

but they no longer had full access to the entire system because they were no longer

employees. The H2B workers, however, continued to own and have full access to the

funds deposited into the FinTwist accounts. Rubicon never took money from the former

employees’ FinTwist accounts after the H2B workers left Rubicon.

Agent Jeter’s interview of JMAM went like this:

Jeter: “Okay, so the moment you guys left, they deleted your FinTwist account?”

ADLP (as translator for JMAM ): “Yeah. And Paycom is called. Do you have
Paycom? Can you get in?

JMAM: “. . . log in. I can go in, but I’m asked for a password. (Inaudible). I have
to enter another password.”

ADLP (as translator for JMAM): “Yes? It’s called Paycom.”

Jeter: “Paycom?”

JMAM: “Did you get in?”

ADLP (as translator for JMAM): “Yeah. Yes, I have it here.”

Jeter: “It’s ok if it’s in Spanish.”

Jeter: “Everything’s already gone off of Paycom?”

JMAM: “Yeah.”

Jeter: “Is that where your pay stubs would be and . . .?

ADLP (as translator for JMAM): “Yeah (inaudible) . . . .”

Exhibit S at 12-13, lines 384-410.

III. RELEVANT LEGAL AUTHORITY

The warrants at issue here sought evidence of, or seized property/funds related to,

aggravated labor trafficking, in violation of Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308, and benefitting

19
from labor trafficking, in violation of section 76-5-309. According to the statute,

aggravated labor trafficking requires the state to prove the following:

(2) An actor commits human trafficking for labor if the actor recruits, harbors,
transports, obtains, patronizes, or solicits an individual for labor through the use
of force, fraud, or coercion, which may include:

(a) threatening serious harm to, or physical restrain against, that individual
or another individual;

(b) destroying, concealing, removing, confiscating, or possessing any

passport, immigration document, or other government-issued
identification document;

(c) abusing or threatening abuse of the law or legal process against the
individual or another individual;

(d) using a condition of an individual being a debtor due to a pledge of the

individual’s personal services of an individual under the control of the
debtor as a security for debt where the reasonable value of services is not
applied toward the liquidation of the debt or the length and nature of
those services are not reasonably limited and defined;

(e) using a condition of servitude by means of any scheme, plan, or pattern

intended to cause an individual to believe that if the individual did not
enter into or continue in a condition of servitude, the individual would
suffer serious harm or physical restrain, or would be threated with abuse
of legal process; or

(f) creating or exploiting a relationship where the individual is dependent

upon the actor. 76-5-308.

For the crime of benefitting from human trafficking for labor, the state must demonstrate

that an actor “benefits, receives, or exchanges anything of value from knowing

participation in” a human trafficking for labor violation (section 76-5-308).

As the Court is well aware, the “Fourth Amendment to the United States

Constitution provides that ‘no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported

by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

person or things to be seized.’” State v. Hebeishy, 2022 UT app 136, ¶ 17, 522 P.3d 952

20
(quoting U.S. Const. Fourth Amendment). “In considering whether to authorize a search

warrant, a magistrate ‘must rely on the representations of the investigating officer, who

sets forth in the warrant affidavit the facts the officer contends are sufficient to meet the

probable cause standard.’” Id. ¶ 17 (quoting State v. Gonzalez, 2021, UT App 83, ¶ 22, 494

P.3d 1066 and citing Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 164-65 (1978)).

In Franks v. Delaware, the United States Supreme Court held that where the

defendant makes “a substantial preliminary showing” that a search warrant affidavit

contains a false statement (a) made with knowing and intentional or reckless disregard

for the truth and (b) material to a finding of probable cause, the Fourth Amendment

requires that a hearing be held to determine the truthfulness of the statements made in

the affidavit. Franks, 438 U.S. at 155-56. Franks “explained that the assertions must be

‘truthful in the sense that the information put forth is believed or appropriately accepted

by the affiant as true.’” State v. Gonzalez, 2021, UT App 83, ¶ 18, 494 P.3d 1066 (quoting

Franks, 438 U.S. at 165).

“The standards of deliberate falsehood and reckless disregard set forth in Franks

apply to material omissions, as well as affirmative falsehoods.” United States v.

McKissick, 204 F.3d 1282, 1297 (10th Cir. 2000). Put a different way by the Ninth Circuit,

“[t]he use of deliberately falsified information is not the only way by which police officers

can mislead a magistrate when making a probable cause determination: By reporting less

than the total story, an affiant can manipulate the inferences a magistrate will draw.”

United States v. Stanert, 762 F.2d 775, 781 (9th Cir. 1985) (emphasis added).

If a defendant believes the “investigating officer’s assertions in support of the

search warrant were untruthful, the defendant may challenge the warrant and seek an

evidentiary hearing—a Franks hearing—to prove that claim.” Gonzalez, 2021, UT App 83,

21
¶ 19 (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-72). “[T]here is ‘a presumption of validity with

respect to the affidavit supporting the search warrant.’” Id. (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at

171). Hence, the defendant’s challenge “‘must be more than conclusory and must be

supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. There must be allegations of

deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard for the truth, and those allegations must be

accompanied by an offer of proof.’” The defendant must also demonstrate that “‘the

allegedly false statement is necessary to the finding of probable cause.’” Id. (quoting

Franks, 438 U.S. at 156).

“And if after a Franks hearing a defendant ultimately proves the same by a

preponderance of the evidence, the ‘warrant must be voided’ and resultant evidence

suppressed. Id. (quoting Franks, 438 U.S. at 156, and citing State v. Fuller, 2014 UT 29,

¶ 26, 332 P.3d 937).

IV. ARGUMENT THE COURT SHOULD VOID THE WARRANTS,

SUPPRESS THE EVIDENCE SEIZED PURSUANT TO THOSE WARRANTS,
ORDER THE RETURN OF THE SEIZED BANK ACCOUNTS, AND HOLD A
FRANKS HEARING

The facts set forth above provide a “substantial preliminary showing” that the

Affidavits contain false statements and omissions made with a knowing and intentional,

or at least reckless, disregard for the truth. These false statements and omissions were

also material to the magistrates’ finding of probable cause. Therefore, the Court should

hold a Franks hearing to further challenge these false statements and omissions in the

Affidavits. And ultimately, the Court should “void” the warrants, suppress the seized

evidence, and order the return of the seized bank accounts.

22
 A. The Affidavits Contain Deliberate or Reckless Factual
Misstatements and Omissions

Agent Jeter made multiple false statements in the Affidavits meant to establish

probable cause for violations of human labor trafficking, under section 76-5-308, and

benefitting from human labor trafficking, under section 76-5-309. These false statements

included claims that (1) Rubicon withheld H2B workers’ immigration documents (to

prevent them from traveling back to their home country), (2) Rubicon employees

threatened to deport H2B workers, (3) Rubicon forced H2B workers to use its housing

and participate in its “Rent Deduction Policy,” Rubicon stole funds remaining H2B

workers’ FinTwist accounts when they left Rubicon’s employ.

The discovery provided by the state, which Agent Jeter had before swearing to the

Affidavits, demonstrates that these claims in the Affidavits are false. Further, Agent

Jeter’s awareness that these statements were false is evident in the fact that he was the

person gathering the evidence and conducting the interviews that demonstrably

contradict the claims he later makes in the Affidavits.

B. The False Statements and Omissions Were Material to the

Issuance of the Search and Seizure Warrants

Beyond a demonstration that the Affidavits contained knowingly or recklessly false

statements and omissions, the Court must further find these false statements and

omissions were “material” to the Court’s probable cause determination(s). Franks, 438

U.S. at 155-56.

Here, each of the false statements detailed above directly relates to elements of

human labor trafficking set forth in section 76-5-308. For instance, the false claims that

Rubicon withheld H2B workers’ immigration documents undermines the state’s evidence

23
that Rubicon and its employees “destroy[ed], conceal[ed], remov[ed], confiscate[ed], or

possess[ed] any passport immigration document, or other government issued

identification document.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(b). Meanwhile the false

statements regarding threats of deportation to H2B workers tie in directly to whether

Rubicon and its employees “abus[ed] or threaten[ed] abuse of the law or legal process

against the individual or another individual.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(c). And the

misrepresentations about the H2B workers’ housing options and the “rent deduction

policy” directly relate to the state’s proof of whether Rubicon and its employees “create[d]

or exploit[ed] a relationship where the individual is dependent upon the actor.” Utah

Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(f). The false allegations that Rubicon stole monies belonging to

H2B workers when they left Rubicon’s employ relates to the state’s proof of whether

Rubicon engaged in a fraud or “create[d] or exploit[ed] a relationship where the

individual was dependent upon the actor.” Utah Code Ann. § 76-5-308(2)(f).

Once the Court sets aside these misstatements and corrects the state’s omissions,

the Affidavits no longer demonstrate probable cause of human trafficking for labor, nor

of benefitting from human trafficking for labor. A Franks hearing is therefore warranted,

and the Court should “void” the warrants, suppress any evidence obtained as a result of

those warrants, and order the return of all property seized.

24
 V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the Court should schedule a Franks hearing.

DATED this 13th day of March 2024.

SPENCER FANE LLP

/s/ Richard A. Van Wagoner

Richard A. Van Wagoner
Nathan A. Crane
Melinda K. Bowen
Attorneys for Defendant Rudy Larsen

CLYDE SNOW & SESSIONS

/s/ Keith M. Woodwell______________

Signed by filing attorney with permission
Keith M. Woodwell
Walter A. Romney
Jake Taylor
Katherine E. Pepin
Attorneys for Defendant Jena Marie Larsen

ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP

/s/ Aaron B. Clark______________

Signed by filing attorney with permission
Aaron B. Clark
Trinity Jordan
Attorneys for Defendant
RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.

/s/ Jamie Thomas_________

Signed by filing attorney with permission
Scott A. Hagen
Skye Lazaro
Jamie Thomas
Attorneys for Rubicon Contracting LLC,
Scandia Company LLC, Smart Rain Systems
LLC

25
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on March 13, 2024, I electronically filed the foregoing

JOINT MOTION TO VOID SEARCH WARRANTS, SUPPRESS EVIDENCE,

RETURN SEIZED ASSETS, AND FOR A FRANKS HEARING via the Green Filing

system, which sent notification of such filing to counsel of record, as follows:

State of Utah Attorney General

Che Arguello (12412)
Kaytlin Beckett (16257)
Craig Barlow (0213)
Utah Attorney General’s Office
Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Richard A. Van Wagoner

26