Robertson Jul. 2 Search Warrant Redacted

Case 7:21-mj-00083-RSB Document 5 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 71
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF THE )

RESIDENCE OF THOMAS ROBERTSON, ) 7:21mj83
Case No. ___________
LOCATED AT , )
FERRUM, VIRGINIA, 24088 )
) FILED UNDER SEAL
& )
)
HIS PERSON IF LOCATED WITHIN THE )
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGNIA )
AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT
Introduction
Your affiant, Kathryn Camiliere, being first duly sworn, hereby depose and state as
follows:
1. I am a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) and have
been employed by the FBI since May 1, 2016. I have a Bachelor’s Degree from the United States
Military Academy, and a Master’s Degree from King’s College in London. I have extensive
training and experience in the areas of terrorism investigations and white collar crime, as well as
interview and interrogation techniques, evidence recovery, source recruitment, and cellular
phone analysis.
2. The facts in this affidavit come from my personal observations, my training and
experience, and information obtained from other agents and witnesses. This affidavit is intended
to show merely that there is sufficient probable cause for the requested warrant and does not set
forth all of my knowledge about this matter.
3. This affidavit is made in support of an application for a search warrant for the
following location (hereinafter “SUBJECT PREMISES”): 1765 Otter Drive, Ferrum, VA,
24088 which is further described and depicted in Attachment A, as a one story brick family
home and an out-building, as observed during a previously-executed search warrant (case
number 7:21-mj-9) at the SUBJECT PREMISES. 1 The items to be searched and seized are
described in the following paragraphs and in Attachment B.
4. Based on my training and experience and the information set forth herein, your
Affiant has probable cause to believe that THOMAS ROBERTSON (hereinafter referred to as
“Robertson” or “the defendant”) engaged in violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), and that
evidence, fruits and instrumentalities related to these violations, (as further described in
Attachment B), may be found at the SUBJECT PREMISES.
5. This affidavit is based upon information that I have gained from my investigation,
my training and experience, as well as information gained from conversations with other law
enforcement officers. Since this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of securing a
search warrant, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this
investigation. I have set forth only the facts that I believe are necessary to establish probable
cause to believe that evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities (more precisely described in
Attachment B) of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) are located at the SUBJECT PREMISES (as
further described in Attachment A).
6. This investigation involves evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of offenses
which are located within the jurisdiction and proper venue of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Virginia, as more fully articulated herein.
1
This affidavit incorporates by reference the facts provided in the affidavit for search warrant 7:21-mj-9.
2
Pertinent Federal Criminal Statutes and Definitions
7. This investigation concerns alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which
makes it a crime for any person who is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment
for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm
or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in
interstate or foreign commerce.
Probable Cause
The Pending Charges Against the Defendant
8. On January 12, 2021, a Magistrate Judge in the District of Columbia found
probable cause that Robertson committed violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1752 and 50 U.S.C. § 5104
during the January 6, 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., and an arrest warrant
was issued. The defendant was taken into custody on Wednesday, January 13, 2021, in the
Western District of Virginia, and was released subject to certain conditions, including a ban from
any public protest or demonstration anywhere, that he not violate any federal, state, or local law
while on release, and that he refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device, or other
dangerous weapon. Robertson was also ordered to relocate any firearms in his home by January
15, 2021. Nevertheless, law enforcement discovered firearms at the SUBJECT PREMISES
during the execution of a search warrant; the search warrant was issued pursuant to Fed. R. Crim.
P. 41 on January 18, 2021, case number 7:21-mj-9. The search itself took place on January 19,
2021. Law enforcement seized the following weapons from the SUBJECT PREMISES that
day:
a. Glock 17, Serial Number ending in 064
3
b. Glock 21, Serial Number ending in 985, with attached Streamlight TLR-1
c. Glock 19, Serial Number ending in 260 along with a Galco leather holster K109L
d. Smith and Wesson, Serial Number ending in 106
e. Daniel Defense, Serial Number ending in 55D, with LaRue Tactical optic and
Surefire light
f. Radical Firearms, Serial Number ending in 711
g. Springfield Armory 1903, Serial Number ending in 427
h. Hawken Rifle, Serial Number ending in 639
9. During the execution of the search warrant, law enforcement officers searched an
out-building located on the property. During the search of the out-building, officers noted large
amounts of ammunition, as well as what appeared to be equipment used for re-loading
ammunition. It is unknown when this ammunition/re-loading equipment was shipped,
transported, or received. A photograph of the out-building from the search warrant is below.
4
10. On January 19, 2021, Robertson appeared before Magistrate Judge G. Michael
Harvey in the District of Columbia and was ordered not to possess a firearm, destructive device,
or other dangerous weapon. Judge Harvey set a status date for the ascertainment of counsel for
February 2, 2021.
11. On January 29, 2021, a grand jury in the District of Columbia charged Robertson
with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1512, 2 (Obstruction of an Official Proceeding, and Aiding and
Abetting), 1752(a)(1) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building), 1752(a)(2) (Disorderly
and Disruptive Conduct in a Restricted Building), and 40 U.S.C. § 5104 (Violent Entry and
Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building or Grounds). The violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 is a
felony offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year.
12. On February 2, 2021, Robertson appeared before Magistrate Judge Robin M.
Meriweather in the District of Columbia for a hearing on the ascertainment of counsel and
arraignment. Robertson appeared at the hearing with his current counsel—who advised the Court
that he had briefly spoken with Robertson about the indictment—and entered a plea of not guilty.
13. On February 25, 2021, the defendant was arraigned on the charges in the
Indictment before the Hon. Christopher R. Cooper, U.S. District Judge in the District of
Columbia. The defendant acknowledged having read the Indictment, as well as having reviewed
it with his attorney, before pleading not guilty to the charges in the Indictment. The Court did not
advise Robertson as to the maximum punishments associated with the charges. The defendant
orally moved to modify his conditions of release to allow for his possession of firearms, 2 and
2
The defendant’s co-defendant orally made the motion and argued it, which Robertson orally joined.
5
Judge Cooper reserved his ruling on the motion. In opposing the motion, the government
referenced that this was a felony case. Through the present date, the defendant’s conditions of
release remain unchanged.
Evidence of Robertson’s Unlawful Post-Indictment Conduct Involving the Purchase, Sale,

and Possession of Firearms and Ammunition
14. On February 17, 2021, in connection with the FBI’s on-going investigation into
Robertson’s involvement in the riot at the U.S. Capitol, a Magistrate Judge in the District of
Columbia issued a search warrant for Robertson’s Yahoo email account,
@yahoo.com, in case number 21-sc-552. In the course of reviewing the
information disclosed consistent with that warrant, and a subsequently obtained warrant, the
undersigned identified information indicating that Robertson was involved in the purchase, sale,
and possession of firearms and ammunition in the time after his indictment for a felony violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1512, while he was on pre-trial release in this case, including the following
information:
15. On February 13, 2021, the @yahoo.com account received an email
that was “Generated from: ar15.com”; the email requested that the recipient reply to
@gmail.com 3 and stated “Hey Tom…I sold you the M855A1… if you’re
interested, or know anyone that is, I have more M85561 available as well as M80A1.”
3
The website ar15.com has multiple discussion forums, to include forums pertaining to AR15s and handguns, as
well as at least one sub-forum dedicated to ammunition. Your affiant believes that the user of
@gmail.com sent a message to Robertson on ar15.com, and that the settings on ar15.com caused the
message to either be forwarded/send an alert to the subject account. Following this alert, your affiant believes
@gmail.com and Robertson began corresponding through email as opposed to through ar15.com itself.
6
16. Based on my training and experience, I know that M855A1 and M80A1 are
designations for ammunition used in semi-automatic and automatic weapons.
17. On February 13, 2021, the @yahoo.com account replied to
@gmail.com saying “I absolutely am interested. Price and quantity?” On the same
day, @gmail.com replied, in part “I have 1000 rounds on stripper clips of M855A1
$1800 shipped insured. I have 2000 rounds loose (delinked) M80A1 $10k shipped or 1000
rounds $5k shipped insured.”
18. On February 14, 2021, the @yahoo.com account replied to
@gmail.com, stating that he would take the “855a1” and that he “can do venmo,
zelle, or MO.” A follow-up message from the @yahoo.com account noted that
paypal “suspended [his] account because someone felt the need to put gun stuff in an email…”
19. In additional messages, the @yahoo.com account agreed to pay
$3,600 for 2000 rounds of “855A1” and provided the following information for his address: “TJ
Robertson, The seller then confirmed they received this
payment.
20. According to records received from Venmo, Robertson paid $3600 to the person
using the email account @gmail.com on February 14, 2021. The notes associated
with the transaction indicate that the payment was for “Wedding Photos.” On the same day, the
@yahoo.com account sent an email to @gmail.com saying “Venmo
sent”; the message included a screenshot of Venmo that stated, in part, “You paid
The screenshot also showed “-3600,” indicating that the payment was sent by Robertson, and
that the payment was for “Wedding Photos.”
7
21. On February 15, 2021, the @yahoo.com account received an email
from iShip_Services@iship.com. The email stated, in part, “A carrier shipping label has been
generated for the shipment to TJ Robertson and is at UPS CC EAGAN MN awaiting carrier
pickup. It will be picked up by UPS from UPS CC EAGAN MN on Monday, February 15,
2021.” The recipient was listed as TJ Robertson in Ferrum, VA, and the sender was listed as
in Eden Prairie, MN. The package weighed 60 pounds, and the expected delivery date was
listed as February 18, 2021.
22. On February 14, 2021, “Julieann & TJ Robertson,” from the
@yahoo.com account, received an email from at
@gmail.com with the subject line “Re: M4” in which stated, “haven’t been
able to get it shipped yet […] I’m not going to leave something like that on my porch for a pick-
up. I have an appointment this week with the FFL 4 I use and he will ship it for me.” “Julieann &
TJ Robertson” replied from @yahoo.com account, writing that there was “Literally
no hurry…seriously, Just looking for an update. No problem with me.”
23. Based on my training and experience I know that an “M4” is a type of rifle used
by the U.S. military.
24. Your affiant is aware that on January 18, 2021, @yahoo.com sent
an email to stating “Please find attached.” Attached to the email was a PDF with
what appeared to be a scanned copy of a Federal Firearms License (FFL); the designated licensee
was Tactical Operations, Inc., 1346 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Roanoke, VA 24012.
4
Based on my training and experience, I am aware that “FFL” is a likely reference to a “Federal Firearms License”,
a license that, in part, allows for a business or company to engage in the interstate or intrastate sale of firearm.
8
25. Separately, on February 2, 2021, @yahoo.com sent an email to
“ ”, @sbcglobal.net, saying “please find attached.” Attached to the
email was a PDF with what appeared to be a scanned copy of a Federal Firearms License; the
designated licensee was Tactical Operations, Inc., 1346 Blue Ridge Boulevard, Roanoke, VA
24012.
26. Your affiant requested and received records from the website Gunbroker.com5.
27. From the records received from Gunbroker.com, your affiant learned that
Robertson made multiple orders from the website after he was indicted for a violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1512. 6 These orders include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. On May 16, 2021, Robertson ordered a “1955 Springfield Arms M1 GARAND
Korea US ARMY rifle 1903 H&R” for $1,950; this item is required to be shipped
to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from
Snellville, Georgia. No “Ship To” address or name was included in the records,
though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To State.”
b. On May 13, 2021, Robertson ordered a “WWI US Eddystone Model 1917 .30-06
Rifle 1918mfg” for $844; this item is required to be shipped to an FFL. According
to GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from Hopedale, Massachusetts.
5
According to its own website, Gunbroker.com claims to be the “world’s largest online auction site for firearms and
hunting/shooting accessories. The GunBroker.com website provides an informative, safe and secure way to buy and
sell firearms, ammunition, hunting gear, shooting accessories, vehicles, collectibles, and much more online.”
6
As described in Paragraphs 11-13, Robertson was indicted on January 29, 2021 and subsequently entered a plea of
not guilty in February 2021.
9
No “Ship To” address or name was included in the records, though Virginia was
listed as the “Ship To State.”
c. On May 4, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Finnish Mosin Nagant 7.62x54R Finland”
for $800; this item was shipped to “Thomas Robertson” at ,
Ferrum, VA from Highland, California.
d. On May 3, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Finnish M39 Mosin Nagant 7.62x54R
Finland M39 1944” for $845; this item was shipped to “Thomas Robertson” at
1765 Otter Drive, Ferrum, VA from Highland, California.
e. On April 30, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Bandolier of US Spec AYR Armor
Piercing Ammunition – 48 Rounds 30 06” for $145; this item was shipped to
“Thomas Robertson” at , Ferrum, VA from Huntsville, Alabama.
f. On April 29, 2021, Robertson ordered a “WWII MILITARY ROCKOLA M1
CARBINE SEMI AUTO RIFLE 30US” for $1,075; this item is required to be
shipped to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped
from Whitefield, Maine. No “Ship To” address or name was included in the
records, though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To State.”
g. On April 29, 2021, Robertson ordered “.30 06 AP Armor Piercing AYR spam can
192 rds on Garand clips in bandos” for $500; this item was shipped to “Thomas
Robertson” at 1765 Otter Drive, Ferrum, VA from Newfane, Vermont.
h. On April 28, 2021, Robertson ordered “M61 Armor Piercing Projectiles 7.62x51
.308 Win 400 count” for $155; this item was shipped to “Thomas Robertson” at
1765 Otter Drive, Ferrum, VA from Tucson, Arizona.
10
i. On April 27, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Springfield Armory M1 Garand” for
$1,350; this item is required to be shipped to an FFL. According to
GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from Columbus, Georgia. No
“Ship To” address or name was included in the records, though Virginia was
j. On April 25, 2021, Robertson ordered a “M1 Garand Receiver” for $250; this
item is required to be shipped to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com records,
this item was shipped from Dalton, Ohio. No “Ship To” address or name was
included in the records, though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To State.”
k. On April 21, 2021, Robertson ordered a “US International Harvestor M1 Garand”
for $1,550; this item is required to be shipped to an FFL. According to
GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from Vero Beach, Florida. No
“Ship To” address or name was included in the records, though Virginia was
l. On April 19, 2021, Robertson ordered a “CMP M1 Garand Unissued” for $1,500;
this item is required to be shipped to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com
records, this item was shipped from Conyers, Georgia. No “Ship To” address or
name was included in the records, though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To
State.”
m. On April 13, 2021, Robertson ordered a “INLAND GENERAL MOTORS U.S.
MILITARY M1 CARBINE 30US SEMI-AUTO RIFLE” for $995; this item is
required to be shipped to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com records, this item
11
was shipped from Whitefield, Maine. No “Ship To” address or name was included
in the records, though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To State.”
n. On April 12, 2021, Robertson ordered “Armor Piercing Ap / Black Tip 192
Round Sealed Spam Can” for $530; this item was shipped to “Thomas Robertson”
at , Ferrum, VA from McKinney, Texas.
For each of these orders, the purchased item was shipped from a location that is outside the state
of Virginia.
28. Title 18, United States Code, Section 922(n), makes it unlawful for any person
under indictment for a crime punishable for a term exceeding one year to ship or transport in
interstate commerce any firearm or ammunition or receive any firearm or ammunition which has
been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce. Robertson was indicted on
January 29, 2021 for violating 18 U.S.C. § 1512, a crime punishable for a term exceeding one
year and was subsequently arraigned and pleaded not guilty to that charge in February 2021.
Accordingly, as set forth herein, there is probable cause to believe that Robertson violated 18
U.S.C. § 922(n), and there is also probable cause to search the premises described in Attachment
A for evidence, instrumentalities, contraband, or fruits of these crimes further described in
Attachment B.
Probable Cause to Search the Subject Premises for Evidence of Robertson’s Unlawful Post-
Indictment Conduct Involving Firearms
29. Law enforcement database checks confirmed that Defendant Robertson resides at
the SUBJECT PREMISES, which is his home of record on his Driver’s License.
30. As discussed in the paragraphs above, Robertson was arrested on a criminal
complaint on January 13, 2021, and released on conditions that included a prohibition on his
12
possessing a firearm, destructive device, or dangerous weapon. In addition, Robertson was
ordered to relocate any firearms in his home by January 15, 2021. Nevertheless, law enforcement
discovered firearms at the SUBJECT PREMISES during the execution of a search warrant
issued pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 41 on January 19, 2021.
31. As discussed in the paragraphs above, Robertson was indicted on a felony
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 by a federal grand jury in the District of Columbia on January 29,
2021.
32. Based on my training and experience, and information I obtained through this
investigation, I know that individuals who purchase and sell firearms and/or ammunition
unlawfully often keep those items, and records relating to the purchase and sale of those items, in
their primary residences. Indeed, in this case, based on both email and purchase records, there is
probable cause to believe that physical and/or electronic evidence of the commission of the
above-described offenses will be found at the SUBJECT PREMISES, including weapons,
ammunition, and physical and digital purchase records. Additionally, as described above, a
search of an out-building on the SUBJECT PREMISES revealed the presence of a large amount
of ammunition and what appeared to be ammunition re-loading equipment. In my training and
experience, I know that individuals often keep firearms in close proximity to ammunition, such
as the ammunition located in the out-building.
33. Based on my training, experience and information I obtained through this
investigation, I know that individuals who purchase and sell firearms and/or ammunition online
use digital devices to complete these transactions. I also know that records of these transactions
may be stored on the individual’s digital devices, including smartphones, tablets, laptop
13
computers, external storage media, and other digital devices, and that these devices are often
stored in the user’s primary residence or on the user’s person.
34. As described above and in Attachment B, this application seeks permission to
search for records that might be found on the SUBJECT PREMISES, in whatever form they are
found. One form in which the records might be found is data stored on a digital device
(including a smart phone), a computer’s hard drive or other storage media. Thus, the warrant
applied for would authorize the seizure of digital devices, electronic storage media or,
potentially, the copying of electronically stored information, all under Rule 41(e)(2)(B).
Additional Request to Search the Person and Vehicle of Robertson
35. It is common for investigative subjects and evidence of interest to be absent from
the place to be searched but still in the local area when law enforcement executes a search
warrant. It is expected that Robertson will not be present at the SUBJECT PREMISES during
the execution of the requested search warrant and that he will depart the residence in a motor
vehicle.
36. Your affiant is aware that individuals commonly maintain electronic devices on
their person and in their vehicles when they leave their residence. This is especially true of
devices that may contain contraband or are utilized for criminal activity. Moreover, in cases
involving electronic evidence, it is critical to locate and obtain that evidence before the subject
becomes aware of law enforcement’s intentions to seize and search to prevent such evidence
from being hidden, destroyed, or otherwise altered.
14
37. Therefore, if agents positively locate and identity Robertson outside the residence
to be searched, or in a public place or within a motor vehicle or other conveyance located within
the Western District of Virginia, your affiant requests the following authorization:
a. To briefly detain Robertson to search his person; or
b. If Robertson is encountered in a vehicle, to search portions of the vehicle
Robertson has reasonably control over, or access to, for the items listed in
Attachment B of this application. For example:
i. If Robertson has the keys to and is operating a vehicle that he has clear
use, dominion and control over, then it would be reasonable for Agents to
search for items within all areas of the vehicle including the passenger
compartment, trunk and personal containers found within.
ii. If Robertson is encountered as a passenger in a vehicle that he is a guest in

and does not have dominion and control over, then it would be reasonable
for Agents to search for items within areas of the vehicle Robertson has
access to including the passenger compartment or his personal containers
found within.
Background on Digital Devices and Storage Media
38. I submit that if a computer or storage medium is found on the SUBJECT
PREMISES, PERSON, OR VEHICLE, there is probable cause to believe those records will be
stored on that computer or storage medium, for at least the following reasons:
a. Based on my knowledge, training, and experience, I know that computer files or
remnants of such files can be recovered months or even years after they have been
downloaded onto a storage medium, deleted, or viewed via the Internet.
Electronic files downloaded to a storage medium can be stored for years at little
or no cost. Even when files have been deleted, they can be recovered months or
years later using forensic tools. This is so because when a person “deletes” a file
15
on a computer, the data contained in the file does not actually disappear; rather,
that data remains on the storage medium until it is overwritten by new data.
b. Therefore, deleted files, or remnants of deleted files, may reside in free space or
slack space—that is, in space on the storage medium that is not currently being
used by an active file—for long periods of time before they are overwritten. In
addition, a computer’s operating system may also keep a record of deleted data in
a “swap” or “recovery” file.
c. Wholly apart from user-generated files, computer storage media—in particular,
computers’ internal hard drives—contain electronic evidence of how a computer
has been used, what it has been used for, and who has used it. To give a few
examples, this forensic evidence can take the form of operating system
configurations, artifacts from operating system or application operation, file
system data structures, and virtual memory “swap” or paging files. Computer
users typically do not erase or delete this evidence, because special software is
typically required for that task. However, it is technically possible to delete this
information.
d. Similarly, files that have been viewed via the Internet are sometimes
automatically downloaded into a temporary Internet directory or “cache.”
39. Forensic evidence. As further described in Attachment B, this application seeks
permission to locate not only computer files that might serve as direct evidence of the crimes
described on the warrant, but also for forensic electronic evidence that establishes how
computers were used, the purpose of their use, who used them, and when. There is probable
16
cause to believe that this forensic electronic evidence will be on any storage medium in the
PREMISES because:
e. Data on the storage medium can provide evidence of a file that was once on the
storage medium but has since been deleted or edited, or of a deleted portion of a
file (such as a paragraph that has been deleted from a word processing file).
Virtual memory paging systems can leave traces of information on the storage
medium that show what tasks and processes were recently active. Web browsers,
e-mail programs, and chat programs store configuration information on the
storage medium that can reveal information such as online nicknames and
passwords. Operating systems can record additional information, such as the
attachment of peripherals, the attachment of USB flash storage devices or other
external storage media, and the times the computer was in use. Computer file
systems can record information about the dates files were created and the
sequence in which they were created, although this information can later be
falsified.
f. As explained herein, information stored within a computer and other electronic
storage media may provide crucial evidence of the “who, what, why, when,
where, and how” of the criminal conduct under investigation, thus enabling the
United States to establish and prove each element or alternatively, to exclude the
innocent from further suspicion. In my training and experience, information
stored within a computer or storage media (e.g., registry information,
communications, images and movies, transactional information, records of

17
session times and durations, internet history, and anti-virus, spyware, and
malware detection programs) can indicate who has used or controlled the
computer or storage media. This “user attribution” evidence is analogous to the
search for “indicia of occupancy” while executing a search warrant at a residence.
The existence or absence of anti-virus, spyware, and malware detection programs
may indicate whether the computer was remotely accessed, thus inculpating or
exculpating the computer owner. Further, computer and storage media activity
can indicate how and when the computer or storage media was accessed or used.
For example, as described herein, computers typically contain information that
log: computer user account session times and durations, computer activity
associated with user accounts, electronic storage media that connected with the
computer, and the IP addresses through which the computer accessed networks
and the internet. Such information allows investigators to understand the
chronological context of computer or electronic storage media access, use, and
events relating to the crime under investigation. Additionally, some information
stored within a computer or electronic storage media may provide crucial
evidence relating to the physical location of other evidence and the suspect. For
example, images stored on a computer may both show a particular location and
have geolocation information incorporated into its file data. Such file data
typically also contains information indicating when the file or image was created.
The existence of such image files, along with external device connection logs,
may also indicate the presence of additional electronic storage media (e.g., a
18
digital camera or cellular phone with an incorporated camera). The geographic
and timeline information described herein may either inculpate or exculpate the
computer user. Last, information stored within a computer may provide relevant
insight into the computer user’s state of mind as it relates to the offense under
investigation. For example, information within the computer may indicate the
owner’s motive and intent to commit a crime (e.g., internet searches indicating
criminal planning), or consciousness of guilt (e.g., running a “wiping” program to
destroy evidence on the computer or password protecting/encrypting such
evidence in an effort to conceal it from law enforcement).
g. A person with appropriate familiarity with how a computer works can, after
examining this forensic evidence in its proper context, draw conclusions about
how computers were used, the purpose of their use, who used them, and when.
h. The process of identifying the exact files, blocks, registry entries, logs, or other
forms of forensic evidence on a storage medium that are necessary to draw an
accurate conclusion is a dynamic process. While it is possible to specify in
advance the records to be sought, computer evidence is not always data that can
be merely reviewed by a review team and passed along to investigators. Whether
data stored on a computer is evidence may depend on other information stored on
the computer and the application of knowledge about how a computer behaves.
Therefore, contextual information necessary to understand other evidence also
falls within the scope of the warrant.
19
i. Further, in finding evidence of how a computer was used, the purpose of its use,
who used it, and when, sometimes it is necessary to establish that a particular
thing is not present on a storage medium. For example, the presence or absence
of counter-forensic programs or anti-virus programs (and associated data) may be
relevant to establishing the user’s intent.
40. Necessity of seizing or copying entire computers or storage media. In most cases,
a thorough search of a premises for information that might be stored on storage media often
requires the seizure of the physical storage media and later off-site review consistent with the
warrant. In lieu of removing storage media from the premises, it is sometimes possible to make
an image copy of storage media. Generally speaking, imaging is the taking of a complete
electronic picture of the computer’s data, including all hidden sectors and deleted files. Either
seizure or imaging is often necessary to ensure the accuracy and completeness of data recorded
on the storage media, and to prevent the loss of the data either from accidental or intentional
destruction. This is true because of the following:
j. The time required for an examination. As noted above, not all evidence takes the
form of documents and files that can be easily viewed on site. Analyzing
evidence of how a computer has been used, what it has been used for, and who
has used it requires considerable time, and taking that much time on premises
could be unreasonable. As explained above, because the warrant calls for forensic
electronic evidence, it is exceedingly likely that it will be necessary to thoroughly
examine storage media to obtain evidence. Storage media can store a large
volume of information. Reviewing that information for things described in the
20
warrant can take weeks or months, depending on the volume of data stored, and
would be impractical and invasive to attempt on-site.
k. Technical requirements. Computers can be configured in several different ways,
featuring a variety of different operating systems, application software, and
configurations. Therefore, searching them sometimes requires tools or knowledge
that might not be present on the search site. The vast array of computer hardware
and software available makes it difficult to know before a search what tools or
knowledge will be required to analyze the system and its data on the Premises.
However, taking the storage media off-site and reviewing it in a controlled
environment will allow its examination with the proper tools and knowledge.
l. Variety of forms of electronic media. Records sought under this warrant could be
stored in a variety of storage media formats that may require off-site reviewing
with specialized forensic tools.
41. Nature of examination. Based on the foregoing, and consistent with Rule
41(e)(2)(B), the warrant I am applying for would permit seizing, imaging, or otherwise copying
storage media that reasonably appear to contain some or all of the evidence described in the
warrant, and would authorize a later review of the media or information consistent with the
warrant. The later review may require techniques, including but not limited to computer-assisted
scans of the entire medium, that might expose many parts of a hard drive to human inspection in
order to determine whether it is evidence described by the warrant.
42. Because several people share the PREMISES as a residence, it is possible that
the PREMISES will contain storage media that are predominantly used, and perhaps owned, by
21
persons who are not suspected of a crime. If it is nonetheless determined that that it is possible
that the things described in this warrant could be found on any of those computers or storage
media, the warrant applied for would permit the seizure and review of those items as well.
Request to Use Biometric Features to Unlock a Locked Device
43. The warrant I am applying for would also permit law enforcement to obtain from
an individual the display of physical biometric characteristics (such as fingerprint, thumbprint, or
facial characteristics) in order to unlock devices subject to search and seizure pursuant to this
warrant. I seek this authority based upon the following: I know from my training, experience,
and research that encryption systems for mobile phones and other electronics protect the devices
from unauthorized users and render the contents unavailable to unregistered users. These include
one-touch encryption or deletion functions, standard screen lock with passcode, fingerprint or
facial recognition access or other features. As the electronic protections for technology become
more enhanced, the ability of law enforcement to access devices and evidence within is often
reduced.
a. I know from my training and experience, as well as from information found in
publicly available materials published by device manufacturers, that many
electronic devices, particularly newer mobile devices and laptops, offer their users
the ability to unlock the device through biometric features in lieu of a numeric or
alphanumeric passcode or password. These biometric features include fingerprint
scanners and facial recognition features. Some devices offer a combination of
these biometric features, and the user of such devices can select which features
they would like to utilize.
22
b. If a device is equipped with a fingerprint scanner, a user may enable the ability to
unlock the device through his or her fingerprints. For example, Apple offers a
feature called “Touch ID,” which allows a user to register up to five fingerprints
that can unlock a device. Once a fingerprint is registered, a user can unlock the
device by pressing the relevant finger to the device’s Touch ID sensor, which is
found in the round button (often referred to as the “home” button) located at the
bottom center of the front of the device. The fingerprint sensors found on devices
produced by other manufacturers have different names but operate similarly to
Touch ID.
c. If a device is equipped with a facial recognition feature, a user may enable the
ability to unlock the device through his or her face. For example, Apple offers a
facial recognition feature called “Face ID.” During the Face ID registration
process, the user holds the device in front of his or her face. The device’s camera
then analyzes and records data based on the user’s facial characteristics. The
device can then be unlocked if the camera detects a face with characteristics that
match those of the registered face. Facial recognition features found on devices
produced by other manufacturers have different names but operate similarly to
Face ID.
d. In my training and experience, users of electronic devices often enable the
aforementioned biometric features because they are considered to be a more
convenient way to unlock a device than by entering a numeric or alphanumeric
passcode or password. Moreover, in some instances, biometric features are
23
considered to be a more secure way to protect a device’s contents. This is
particularly true when the users of a device are engaged in criminal activities and
thus have a heightened concern about securing the contents of a device.
e. As discussed in this affidavit, based on my training and experience I believe that
one or more digital devices will be found during the search. The passcode or
password that would unlock the device(s) subject to search under this warrant is
not known to law enforcement. Thus, law enforcement personnel may not
otherwise be able to access the data contained within the device(s), making the
use of biometric features necessary to the execution of the search authorized by
this warrant.
f. I also know from my training and experience, as well as from information found
in publicly available materials including those published by device manufacturers,
that biometric features will not unlock a device in some circumstances even if
such features are enabled. This can occur when a device has been restarted,
inactive, or has not been unlocked for a certain period of time. For example,
Apple devices cannot be unlocked using Touch ID when (1) more than 48 hours
has elapsed since the device was last unlocked or (2) when the device has not
been unlocked using a fingerprint for 4 hours and the passcode or password has
not been entered in the last 156 hours. Biometric features from other brands carry
similar restrictions. Thus, in the event law enforcement personnel encounter a
locked device equipped with biometric features, the opportunity to unlock the
device through a biometric feature may exist for only a short time.
24
g. In my training and experience, the person who is in possession of a device or has
the device among his or her belongings at the time the device is found is likely a
user of the device. However, in my training and experience, that person may not
be the only user of the device whose physical characteristics are among those that
will unlock the device via biometric features, and it is also possible that the
person in whose possession the device is found is not actually a user of that
device at all. Furthermore, in my training and experience, I know that in some
cases it may not be possible to know with certainty who is the user of a given
device, such as if the device is found in a common area of a premises without any
identifying information on the exterior of the device. Thus, it will likely be
necessary for law enforcement to have the ability to require any individual, who is
found at the Subject Premises and reasonably believed by law enforcement to be a
user of the device, to unlock the device using biometric features in the same
manner as discussed above.
44. Due to the foregoing, if law enforcement personnel encounter a device that is
subject to search and seizure pursuant to this warrant and may be unlocked using one of the
aforementioned biometric features, the warrant I am applying for would permit law enforcement
personnel to (1) press or swipe the fingers (including thumbs) of any individual, who is found at
the subject premises and reasonably believed by law enforcement to be a user of the device, to
the fingerprint scanner of the device; (2) hold the device in front of the face of those same
individuals and activate the facial recognition feature, for the purpose of attempting to unlock the
device in order to search its contents as authorized by this warrant.
25
Conclusion
45. Based on the facts set forth above, your affiant respectfully submits that there is
probable cause to believe that THOMAS ROBERTSON engaged in violations of 18 U.S.C. §
922(n). Furthermore, there is probable cause that evidence, fruits and instrumentalities of these
violations (described with more specificity in Attachment B to this affidavit) are presently
located at the SUBJECT PREMISES, as depicted in Attachment A to this affidavit, including
any outbuildings, sheds, garages and/or vehicles that are on the premises.
46. Accordingly, your affiant respectfully requests that the Court issue a search
warrant pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing FBI agents
and representatives of the FBI, with assistance from representatives of other law enforcement
agencies as required, to search , Ferrum, Virginia, 24088, (more precisely
described in Attachment A), for evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities (more precisely described
in Attachment B).
Kathryn Camiliere
Special Agent
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Sworn and attested to by reliable electronic means (telephone) on June 28, 2021
Robert S. Ballou
___________________________________
HONORABLE ROBERT S. BALLOU
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
26

Robertson Jul. 2 Search Warrant Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robertson Jul. 2 Search Warrant Redacted

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Robertson Jul. 2 Search Warrant Redacted

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 7:21-mj-00083-RSB Document 5 Filed 07/02/21 Page 1 of 26 Pageid#: 71

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

IN THE MATTER OF THE SEARCH OF THE )

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR SEARCH WARRANT

forth all of my knowledge about this matter.

home and an out-building, as observed during a previously-executed search warrant (case

described in the following paragraphs and in Attachment B.

“Robertson” or “the defendant”) engaged in violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(n), and that

Attachment B), may be found at the SUBJECT PREMISES.

further described in Attachment A).

6. This investigation involves evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of offenses

the Western District of Virginia, as more fully articulated herein.

Pertinent Federal Criminal Statutes and Definitions

7. This investigation concerns alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n), which

interstate or foreign commerce.

The Pending Charges Against the Defendant

8. On January 12, 2021, a Magistrate Judge in the District of Columbia found

a. Glock 17, Serial Number ending in 064

d. Smith and Wesson, Serial Number ending in 106

f. Radical Firearms, Serial Number ending in 711

g. Springfield Armory 1903, Serial Number ending in 427

h. Hawken Rifle, Serial Number ending in 639

amounts of ammunition, as well as what appeared to be equipment used for re-loading

ammunition. It is unknown when this ammunition/re-loading equipment was shipped,

Abetting), 1752(a)(1) (Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building), 1752(a)(2) (Disorderly

Disorderly Conduct in a Capitol Building or Grounds). The violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 is a

felony offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of more than one year.

12. On February 2, 2021, Robertson appeared before Magistrate Judge Robin M.

release remain unchanged.

Evidence of Robertson’s Unlawful Post-Indictment Conduct Involving the Purchase, Sale,

Columbia issued a search warrant for Robertson’s Yahoo email account,

@yahoo.com, in case number 21-sc-552. In the course of reviewing the

15. On February 13, 2021, the @yahoo.com account received an email

designations for ammunition used in semi-automatic and automatic weapons.

17. On February 13, 2021, the @yahoo.com account replied to

@gmail.com saying “I absolutely am interested. Price and quantity?” On the same

rounds $5k shipped insured.”

18. On February 14, 2021, the @yahoo.com account replied to

19. In additional messages, the @yahoo.com account agreed to pay

Robertson, The seller then confirmed they received this

@yahoo.com account sent an email to @gmail.com saying “Venmo

that the payment was for “Wedding Photos.”

21. On February 15, 2021, the @yahoo.com account received an email

listed as February 18, 2021.

22. On February 14, 2021, “Julieann & TJ Robertson,” from the

@yahoo.com account, received an email from at

no hurry…seriously, Just looking for an update. No problem with me.”

by the U.S. military.

25. Separately, on February 2, 2021, @yahoo.com sent an email to

“ ”, @sbcglobal.net, saying “please find attached.” Attached to the

a. On May 16, 2021, Robertson ordered a “1955 Springfield Arms M1 GARAND

to an FFL. According to GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from

though Virginia was listed as the “Ship To State.”

to GunBroker.com records, this item was shipped from Hopedale, Massachusetts.

listed as the “Ship To State.”

c. On May 4, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Finnish Mosin Nagant 7.62x54R Finland”

for $800; this item was shipped to “Thomas Robertson” at ,

Ferrum, VA from Highland, California.

d. On May 3, 2021, Robertson ordered a “Finnish M39 Mosin Nagant 7.62x54R