‘A091 (Rev. 11/11) Criminal Complaint AUSA Misty N. Wright (312) 886-2061 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS RECE]VED EASTERN DIVISION APR 29 2016 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NUMBER: THOMAS @ BRUTON CLERK, U8 DISTRICT COURT 16CR 28 RUBEN ANTONIO OCHOA CRUZ CRIMINAL COMPLAINT MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALDEZ I, the complainant in this case, state that the following is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, On or about April 21, 2016, at Woodridge, in the Northern District of Illinois, Bastern Division, the defendant violated: Code Section Offense Description Title 18, United States Code, Section maliciously damaged and destroyed, and 8446) attempted to damage and destroy, by means of fire, a building located at 2501 Internationale Parkway in Woodridge, Illinois, and other real and personal property used in interstate commerce ‘This criminal complaint is based upon these facts: _X_ Continued on the attached sheet, RENE MARANO Special Agent, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) Sworn to before me and signed in my presence, A . | Date: April 29, 2016 - _ “Vlew Judge's signature City and state: Chicago, linois. _ __ MARIA VALDEZ, U.S. Magistrate Judge _ Printed name and TitleUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS | “ AFFIDAVIT I, RENE MARANO, being duly sworn, state as follows: BACKGROUND OF AFFIANT 1. Tam a Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, and have been so employed for nine years. I am currently assigned to the arson section within ATF. My current responsibilities include the investigation of violent crimes, including, among others, arson affecting interstate commerce. BASIS AND PURPOSE OF AFFIDAVIT 2. This affidavit is submitted in support of a criminal complaint alleging that Ruben Antonio Ochoa Cruz has violated Title 18, United States Code, Section 844). Because this affidavit is being submitted for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause in support of a criminal complaint charging OCHOA with arson affecting interstate commerce, I have not included each and every fact known to me concerning this investigation. I have set forth only the facts that T believe are necessary to establish probable cause to believe that the defendant committed the offense alleged in the complaint. 3, This affidavit is based on my personal knowledge, experience, and training, as well as information provided to me by other law enforcement agents and witnesses.FACTS ESTABLISHING PROBABLE CAUSE The April 21, 2016 Fire at Company A’s Distribution Center 4, According to Company A, Company A operates 24 furniture showrooms and two clearance centers throughout Chicagoland and Indianapolis. Company A is headquartered in Lombard, Hlinois. Company A also operated an approximately 325,000 square foot distribution center in Woodridge Illinois. This distribution center is located at 2501 Internationale Parkway, Woodridge, Illinois. According to Company A’s management, inventory is delivered to the distribution center from furniture manufacturers located both in and outside the state of Illinois. Inventory is also shipped from the distribution center to customers both in and outside the state of Illinois. ‘As set forth in greater detail below, a fire occurred at Company A’s distribution center on April 21, 2016. According to Lemont Fire Department records, the fire alarm at the distribution center activated at approximately 4:58 p.m. that day. According to Company A, at that time, approximately 65 employees were working, all of whom escaped safely. 6. Approximately thirty fire departments responded to the fire from different municipalities. It took firefighters about seven hours to fully put out the fire. No one was injured, but the distribution center burned to the ground. Company A estimated that the fire caused millions in damage, including damage to the facility, furniture products, vehicles, machinery, electronics, and other items.7. A Certified Fire Investigator with the ATF National Response Team analyzed the April 21, 2016 fire at Company A’s distribution center and orally reported his preliminary findings to local ATF agents. He classified the fire as a “criminal act incendiary set fire.” My understanding is that this preliminary determination was based in part on the lack of competent ignition sources at the location of the fire, which originated in only one location, not multiple locations. Ochoa’s Employment at Company A’s Distribution Center 8. According to representatives of Company A, as of April 21, 2016, OCHOA had been working as a high lift operator at Company A’s distribution center for approximately seven months. This position involves operating forklifts to access eight different vertical levels of inventory, chiefly furniture, stacked on shelves in the warehouse and moving inventory where needed for shipments Information from Witness Interviews 9. On or about April 23 and 25, 2016, law enforcement interviewed Individual A, a training, safety, and inventory supervisor at Company A's distribution center. Individual A informed law enforcement that on April 21, 2016, he had a mecting with OCHOA that began at approximately 4:20 p.m. and ended approximately 15 minutes prior to the fire alarm. ‘The purpose of this meeting was to discuss OCHOA’s attendance record and determine if OCHOA had been present at work on April 11 and April 18, 2016. During the meeting, OCHOA claimed that he was present at work on both of those days. Individual A informed OCHOA that his vacation time would be reduced to account for the days that OCHOA did notreport to work, OCHOA became upset during the meeting, and a heated argument ensued, during which Individual A told OCHOA that he had enough information to terminate his employment from Company A. 10, Individual A reported that at approximately 4:30 p.m., he called Individual B, another distribution center supervisor, to his office because he became concerned that OCHOA may become physically violent. Individual B arrived in Individual A’s office, and OCHOA appeared to calm down. Individual A told OCHOA that he wanted to be fair and that before taking any action, he would review the facility’s video and check with security regarding OCHOA’S attendance. OCHOA complained that he thought his coworkers were out to get him, but Individual A assured OCHOA that that was not the case and told OCHOA that OCHOA had brought any potential discipline upon himself. 11. Individual A said that he, Individual B, and OCHOA spoke in Individual A‘s office until approximately 4:45 p.m., at which time OCHOA left Individual A’s office to return to work. After the fire alarm sounded at 4:58 p.m., Individual A walked south through the distribution center. The relevant portion of the distribution center is organized by numbered aisles that run perpendicular to a main aisle. The aisle numbers increase to the south and decrease to the north. In walking through the distribution center, Individual A met a plant supervisor around aisle 38-39. Together they continued to walk south to aisle 41-42, where Individual A saw thick smoke emanating east down the aisles. Individual A and the plant supervisor both grabbed fire extinguishers and walked down aisle 42.‘After walking a few feet, Individual A saw a yellow flashing light, which he believed to belong to a forklift. The light appeared to be on aisle 42 or 43. Individual A activated the fire extinguisher, but shortly thereafter, he decided to exit the distribution center. He performed one more walkthrough to ensure no employees remained inside before he exited the facility. 12. On or about April 23 and 26, law enforcement interviewed Individual C, a high lift operator. Individual C reported that he was in aisle 44 driving east ona forklift, when he heard a crackling noise to his left. When he looked to his left, he saw fire emanating from what appeared to be a box containing inventory. Individual C estimated the fire's location to be the north side of aisle 43 based on his view through the shelves. Individual C lowered his forklift as he was exiting aisle 44, traveled northbound, and looked down aisle 43, at which point he saw fire He proceeded to aisle 40, where he saw two fellow high lift operators on forklifts. He then proceeded north in the main aisle toward the east emergency exit. Individual C saw OCHOA running southbound toward him in the main aisle and observed OCHOA drop a blue or purple Bic lighter. Individual C then saw OCHOA turn around, pick up the lighter, and proceed to the east exit. Individual C exited the building through the east exit. 13. On or about April 23 and April 26, law enforcement interviewed the two high lift operators that Individual C saw in aisle 40. Individuals D and E each confirmed that they were in aisle 40 at the time that the fire alarm sounded. They reported seeing smoke and fire south of the aisle, in approximately aisle 42 or 43.Company A’s Records of High Lift Operators’ Scanner Usage 14. Law enforcement reviewed records maintained by Company A in a document entitled TRP Material Transaction Report. This report is generated from data collected in connection with scanners that high lift operators use in the distribution center. Operators must log in to a scanner when they arrive for their work shift. They then use the scanner to access a list of assignments for them to complete, with instructions to pick up and drop off various inventory in different aisles. Operators scan the box containing the inventory that they move as well as the shelf on which they put that inventory. The system tracks the time and location of each of these scans. 15. According to the scanner records, OCHOA scanned inventory in aisle 41 at 4:16 p.m. on April 21, 2016. His next scans occurred again on aisle 41, at 4:41 p-m., 4:42 p.m., 4:46 p.m., and 4:47 p.m. Ochoa’s Statements to Law Enforcement 16. On or about April 23, law enforcement interviewed OCHOA regarding the April 21, 2016 fire. During that interview, OCHOA stated that he was in one of the main aisles at the time the fire alarm sounded, and prior to that, he was working in aisle 53. 17. Law enforcement followed up with Individual A and Individual B on ‘April 26, 2016. Both supervisors said that on April 21, 2016, they did not send OCHOA to aisle 53, which is outside the normal area in which OCHOA works.18. With the assistance of Company A’s management, law enforcement set up a meeting with OCHOA for April 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m. at the site of the fire. At approximately 10:00 a.m. on that date, OCHOA and his cousin, who drove OCHOA, arrived at the site. OCHOA and his cousin voluntarily followed law enforcement in the cousin's vehicle to the ATF office in Downers Grove, Illinois. 19. Once at the ATF office, starting at approximately 11:00 a.m, two agents separately conducted audio-recorded interviews of OCHOA. A Spanish speaking detective was also present and translated during both interviews. ‘Throughout the interviews, OCHOA spoke in both English and Spanish. During that interview with the first agent, OCHOA again stated that he had been working in aisle 53 prior to the fire alarm. He told law enforcement he was in aisle 53 to get a table for a coworker, Individual F. Law enforcement then contacted Individual F, who told them that he was “100% sure” he did not ask OCHOA to go to aisle 53 on April 21, 2016. He told law enforcement that he did not see OCHOA that day until after the fire alarm, at which time Individual F observed OCHOA playing cards outside the building. 20. Shortly before noon, OCHOA was read his Miranda rights in Spanish and signed a written waiver of those rights. OCHOA initially denied having set the fire. Law enforcement confronted OCHOA with the evidence of his location from Company A’s scanner data, among other evidence. OCHOA then stated the following, In the afternoon on April 21, 2016, he was called for a meeting with Individual A regarding his attendance. Afterward, he went back to his forklift withhis scanner to resume work. He believed he was in approximately aisle 40 or 41 He was “picking high,” meaning he was working with inventory located high on the shelves, about seven levels up on the shelves, eight being the maximum height. He took a packing slip from an item on the shelves, took out a blue Bie lighter, and lit the corner of the piece of paper. He remembered when he lit the piece of paper, he was in the same aisle in which he had been working. He dropped the paper to the right of the forklift. Specifically, OCHOA stated: “I see a little bit of fire and then I throw it,” referring to the piece of paper. OCHOA further reported that after he lit the fire, he backed out of the aisle on his forklift and went to aisle 58 and then aisle 32, one of the main aisles. The fire alarm sounded shortly thereafter. 21. When asked why he started the fire, OCHOA said that he knew the hours that Individual A confronted him about were actually correct, and “they [management] always pushing me.” He stated that he lit the fire in order to get rid of the tension or stress and calm down.CONCLUSION 22. Based on the above information, I respectfully submit that there is probable cause to believe that RUBEN ANTONIO OCHOA CRUZ has committed arson affecting interstate commerce, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 844(i). FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT. RENE MARANO Special Agent, Bureau of Aleohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on April 29, 2016. MARIA VALDEZ United States Magistrate Judge 9