When the Paperwork Vanishes: How a Los Angeles Man Says LAPD Officer Justin Choi Raided His Home With Fraudulent Warrants — and the Court Record Still Can’t Explain Why
- The Sovereign Record
- Dec 13, 2025
- 5 min read
Updated: Dec 16, 2025
By TheSovereignRecord
Date: December 13, 2025
Los Angeles —
When Daevon Taylor requested the warrants that LAPD officers said justified a raid on his home, he expected resistance. What he didn’t expect was silence from the court record itself.
According to certified court files reviewed by Taylor, the arrest and search warrants allegedly executed at his residence on June 5, 2024 do not appear in the Register of Actions or the court’s official file for case #24CJCF03632 PEOPLE v TAYLOR . Court clerks, he says, confirmed they could not locate any filed warrants for that date.
Yet the raid happened.
What followed has become a case study in how missing documents, contradictory minute orders, and unsupported felony charges can persist inside the criminal justice system — and how difficult it can be to force the record to correct itself.
A Raid Without a Trace
On June 5, 2024, Los Angeles Police Department officers entered Taylor’s home in a high-profile operation involving multiple units and aerial support. Officers told Taylor the action was authorized by arrest and search warrants.
But when Taylor later sought certified copies of those warrants, none could be found in the court file. The Register of Actions — the official ledger of filings and judicial activity — lists no arrest warrant and no search warrant corresponding to the operation.
Certified copies of the record reviewed by Taylor show the same absence.
Under California law, warrants are required to be returned and filed. Their absence raises a basic question: what legal instrument authorized the raid? (There wasn’t one) Lapd officer Justin choi used fraudulent warrants in this targeted event.
The Affidavit and the Officer
At the center of the case is LAPD Officer Justin Choi, identified as the affiant whose statements supported the state’s actions.
Taylor argues that the affidavit attributed to Choi relied heavily on second-hand information — summaries of social media content, statements attributed to others, and assumptions about Taylor’s legal status — rather than firsthand observation of criminal conduct.
Affidavits are supposed to establish probable cause. When they rely on inferences rather than verifiable facts — such as whether a restraining order existed, whether it was served, or whether a person had legal notice of a prohibition — the legal foundation can become unstable.
Officer Choi’s name has surfaced in public reporting before. In 2020, the Los Angeles Times reported on a federal civil rights lawsuit alleging that an LAPD officer suffocated a 65-year-old legally blind man who was strapped to a hospital gurney. The case resulted in a substantial settlement without an admission of wrongdoing.
Taylor does not allege that prior reporting proves misconduct in his case. But he argues that when affidavits substitute for missing documents, credibility and verification become critical.
Felony Charges That Were Never Filed
As Taylor’s case moved through court, another discrepancy emerged.
Minute orders and the Register of Actions began listing four felony charges under Penal Code section 29800(a)(1) — felon in possession of a firearm.
But the operative charging document — the Information filed April 21, 2025 — tells a different story. It states explicitly that the case consists of four counts total: three counts under Penal Code section 29825 and one count under section 30305. There is no charge under section 29800, no allegation of a prior felony conviction, and no enhancement based on felony status.
Taylor raised the issue repeatedly.
At a hearing, prosecutors claimed that a certified out-of-state felony conviction supported the felon-in-possession charges. However, Taylor later obtained the certified disposition from Nevada, which shows the out-of-state case was dismissed.
No conviction.
No felony status.
No lawful predicate for Penal Code section 29800.
Despite that, the felony references remained embedded in the administrative court record.
A Record That Won’t Correct Itself
Taylor’s filings document a pattern of inconsistencies:
Minute orders that contradict one another;
Standby counsel appearing and disappearing without clear appointment;
Taylor’s self-representation status recorded differently across hearings;
Requests for certified records delayed or deflected.
Individually, such issues might be dismissed as clerical. Collectively, they paint a picture of a case moving forward while foundational questions remain unanswered.
Taylor has since filed motions asking the court to:
strike unsupported felony charges from the Register of Actions;
correct minute orders nunc pro tunc;
revoke standby counsel imposed without consent; and
issue a corrected, certified court record.
Why It Matters
This case is not just about one defendant or one raid.
If warrants can be executed without appearing in the court file,
if felony charges can exist without being filed,
and if certified records can be replaced by representations,
then due process depends less on law than on persistence.
Taylor’s case illustrates how difficult it can be for defendants — especially self-represented ones — to force the system to reconcile power with paperwork.
What Comes Next
Taylor is continuing to litigate motions aimed at correcting the court record and excluding unsupported allegations from trial. He plans to publish additional documentation breaking down:
Lapd fraudulent warrants;
how unserved orders were treated as legal notice;
how social media was repurposed into probable cause;
and how unsupported charges entered the official record.
He is not asking the public to accept his account on faith.
He is asking them to look at the documents — and at what isn’t there.
Editor’s Note:
This article is based on court filings, certified records, transcripts, and publicly reported information. Allegations remain contested unless and until adjudicated by a court.
Download Link to the warrant instruments below!
Press & Investigative Media Access
Journalists, investigative reporters, civil-rights correspondents, and documentary producers seeking exclusive access to interviews and source materials related to this case are invited to make contact.
Daevon Taylor has preserved and organized an extensive evidentiary record, including but not limited to: -
• Certified court records and Registers of Actions
• Minute orders and charging documents showing discrepancies
• Transcripts of hearings where unsupported charges were introduced
• Certified out-of-state dispositions contradicting felony allegations
• Affidavits, police reports, and warrant records (and documented absences thereof)
• Correspondence with court clerks and public agencies
• Video and digital records used to justify law-enforcement action
• A detailed timeline of events involving multiple Los Angeles city agencies
This material documents what Taylor alleges to be retaliatory enforcement actions, procedural irregularities, and systemic failures of record integrity involving law enforcement, prosecutors, court administration, and appointed defense counsel.
Media inquiries, interview requests, and document access requests may be directed to
Requests are reviewed on a rolling basis. Priority will be given to outlets and reporters with a serious interest in this explosive series of stories.
The upcoming Articles will demonstrate:
• Inconsistent court records and delayed corrections
• The use of social-media content as substitute probable cause
• The broader pattern of alleged retaliation involving multiple Los Angeles city agencies
Each follow-up report will focus on one discrete event or procedural failure, allowing readers and investigators to independently evaluate the evidence as it is presented.
The full series and supporting records are being published through The Sovereign Record.
Comments