#25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari

[QuentinDeLaVentura]

- - - - -

---

• ---

  DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE

  ---

  Esteemed Court and Prosecution,
  
  First, the Summary Judgement per the Honorable Court has already been granted, and thus, any initial arguments should have been presented prior to ruling. The Defense would like to note, on the record that the Prosecution’s so-called initial arguments appear procedurally misplaced. Any supporting argument or evidence intended to meet the burden of proof should have been presented in the motion itself, prior to the Court's ruling; the same principle should be applied to any reiteration presented post-ruling, albeit framed as subsequent justification, particularly once the motion has, to our understanding, already been granted.
  
  However, in the event that the Honorable Court is treating this as ruling justification or the like, the Defense humbly asks that this filing not be considered a continuation of active argument.
  
  In the event of this being treated as potential mitigation towards an uninformed or unnuanced decision or verdict, the Defense humbly submits the following as rebuttal to the Prosecution’s filing:
  
  FIRST, the Defendant, Mr. Jafaari, was a taxi driver, and had a meeting with Downtown Cab & Co., as confirmed by Joshua Fellows, whom he had a meeting with. The defense would like to bring forth Defense Exhibit A, a written statement from Mr. Fellows:
  
  Defense Exhibit A: Written statement from Mr. Joshua Fellows (dated 07/APR/2025)

  Command
  Re: Regarding Mr. Rashood Jafaari
  DowntownCabCompany.com
  07/Apr/2025

  ---

  • 
    
    Greetings Quentin Delaventura Esq,
    
    I can confirm that shortly after the incident, Rashood Jafaari did indeed report to myself and another employee this situation regarding his Taxi Cab being damaged whilst at Burgershot. Whilst I cannot confirm the details of the exact situation around the scene. I can state that he would have had a meeting with myself and another Command Member for approximately 30 minutes or so whilst we had a discussion with him regarding several misconducts about his performance within DCC. Hopefully this helps with your query.
    
    

  • Kind regards,
    Joshua Fellows
    General Manager
    Downtown Cab Co.

  Mr. Fellows, in response to our enquiry, states that Mr. Jafaari was indeed in a meeting with him, for about 30 minutes, shortly after the BurgerShot incident. This directly contradicts the prosecution's narrative of the two incidents being 'mere minutes' apart, and thus, Mr. Jafaari could not possibly have been located at Mission Row forthe initial incident referred to as the foundation of Mr. Butoslav's so-called investigation and motive to arrest the defendant.
  Shortly after the meeting with the DCC, according to Mr. Jafaari himself, he then went to Mission Row. He had been told about tickets he had accrued over his time with DCC, which is confirmed by Mr. Fellows’ final comment in his statement: “… whilst we had a discussion with him regarding several misconducts about his performance within DCC”.
  
  This has also been confirmed by Mr. Jafaari himself, who will gladly attest to this in writing, should the Court deem so necessary, as putting him on the witness stand is not an option in this bench trial.
  
  The Defense now turns the Court's attention to Mr. Butoslav, and the Prosecution's narrative. The Defense is well aware of Mr. Butoslavs name change to Ace Hawkins, but will, in an attempt to avoid unnecessary confusion, refer to him as Mr. Butoslav.
  
  Mr. Butoslav in his witness testimony stated the presence of Captain Mike Luigi at the police station at the time of the incident in which Mr. Jafaari allegedly uttered criminal threats. If Mr. Butoslav already spoke to Mr. Luigi, why not inform him of these criminal threats? Is the slogan of the LSPD not to “protect and serve”?
  
  The prosecution’s narrative here has been that he drove off so quickly that Mr. Butoslav, off-duty, simply could not keep up. He could not follow a taxi. Had it truly been a problem, and something that did occur, the LSPD are able to simply reach out to the DCC and explain what happened. They should be able to see, on their dashcams, who drove which car, and when this instance occurred. Per operational policy, vehicles belonging to Downtown Cab & Co. are equipped with dashcams that are mandatory to have activated while on duty. Had the LSPD been properly investigating a case involving Mr. Jafaari or another employee at the company, the LSPD could reasonably at the very least request access to said footage.
  
  Per Mr. Butoslav's own testimony, however, no such request was made. No further action was taken. Not only did he not pursue the matter since the alleged incident, but he only did so once the Defendant visited Mission Row of his own accord.
  
  When Mr. Jafaari presented himself at Mission Row and had already identified himself to other officers on the scene, as part of his enquiry about his outstanding tickets, Mr. Butoslav, armed and now on-duty, confronted the defendant with “You do know I can arrest you for criminal threats” - and "I have you on bodycam footage saying that you will "just shoot them then"", as seen between 0:23 and 0:55 in the Prosecution's Exhibit 3.
  
  In his own witness testimony, under oath, Mr. Butoslav clearly states this footage never existed, stating he "had no bodycam on, unfortunately". Thus, the Defense believes the arresting officer’s testimony and credibility rightfully should be put under scrutiny. There are only two possible outcomes here, given that he is a sworn officer, and - at the time - a third rank Police Officer:
  
  1. He knowingly lied to my defendant, knowing my defendant was not acting with hostile intent, and in the presence of two other armed officers of the law, possibly assuming he could pressure him into regurgitating what he, Mr. Butoslav, believed happened as fact
  2. His memory failed him, and his witness testimony should thus be put into question and under scrutiny, similarly to how he believed my client was the same person from before, despite no proof other than his memory, which as proven above, has been found to be inconsistent
  
  FINALLY, in the witness testimony, Mr. Butoslav mentions that "Rashood Jafaari was loud and visibly upset throughout the whole investigation."
  
  I humbly ask: if any of you were, on no legal grounds, questioned, and even accused of committing a crime, would you not be upset? Mr. Jafaari conducted himself as I believe any other person would. ‘Loud’ is subjective. He did not swear, he did not attempt assault, he did not provoke anyone. The first thing the officer tells him, per the footage put forth in evidence by the prosecution, is "You know I can arrest you for criminal threats". This is while he is talking to three armed officers inside Mission Row, which, as you can imagine, for a humble citizen such as Mr. Jafaari, is no usual occurence. As a matter of fact, until now, Mr. Jafaari has been on the right side of the law, and he hopes you, Your Honor, will see that this time, that, too, was the case.
  
  Respectfully, the Defense submits this response for the Honorable Court's consideration,
  

---

• Best regards,
  
  Quentin Delaventura Esq.
  "Your Voice, My Win"
  (702) 395-6394
  [email protected]
  
  Assured Services
  Attorney at Law, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Final Arguments

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
#25-BT-0019

Final arguments were filed in the above case on the 14th of June, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents its initial arguments for the Summary Judgment;

• The Prosecution will not touch on the Defense's lack of understanding of how to correctly proceed with a granted Summary Judgment. It will also not touch on counsel's lack of respect in addressing Detective Hawkins by their respective rank and current name, as is befitting for an individual serving in one of the state's law enforcement agencies. It will, however, touch on the attempt at introducing new evidence at this stage of the proceedings. Evidence cannot be introduced outside of a Motion for Discovery, and certainly not in the middle of arguments. The email provided is also not admissible as a valid witness statement, as the statement lacks the witness affirmation required for statements to be admissible as evidence. Furthermore, the evidence is wholly irrelevant, as whatever may or may not have happened at Burgershot prior to the encounter with Detective Hawkins has no bearing on the defendant's choice not to comply with the detective's order to identify at Mission Row. The Prosecution urges the court not to consider any of the Defense's arguments pertaining to the email statement from Mr. Joshua Fellows.
  
  Additionally, while the exact timeline of events have not been established, the Defense contesting that the defendant "could not possibly have been located at Mission Row forthe initial incident", the Prosecution did not refer to the timespan between the two events as between the incident at Burgershot and the encounter with Detective Hawkins, but rather the time between the two encounters between the defendant and the detective. However, the Prosecution will stipulate that the exact time between these two encounters has also not been established.
  
  The presence of then-Captain Mike Luigi at Mission Row has no bearing on Detective Hawkins' actions, nor should it. While now-Deputy Chief Luigi has seniority over Detective Hawkins, they are exactly that - a detective, able to conduct their own investigations as permitted by their rank authority. The detective's statement also only references the then-captain as "in the station", not being present during the initial encounter between the detective and the defendant, clearly inferring that the then-captain was simply somewhere at the Mission Row police station and not with the detective and defendant during the encounter. There has also not been presented any evidence that the defendant did in fact identify to other officers while at Mission Row, nor are any other officers mentioned in any of the evidence, except for then-Captain Luigi.
  
  The matter to be argued in this case is not whether or not Detective Hawkins pursued all avenues available in their investigation, but whether or not the detective's arrest of the defendant, based on a failure to comply with a lawful order pertaining to an investigation, fulfilled legal requirements for a lawful order issued during an investigation by a law enforcement officer.
  
  The Prosecution has argued the events to be as follows: Detective Hawkins, while not on duty, encounters the defendant, parked in the emergency-vehicle-only bay at Mission Row, in want of help regarding a previous situation at Burgershot; the defendant is referred to file a crime report online on the government website. The defendant, clearly not impressed with this referral, shouts "What the fuck am I supposed to do with a crime report" and "I'll just shoot them then.", before driving off, having acted disorderly by disturbing the peace with excessive noise and inferring unlawful harassment of their supposed attackers while having obstructed a section of the emergency-vehicle-only bay at the police station. Detective Hawkins, now on duty, then encounters the defendant once more at Mission Row, now inside the lobby, where they request the defendant's ID due to the investigation of their previous encounter; the defendant responds with "no thank you". The detective then again requests to see the defendant's ID, issuing it as a lawful order; the defendant responds with "for what reason, I didn't do anything", and still not following the detective's order to identify. The detective then places the defendant in cuffs and arrest them.
  
  It is clear from the evidence that the defendant acted in an unrly and disturbing manner at Mission Row when first meeting Detective Hawkins, and later refused to comply with the detective's order to identify when encountering them again. As such, the defendant should be found guilty of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, as well as GC03 - Disorderly Conduct.

Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
#25-BT-0019

A decision was reached in the above case on the 11th of July, 2025.

Before moving into the verdict, this Court wanted to remind all parties that respect should always be maintained and shown to both sides. The unnecessary bickering in the openings of the recent arguments do nothing to help the case progress or serve in the interests of either parties. This Court will handle any procedural issues with the appropriate party as and when it sees fit and apply a level of leniency as and when it sees fit also. In this particular case, the prosecution was following the orders of this Court as directed.

Following the approved Motion of Summary Judgement, this Court has reviewed the facts of the case. In review of the facts, it has been established that the defendant engaged in a conversation within the lobby of the Mission Row Police Station with several officers, of which one was the charging Officer in this case, now-Detective Hawkins.

In this moment Detective Ace Hawkins alleges that he is attempting to investigate the alleged crime of GM13 - Criminal Threats. However the court finds that the singular statement of "I'll just shoot them then," does not rise to the level of necessary investigation. Especially when conjoined with the mitigating factors of A. the little-to-no prior criminal record of the defendant, B. the community supporting job he was in at the time (DCC), and C. the frustration of the individual due to a lack of immediate aid from law enforcement.

Additionally, GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify requires that a command be lawful and an investigation to be present in order to be applicable. Given the context of the situation, the court deems the request for identification to not be required as it was not in connection with any articulated on-going investigation.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Rashood Jafaari, not guilty.
• On the count of GC03 - Disorderly Conduct, I find the defendant, Rashood Jafaari, not guilty.

The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $30,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]

On behalf of


Associate Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]