#25-BT-0020 State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

[Piper Johnson]

Defendant Name: Ollie Weeks
Defendant Phone: 250-5730
(( Defendant Discord: Koji1602 ))
(( Defendant Timezone: EST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 18/MAR/2025 22:27
Charge(s):

• GM12 - Giving False Information to a Police Officer
• NM04 - Stalking of a Gov. Employee

Narrative:
I believe our client was wrongfully charged.

---

I, Piper Johnson, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Sayaka Yukimura]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 23rd day of Month, 2025.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the bench trial court system operates off a time-slot scheduling system. Please look out for notifications from either the courts or your attorney in regards to scheduling your bench trial.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Sayaka Yukimura]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 23rd day of March, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Defendant is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 7 days.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes to dispute more than just misdemeanor charges or desires a more in-depth examination of the case, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 30th of March, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Ollie Weeks, 18/MAR/2025

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Ollie Weeks
      Phone Number: 2505730
      Licenses Suspended: No
      Officers Involved:
      • Deputy Chief Jessica Nash
      • Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash
      • Police Officer III Elijah Allen
      • Police Officer I Max Finnegan
      Charges:
      • NM04 - Stalking of a Gov. Employee
      • GM13 - Criminal Threats of a Gov. Employee
      • GM12 - Giving False Information to a Police Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 18/MAR/2025
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • At approximately 9:30PM 18/03/2025, Deputy Chief Jessica & Jaxon Nash were patrolling through Benny's Autos when they began to respond to a call, as they exited the alley way, a tan and camoflage Kamacho sped after them, following them for 3 blocks before peeling off. Commander Nash noticed this but didn't think more of it, however, upon charging her phone, she had recieved an "AIRDROP" (An image sent via connecting phones).
        Image Recieved

        
        Chief Nash called this in over the radio, asking units to be on the look out for the Kamacho. OfficeR Mark Payne called the location of this vehicle out a few moments later, being at Alta near the clothing store. Then another 2-3 minutes later Officer Max Finnigan stated he had recieved the same airdrop image and had seen the Kamacho.
        
        Luckily, Officer Payne had gotten the R.O of the vehicle via the plate, and it was "Ollie Weeks".
        
        Chief Nash's headed to the known HQ of Shadows and found the Kamacho out back, so decided to conduct and investigation with backup units along side GND. 3x individuals stood out back in the typical "Shadows" outfit and mask, however all were identified and Mr Weeks was present.
        
        He was detained and his rights read and asked where he had been today. He stated he had been to Bayview and the bank and then to where he was in the moment. He was asked if he was sure he had been no-where else, he said yes. He was asked if the Kamacho had been in his posession the whole time, he said yes, he was sure. He was arrested for giving false information.
        Upon running her hands down his exterior, Chief Nash felt no weapons but a phone. This was removed and placed into Commander Nashes hand. The home screen lit up with a default background and a lock. Commander Nash took her phone and attempted to Airdrop an image from her phone, looking for nearby devices. The only device present was the same ID as the phone that had originally airdropped the threatening messages.
        
        Mr. Weeks denied this. He also denied involvement in the shadows gang and any recent vandilising of private owned properties.
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Possessions:
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: 1x Radio
        Exhibit B: 1x Gloves
        Exhibit C: 3x Photos
        Exhibit D: 4x Masks
        Exhibit E: 1x GPS
        Exhibit F: 1x Necklace
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief of Police Jaxon Nash

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 18/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Jaxon Nash
    Date of Birth: Redacted
    Phone Number: Redacted
    Occupation: Deputy Chief, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • While patrolling our unit STAFF-10 was at Benny's speaking with some of the employees. While there a pursuit was called in, we joined the pursuit and as we left Benny's we both noticed a camo colored Kamacho leave and head the same direction as us. The pursuit ended at Azteca Tunnel just east of Benny's. As we were there with the scene, my partner Deputy Chief Jessica Nash received an "airdrop" of a picture. Stating we are watching.
    
    The Kamacho was called out for officers to keep an eye out for, at which point Officer Payne gathered the RO and last known area (Alta Clothing). However the vehicle left before it could be stopped.
    
    A short time later another Officer received the same message of the same picture. Again the same Kamacho was seen in the area. Since myself and Deputy Chief Je. Nash knew of the affiliation of Mr. Weeks and the usual hangout we headed that way where we once again found the Kamacho in the parking lot and Mr. Weeks near it.
    
    Mr. Weeks was detained, mirandized and searched. He was questioned at the time without requesting a lawyer about his whereabouts which he stated he had been to Bayview, Bank and back to the location we found him. He was asked if he was sure those where the only places. He once again confirmed. At this point Mr. Weeks phone was located and Deputy Chief Je. Nash then sent an airdrop to Mr. Weeks phone to see if the ID's matched the airdrop sent to Deputy Chief Je. Nash and Officer Finnegan.
    
    Upon inspection the phone ID's matched. At this time Mr. Weeks requested an attorney. All actions stopped upon the request and he was taken to MRPD holding cells for an attorney to come speak to him.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jaxon Nash, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    
    Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash
    Los Santos Police Department
    Date: 25/MAR/2025

  

• Exhibit #3: Witness statement - Police Officer Max Finnegan

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 18/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Max Finnegan
    Date of Birth: 02/JUL/1996
    Phone Number: 2115436
    Occupation: Police Officer I, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • On the 18th of March, Deputy Chief Jessica Nash transmitted through radio that she got a picture airdropped saying "We are watching" and said to be on the lookout for a camouflaged Kamacho that was seen in the area before the image was airdropped. Shortly after, I was patrolling on Lower Power Street and then towards the clothing store below bank, that's where I received a notification on my phone, which was the same picture that Deputy Chief Nash got, airdropped as well. I noticed the same Kamacho following me before the image was airdropped and I transmitted the event on the radio, letting everyone know. After a while, Deputy Chief Nash transmitted over the radio that she found the Kamacho at a known area where Shadows usually meet or group up and called for more backup to be present on scene. Before I got the image airdropped Officer Payne had gotten the R.O of the vehicle via the plate, and it was "Ollie Weeks". He was at the location and got momentarily detained, mirandarised, searched and questioned about the previous episode. Mrs. Nash checked if Ollie's airdrop ID would match with the one that we both received when we got the picture airdropped and as a result, it did match. After that Ollie got charged accordingly and transported to DOC for the final arresting procedure.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Max Finnegan, affirm that the above statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. I affirm that this statement has been made voluntarily, made without promise of reward, and made not under threat, force, or coercion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
    
    Signed,
    
    Max Finnegan
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 25/MAR/2025

  

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

[Piper Johnson]

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

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 19th day of April, 2025.

Defendant, Ollie Weeks, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Selective Statements
  
  • Detailed Reasoning:

    as they (Deputy Chief Jessica & Jaxon Nash) exited the alley way, a tan and camoflage Kamacho sped after them, following them for 3 blocks before peeling off

    There is no identification of the driver or occupants of the vehicle at this time. The statement is speculative and creates a prejudicial narrative without evidentiary support, as no officer could confirm Mr. Weeks was operating or even present in the Kamacho during this incident.

    upon charging her phone, she had received an ‘AIRDROP’ (An image sent via connecting phones).

    This lacks critical detail such as the timestamp of receipt, proximity confirmation, or forensic validation linking the airdrop to Mr. Weeks. Airdrops can only occur within specific technical conditions (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi + close proximity). Without proving those conditions at the time of the event, the evidence is speculative and not admissible to prove intent or authorship.

    The only device present was the same ID as the phone that had originally airdropped the threatening messages.

    This is a conclusion without proper evidentiary or forensic backing. The phone's Airdrop ID "matching" could be due to cloned device names or mistaken interpretation. No evidence was provided of the alleged match itself, nor was the Airdrop ID documented in any report or attached as part of discovery.

    He was asked if the Kamacho had been in his possession the whole time, he said yes… He was arrested for giving false information.

    Mr. Weeks saying the Kamacho had been in his possession isn’t clearly false - especially since "possession" can also mean he owned it, not that he was driving it at the time. Nowhere in the evidence does it say that Mr. Weeks was actually seen operating the vehicle during any of the events in question. The arrest seems to be based on the assumption that because he owns the Kamacho, he must've been driving it, but there's no proof of that, which makes the charge of giving false information unsupported.
    
    Exhibit #2: Witness Statement by Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash
    Requested Evidence to Suppress: Selective Statements
    
    • Detailed Reasoning:

      Again the same Kamacho was seen in the area. Since myself and Deputy Chief Je. Nash knew of the affiliation of Mr. Weeks and the usual hangout…

      This relies on prior alleged “affiliations” rather than direct evidence. It promotes guilt by association, which is both prejudicial and not directly probative of Mr. Weeks’ involvement. “Seen in the area” is vague and does not establish that Mr. Weeks was driving or even present near the vehicle at the time.

      Deputy Chief Je. Nash then sent an airdrop to Mr. Weeks phone to see if the ID’s matched the airdrop sent…

      This procedure lacks chain-of-custody integrity - there’s no clear, documented process showing:
      • When the phone was taken from Mr. Weeks,
      • Who had it at all times afterward, and
      • How the officers determined the Airdrop ID "match" (and whether that process was secure, accurate, and unaltered).
      The officers basically went straight from taking the phone to saying it matched, without showing any clear or documented process. And since the phone was still locked when they did this, it brings up serious questions about privacy and due process.
      • Exhibit #3: Witness Statement by Officer Max Finnegan
        Requested Evidence to Suppress: Selective Statements
        
        Detailed Reasoning:

        I noticed the same Kamacho following me before the image was airdropped…

        This assertion is ambiguous and lacks objective confirmation (e.g., dashcam, bodycam, plate confirmation). Additionally, it doesn't line up with the other reports - Exhibit #1 and #2 both mention the Kamacho being seen in different spots like Alta near the clothing store, Azteca Tunnel, and later at Shadows HQ. With all these conflicting locations, it's hard to tell where the vehicle actually was, which makes the claim unreliable.

        Deputy Chief Nash transmitted over the radio that she found the Kamacho at a known area where Shadows usually meet…

        This is making Mr. Weeks look guilty just by suggesting he might be part of a gang without any proof. There's no evidence showing he's a member of "Shadows", and no evidence that he was even wearing their clothing. Bringing this up paints him in a bad light for no real reason and unfairly links him to criminal activity.

        Mrs. Nash checked if Ollie's airdrop ID would match with the one that we both received… and as a result, it did match.

        Same as noted above. No objective, technical verification was provided. A "match" is vague without data, timestamps or forensic analysis. This gives a misleading impression of conclusive identification when none really exists.
      The exhibits presented against Mr. Ollie Weeks contain conflicting accounts, vague identifications, and speculative associations that fail to establish probable cause. Key evidence (the airdropped image and claims of vehicle presence) lacks forensic verification, clear timestamps, or direct identification linking Mr. Weeks to the alleged conduct. Furthermore, the introduction of emotionally charged but unverified image (“WE ARE WATCHING”) invites prejudice without satisfying evidentiary standards. These exhibits attempt to substitute suspicion for direct evidence and should be excluded under the principles of due process and relevance, as outlined by evidentiary rules and the Fifth Amendment.
      
      ((I'd also like to clarify how exactly Airdrop works on the server. Is it meant to represent some kind of advanced in-game technology to some of the phones, or maybe the picture was actually sent through Discord? Of course, if it was sent via Discord, that would make it an OOC matter and shouldn't be considered as part of an IC case.))
      
      
      Lead Defense Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

[Piper Johnson]

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

---

SUBPOENA REQUEST

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

A Subpoena Request was filed in the above case on the 19th of April, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, respectfully requests the issuance of a subpoena for the following documents and/or testimony:

• Documents/Information Requested: Bodycam Footage from the following officers present at the scene:
  • Deputy Chief Jessica Nash
  • Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash
  • Police Officer III Elijah Allen
  • Police Officer I Max Finnegan
    
    • Purpose/Reasoning for Subpoena: The requested bodycam footage is necessary to establish an accurate and unbiased account of the events leading up to and including the detainment and arrest of my client, Ollie Weeks, on March 18, 2025. As the charges involve alleged stalking and providing false information, the bodycam footage from the officers involved is crucial in assessing whether my client was directly observed operating the vehicle in question, participating in any threatening behavior, or providing false statements.
      
      Currently, the only evidence linking my client to the alleged crimes comes from contradictory and speculative officer statements, none of which directly identify him as operating the Kamacho or sending the Airdrop message. The bodycam footage will clarify the timeline, interactions, and conduct of all parties involved, and determine whether my client's rights were respected during questioning, particularly regarding the handling of his locked phone. This evidence is essential for ensuring due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments, and to challenge any unfounded assumptions drawn in the absence of verifiable documentation. Access to this footage is necessary for a fair and complete defense.
  
  
  
  Lead Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 20th of April, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection and requests the following motion(s) to be denied;

• Motion being objected to: Defense's recent Motion to Suppress
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: The Defense filed a Motion to Suppress on the 19th of April in response to a Motion for Discovery posted by the Prosecution on the 30th of March. This is a lapse in time of 20 days. The regularly allotted time for responses to motions and other similar docket notices is three (3) days, not weeks. There has been no indication from the Defense that they needed additional time to respond, no continuances filed. The Prosecution is objecting to the entirety of the Motion to Suppress for being filed so far outside the scope of regular filing. In addition, the Prosecution requests that we be permitted two (2) days to respond to the Defense's motion if the presiding judge should rule against this objection, as that would be the remaining time for the Prosecution to originally respond to the motion at the time of filing this objection.

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

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 20th of April, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #4: Airdrop ID comparison

  * attached would be a copy of the airdrop ID from which Jessica Nash received the image, and a copy of the airdrop ID of the defendant Ollie Weeks' phone; the two IDs would match
  (( ))

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

[Sayaka Yukimura]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A decision was reached in the above case on the 30th day of May, 2025.

The court will be denying this subpoena and request that the defense re-file this as a motion to compel discovery, as officer bodycam is something that the defense does not need a subpoena to obtain. Prosecution is encouraged to obtain this material in preparation for the proper motion.

The with regards to the objection of timeliness of the suppression motion, given the standard for bench trials is 30 days, the court will be considering the suppression motion in full after prosecution has its now traditional 7 days to respond, and the three days for either side to keep responding to each other.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Piper Johnson]

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

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 1st of June, 2025.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Compel Discovery, and requests as follows;

• Requested Discovery: Bodycam footage from the following officers present at the scene:
  • Deputy Chief Jessica Nash
    Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash
    Police Officer III Elijah Allen
    Police Officer I Max Finnegan
  • Detailed Reasoning: The requested bodycam footage is necessary to establish an accurate and unbiased account of the events leading up to and including the detainment and arrest of Mr. Ollie Weeks on March 18, 2025. Given the nature of the charges, involving alleged stalking and providing false information, this footage is critical to determine whether the defendant was directly observed operating the vehicle in question or engaging in any threatening behavior. The footage is also essential to assess whether Mr. Weeks’s rights were respected during questioning, particularly regarding the handling of his locked phone. The prosecution’s case currently rests on contradictory and speculative officer statements without direct evidence. Access to this footage is necessary to ensure due process and provide a fair and complete defense.

Lead Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 3rd of June, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Counsel unavailable
  • Detailed Explanation: Counsel will be unavailable for the majority of this week due to outside commitments. As such, the Prosecution requests that an additional three (3) days be added, giving a new deadline of June 9th to provide a rebuttal to the Defense's Motion to Suppress.

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

[Terence Williams]

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

---

Rebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 8th of June, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents a rebuttal to the recent Motion to Suppress;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Ollie Weeks, 18/MAR/2025
  Regarding prejudicial narrative in quote 1
  The quoted segment of the exhibit is neither speculative nor prejudicial, but a simple recollection of events giving context to the situation. The quoted segment should not be suppressed as it is nothing but narration, and the grounds for suppression presented by the Defense are not valid as reasons for suppression, but should rather be brought up at trial during cross-examination.
  
  Regarding speculation in quote 2
  The evidence in Exhibit #4 provides timestamps for receipt of the airdrop as 2212 on the 18th of March, 2025.
  
  Regarding lack of foundation in quote 3
  The evidence in Exhibit #4 provides a match between the sender of the airdrop and the defendant's phone. There is no evidence to indicate that the defendant's phone was not the phone from which the airdrop was sent.
  
  Regarding quote 3
  The question of "possession" clearly refers to being present with the vehicle, and the fact that the defendant stated they had only been to Bayview, the main bank, and their current location was clearly misleading as the vehicle had been spotted at other locations throughout the city.

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief of Police Jaxon Nash
  Regarding quote 1
  Whether or not "seen in the area" is vague, the statement provides context to the narrative and simply describes the officers' observations.
  
  Addtionally, the Prosecution will officially request the presiding judge to confirm the defendant's criminal affiliation with law enforcement.
  
  Regarding chain of custody in quote 2
  The arrest report in Exhibit #1 clearly details how Commander Jessica Nash removed the phone from the defedant's possession during their arrest and after having their rights read. While locked, a phone is still able to receive airdrop notifications from others on the homescreen, which is what happened in this situation. As described in Exhibit #4, the ID of the defendant's phone matched with the ID of the phone which sent the original airdrop to Commander Nash. Additionally, there is no evidence provided to indicate that the phone had been in possession by anyone but the defendant at any point in time during the incident.

• Exhibit #3: Witness statement - Police Officer Max Finnegan
  Regarding quote 1
  As stated in the arrest report in Exhibit #1 and the witness statement in Exhibit #2, officers had been told to keep an eye out for the Kamacho in question, a request available to officers through the BOLO (abbreviation for be on the lookout), which would have given details of the vehicle to officers, including Officer Finnegan. It is not unreasonable to believe that the vehicle would have been spotted at different locations, such as the clothing store on Hawick Avenue, as the vehicle had already been reported at a number of locations, and vehicles are a means of transportation to take you from one place to another.
  
  Regarding quote 2
  The witness is simply stating the vehicle as having been found at a certain location. The statement is not a reference of guilt, but simply a recollection of events and part of the circumstances that eventually led to the defendant's arrest, not the sole reason.
  
  Regarding quote 3
  The evidence in Exhibit #4 provides a match between the sender of the airdrop and the defendant's phone.

The exhibits presented against the defendant contain evidence of an ongoing investigation and the various steps the led to the defendant's arrest, including the registration of their vehicle, their presence at the location of a known criminal organization with direct ties to the airdropped image, and the match of the airdrop ID between the sender and the defendant's phone. The evidence is entirely probative and does nothing but provide a narrative and factual presentation of events.

((As can be seen in the in Exhibit #4, the airdrop was RPed by the defendant sending an /ldo to another player and putting an imgur link in said /ldo. The defendant started the RP themselves, and later agreed to the RP provided by other players when RPly comparing the airdrop ID.))



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

[Piper Johnson]

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

---

Surrebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A Surrebuttal was filed in the above case on the 11th of June, 2025

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Surrebuttal;

Exhibit #1 – Arrest Report

While Exhibit #1 references Officer Payne identifying Mr. Weeks as the registered owner of a Kamacho, this alone does not prove that the specific Kamacho seen at multiple locations throughout the day was the same vehicle, nor does it establish who was operating it. The absence of bodycam footage or any demonstrative evidence leaves a critical evidentiary gap that prevents the Defense from verifying the legitimacy of the claims or challenging the alleged sequence of events. Without this foundational evidence, the Prosecution’s case remains speculative.

While the Prosecution cites a matching Airdrop ID and timestamp, this alone does not confirm authorship. Someone else could have had physical access to the device at the time, or could have spoofed the device name. Without device-level forensic analysis (such as user activity logs, unlock history, or metadata confirming who operated the phone) there is no definitive link between Mr. Weeks and the image transmission.

((Additionally, we note that this identification relies in part on an OOC agreement between players. The Airdrop match was confirmed via /do responses rather than through IC digital forensics. We trust the Court to decide whether this OOC information should be considered, but emphasize that IC consequences must rest on IC standards of proof, and OOC acknowledgments should not substitute for proper evidentiary procedures.))

On the claim of giving false information, the term "possession" is imprecise without clarification. Stating that the Kamacho was "in his possession" doesn't mean Mr. Weeks was driving it during the incident, especially absent direct visual identification or surveillance. Possession of a registered vehicle is not equivalent to control at the time of the event, and charging him with GM12 without clear contradiction introduces an unfair assumption. Notably, the Prosecution does not claim, nor can they show, that Mr. Weeks was ever seen inside or operating the Kamacho. This lack of evidence further undermines the basis for the charge and reinforces the idea that the evidence provided is not enough to support the charge.

Exhibit #2 – Statement of Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash

The Defense maintains that reference to Mr. Weeks's "affiliation" with Shadows, with no corresponding evidence, no clothing or gang registry, is highly prejudicial and inadmissible. The Prosecution attempts to soften this by calling it ''context,'' but context that misrepresents character or infers criminal association without proof is more prejudicial than probative.

Regarding the Airdrop procedure, the Prosecution still fails to explain how the device was authenticated. No screenshots, logs, or chain-of-custody documentation have been submitted. The phone was allegedly locked during the process. The burden lies with the Prosecution to show that identification via Airdrop ID was done under secure, verifiable, and properly documented conditions. The absence of technical evidence documenting how the ID ''matched'' further supports exclusion.

Exhibit #3 – Statement of Officer Max Finnegan

The Defense maintains that multiple locations being cited (Alta, Shadows HQ, Azteca Tunnel) with no consistent timeline weakens the integrity of these claims. The Prosecution argues that vehicles are mobile, but fails to provide dashcam or visual verification that it was in fact my clients Kamacho in each instance, or that Mr. Weeks was operating it.

Reference to Shadows HQ, without establishing Mr. Weeks as a member, is improper character inference and assumes facts not in evidence.

Exhibit #4 – Airdrop ID Comparison

((Same as the above - we trust the Court to decide whether this OOC information should be considered, but IC consequences cannot rest entirely on OOC confirmations without bridging them via proper IC forensic procedures. ))

A match in device ID, especially in the absence of an unlocked phone or documented activity, cannot serve as concrete evidence of authorship or criminal intent.

Furthermore, the Airdrop match confirms only that the device was capable of sending the image. It does not confirm that Mr. Weeks sent it, that he was in possession of the phone at the time, or that the transmission was intentional or malicious. These are critical missing links that keep this evidence speculative and insufficient to support criminal allegations.

Conclusion:

The Defense maintains that the exhibits rely too much on assumptions, unclear observations, and weak technical evidence. No officer can confirm that Mr. Weeks operated the Kamacho at the time of the incidents, nor that he personally sent the airdrop image.
Critically, the charge of stalking, and any similar allegation such as harassment, requires repeated conduct, not a single alleged act. The prosecution has failed to establish any pattern of contact, communication, or continued pursuit. A single unconfirmed image isn’t enough to meet the legal requirements of the charge.
Trying to strengthen weak evidence by adding context or vague connections doesn’t meet legal standards and shouldn’t be allowed. The Motion to Suppress should be granted in full.



Lead Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 480-1442 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

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

The court has come to a decision in regards to the Motion to suppress filed by the defense on the 19th day of April, 2025.

Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Selective statements:

• Upon review of all of the requested statements to suppress, the Court will not be accepting the motion to suppress in regards to Exhibit #1. The Court finds that the specific statements that have been highlighted to be providing a narrative of events that have taken place and does not violate evidentiary grounds to be suppressed at this time.
  
  The Court will also be allowing the evidence relating to the AIRDROP and any investigatory statements to proceed to trial where further cross examination may take place. (( On an OOC note, given that Ollie Weeks responded to the appropriate RP as demonstrated in the second Motion for Discovery on the 20th of April, we will accept this to proceed ICly where appropriate arguments for IC standards of proof can be made. ))
  
  This is not to suggest that the arguments made by the defense cannot be made during cross examination, but rather that they do not meet the threshold to suppress prior to the trial.

Exhibit #2: Witness Statement by Deputy Chief Jaxon Nash - Selective statements:

• As per Exhibit #1, the Court will not be accepting the motion to suppress in regards to Exhibit #2 on the same grounds. The defense is encouraged to raise the arguments provided during cross examination instead.
  
  In regards to the affiliation of the defendant, the court would like to note that in none of the statements provided is affiliation being used by the officers to suggest even circumstantial guilt of the defendant. The statements are being used by law enforcement to note where they found the defendant eventually and to provide foundational evidence to that effect.
  
  However the courts will be confirming that on or around the date of the incident in question, the defendant was affiliated to the Shadows. This is confirmed by arrest reports, Gang and Narcotics operatives, and now the Judiciary.

Exhibit #3: Witness Statement by Officer Max Finnegan - Selective statements:

• As per Exhibit #1 and #2, the Court will not be accepting the motion to suppress in regards to Exhibit #3 on the same grounds. The defense is encouraged to raise the arguments provided during cross examination instead.

So Ordered,


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]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

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

The court has come to a decision in regards to the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by the defense on the 1st day of June, 2025.

The court will accept the Motion to Compel Discovery and the prosecution is ordered to produce any bodycam footage available from the listed officers within seven (7) days. If additional time is required, the prosecution shall file a motion for continuance.

(( Given the time elapsed, if no actual bodycam footage is available, please try to provide appropriate RP substitution. If recollection of events is not possible given the time elapsed then simply stating it's not available will also be acceptable. ))

So Ordered,


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]

[Terence Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  After following up on requests for footage, the Prosecution has no further evidence to introduce.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Parties,
  
  Given the prosecution has stated they attempted to reach out to the arresting department for footage, and were unable to fulfill the request, the courts will be moving on to scheduling.
  
  This is to serve as a FIRST notice to the defendant that bench trials are currently scheduled on multiple days throughout the week. Please notify the court if these times do not work for you. The expectation of the court is that each defendant file a notice for availability in the next 7 days. Date, times, and formatting shown here. The courts will only provide the defendant three notices prior to involuntarily dismissing the case in favor of prosecution due to lack of response from the defendant.
  
  Please note there is the possibility of a trial happening if defendants show up to City Hall and both a judge and defense attorney are available.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Parties,
  
  This is to serve as a SECOND notice to the defendant that bench trials are currently scheduled on multiple days throughout the week. Please notify the court if these times do not work for you. The expectation of the court is that each defendant file a notice for availability in the next 7 days. Date, times, and formatting shown here. The courts will only provide the defendant three notices prior to involuntarily dismissing the case in favor of prosecution due to lack of response from the defendant.
  
  Please note there is the possibility of a trial happening if defendants show up to City Hall and both a judge and defense attorney are available.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Parties,
  
  This is to serve as a THIRD AND FINAL notice to the defendant that bench trials are currently scheduled on multiple days throughout the week. Please notify the court if these times do not work for you. The expectation of the court is that each defendant file a notice for availability in the next 7 days. Date, times, and formatting shown here. The courts will only provide the defendant three notices prior to involuntarily dismissing the case in favor of prosecution due to lack of response from the defendant.
  
  Please note there is the possibility of a trial happening if defendants show up to City Hall and both a judge and defense attorney are available.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ollie Weeks
#25-BT-0020

A decision was reached in the above case on the 10th day of August, 2025.

Due to a lack of response from the defendant in the above case, the case will now be accepting the plea of guilty from the defendant. The defendant was given ample time to interact with the courts and file availability. If any of the dates and times did not align with the schedule of the defendant, they were able to contact the courts stating the like. As little to no contact has been made with the courts in the past 3-4 weeks, this case will now be archived and the charges will remain on the record of the defendant.

Respectfully,


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