#25-BT-0108, State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter

[Ian Walter]

Defendant Name: Ian Walter
Defendant Phone: 521-5004
(( Defendant Discord: hotpipinleo))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC-5))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Assured Law

Charging Department: SASG?

Date & Time of Incident(s): I turned myself in on 06/Apr/2025 at around 1930. The incident happened 29/Mar/2025 sometime around 2000 - 2100 hours.
Charge(s):

• AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft

Narrative:
While on-duty with SAAA, I was flying a fixed-wing aircraft for administrative purposes. During this flight, I encountered the Los Santos Police Department involved in a pursuit at Cayo Perico. As a result of this interaction, the LSPD made a complaint and I was charged with AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft.

I wholly dispute this charge. If there was negligence shown, it was shown by the LSPD leading up to the actions I took which have been now charged as negligent. GOV even acknowledged there was some negligence on the part of the LSPD... Yet, no one from the LSPD was charged and arrested for negligence as I have been. I feel this investigation was very one-sided from the outset and my due process rights have been violated. As a result of this "investigation" and charge, I have been subjected to mental anguish and suffering.

I have had a very long and honorable career with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department (LSSD) and also spent a considerable amount of time in the San Andreas Aviation Administration (SAAA). Because of this, not only was I arrested and jailed for the first time, but I got suspended from both LSSD and SAAA -- also my first suspensions from any job.

There's more to the story, but this will come out during the trial.

---

I, Ian Walter, 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. Ian Walter

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 7th day of April, 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. Ian Walter

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 7th day of April, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter 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 CHANGE OF VENUE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter

A Motion for Change of Venue was filed in the above case on the 15th of April, 2025.

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

• Requested Venue: Normal trial
  • Detailed Explanation: The evidence collected by the Prosecution during its investigation is extensive and comprehensive, and requires a more in-depth presentation than is allowed during a bench trial.

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 CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 15th of April, 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: Change of venue requested
  • Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution has motioned for a change in the trial's venue due to the required presentation of evidence. The Prosecution is requesting a continuance in providing discovery until a ruling has been made on the previous motion.

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

[Clara Lopez]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter


A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 15th of April, 2025

I,Clara Lopez, a Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Ian Walter in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 495-1265 — [email protected]

[Sayaka Yukimura]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  Can the defendant or their representation please confirm that Mr. Walter is going with a public defender vs the private defense as initially stated?
  
  Furthermore, once the defendant has confirmed appropriate representation, please give your response to the prosecution's motion to change venue, to expedite any rulings on said matter.
  
  Until then, the prosecution's request for continuance is granted until representation is confirmed and the above matter is settled.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 304-2935 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

---

• To all parties,
  
  Please take notice that the undersigned attorney, Izaak Scott of Assured Law, enters an appearance as counsel for the defendant, Ian Walter, in this matter.
  
  After having a childish conversation with the public defense attorney, they have chosen to back down as counsel, under the wishes of my client, Ian Walter - whom is retained to our Law Firm due to a legally binding court approved contract.
  
  Respectfully submitted on the 16th day of April, 2025.

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Izaak Scott
  Assured Services
  Managing Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

---

• To all parties,
  
  In response to the State’s Motion for Change of Venue, we do not agree with the motion. My client wishes to carry on with a bench trial. The prosecution claims the evidence is "extensive and comprehensive" and requires an in-depth presentation that, in their view, exceeds the scope of a bench trial. Respectfully, this reasoning falls short of justifying a change in venue which will negatively impact the timeline of this case by months.
  
  The incident in question occurred on March 29, 2025 which was 18 days ago. If, in that time, the State has not been able to compile and organize evidence sufficient for presentation in a bench trial for a singular misdemeanor, then that is not the fault of my client. The burden to justify the initial charge, and to move forward in a timely and efficient manner, lies solely with the prosecution. It is unreasonable to penalize the defendant with unnecessary delays stemming from an arguably premature decision to file charges without preparedness when the defense reached out to the people approving the charges reminding them that a indictment would be more appropriate.
  
  The right to a speedy and fair trial belongs to the defendant. Delaying this process under the vague notion of needing a “more in-depth presentation” only serves to harm my client, who is facing ongoing disruption to his personal and professional life due to these unresolved charges which we're placed prematurely.
  
  We respectfully request that the Court deny the prosecution’s motion to change venue and allow this matter to proceed to a bench trial.

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Izaak Scott
  Assured Services
  Managing Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

---

• To all parties,
  
  The last post was under the impression that the case will fall back to the end of the queue, however we are fine with the motion to change venue if the case remains activated and will procced hastily.

---

• Sincerely,
  
  Izaak Scott
  Assured Services
  Managing Attorney, Assured Law
  Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue

- - - - -

[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. Ian Walter

A decision was reached in the above case on the 26th day of April, 2025.

The court will be granting the prosecution's request to hear this as a Formal Criminal Trial. We are rescinding the order for discovery due to the court overhaul of its criminal court systems to better service the public and as such both parties will be notified when they are ordered to provide any evidence to the court via a Motion for Discovery.

The court thanks all parties for their patience in this matter, and expect to have the case re-activated sooner than later.


Respectfully,


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

[Ian Walter]

Superior Court of San Andreas,

Let this notice reflect that I have dismissed Assured Law as my retained representation as of the 15th of June, 2025.

As it does not appear this case will be activated any time soon, I will represent myself in the interim. But, I reserve the right to seek counsel at any time, which will be communicated to the Court as applicable.

Thanks,

Ian Walter

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The courts are looking to start formal criminal trials soon and want to ensure that all parties are ready to proceed. Given the defendants multiple objections to the change to a formal trial, the court will be confirming once more prior to returning it to bench trial format, that this is the wish of the defendant.
  
  Typically the courts will not go against the wishes of the defendant when moving to a formal criminal trial, unless significant reason has been given by the prosecution in regards to precedence setting verdicts. As that has not been observed in this case, the courts are looking to comply with the wishes of the defendant, pending they are still interested in a bench trial.
  
  The original motion was accepted due to an error on my part, and all future cases will be reviewed to ensure it does not happen again.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Ian Walter]

In the interest of judicial efficiency and expediency, I think it would be better to do a bench trial.

[Joseph Horton]

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. Ian Walter
#25-BT-0108

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 13th day of July, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter 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 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.


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]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The court will be amending the previous order for discovery. As much time has already passed, the court will be allotting only 7 days for discovery. We appreciate the understanding of both parties, and hope to have this case heard as soon as possible.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  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,
  
  The Prosecution would like a private docket set up, as we will be filing evidence under seal.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  234-9321 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Your request has been noted. For the sake of time, as there is not much left for the order for discovery, the courts will be opening a room. However we are requesting the prosecution provide a reasoning for why the information should remain under seal.
  
  Please give the courts 1-2 hours to set up the room properly. All parties will be notified, then motions and responses can be posted in private.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  A sealed workroom has been set up and all parties have been notified. If you are a party to the case and have not received access, please reach out to myself. Thank you for your cooperation.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  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,
  
  The evidence to be filed under seal is confidential and internal reports, which are not designed to be released to the public. Additionally, the evidence should be under seal to protect the integrity of internal complaint systems, protecting the identity of complainants and not discourage them from stepping forward with reportable offenses.
  
  Regards,
  
  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. Ian Walter
#25-BT-0108

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 20th of July, 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: SASG IA complaint - Original complaint

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter
    Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mike Luigi
    Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
    Phone Number: 381-5045
    Occupation: Peace Officer

  Witness Statement

  • LSPD was in a highspeed pursuit of a green 10F with multiple units, including our airship. The 10F had fled across the bridge to Cayo Perico and entered the airfield, it was immediately noted a plane was on the runway by pursuing officers. The pilot of the plane was later identified as Ian Walter, seemingly conducting duties within their capacity as a SAAA Senior Official.
    
    Police Sergeant II Saurian Logan informed the pilot to shut off the planes engine due to the ongoing pursuit. Ian Walter did comply with the directive, initially turning off the planes engine.
    
    Whilst units continued to pursue the suspect around the airfield, Ian Walter turned the planes engine back on and began to immediately speed up down the runway as cruisers were still pursuing the suspect whilst in front, alongside and behind the plane. In their haste to takeoff the plane's tail struck the ground multiple times before lifting off and making a sharp left turn. Notably, the aircrafts flight path was heading dangerously close to our airship, with our pilot being made to pullback to avoid a potential collision.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mike Luigi, 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,
    
    
    Mike Luigi
    Commander
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 10/APR/2025

  

• Exhibit #3: Bodycam footage - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi, 29/MAR/2025

  
  ((Proof of RP))

• Exhibit #4: Witness statement - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Jamie Lockwood
    Date of Birth: 21/MAY/1998
    Phone Number: 400-1995
    Occupation: Sergeant II, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • While in pursuit of a 10F wide body driven by Griffin Harris, the pursuit took a turn onto the CAYO island bridge, as the pursuit entered Cayo, AIR-1 was able to gain visual, the 10F drove around the island and ultimately ended up going onto an Airfield on the westside of the island.
    
    A government fixed winged aircraft, operated by Ian Walter, was stationary ready for take off at the start of the runway. The 10F was doing circles driving up and down the runway with roughly 6-7 units in pursuit and AIR-1 directly above. In our tactical channel someone said tht they had asked the pilot to turn off the engine, I cannot confirm if this was done, however someone said the pilor had been informed and asked to not take off and to turn of the engine.
    
    AIR-1 had their government GPS aswell as their ATC tracker active, so the pilot was aware of the AIR-1 presense on scene.
    
    AIR-1 was informed in our tactical channel that the aircraft was taking off, I looked down to orient myself of the Aircraft and the aircraft was gaining altitude rapidly in the direction of AIR-1. I made a call to pull away from the trajectory of the aircraft as i was not certain if they had even seen AIR-1.
    
    The Aircraft made a sudden turn at a lower altitude and ultimately would have likely not collided with AIR-1, however, AIR-1 was near the center of the runway operating at roughly 700ft. the Airplane was taking of down the center of the strip. It was enough to cause me as a pilot doubt as to whether they were aware of AIR-1s presence, given they had not followed the direction to turn of their engine.
    
    I apologize if i left out any detail, please feel free to let me know if you need additional response.
    
    My co-pilot was Robin Long.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jamie Lockwood, 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,
    
    
    Jamie Lockwood
    Sergeant II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 29/MAR/2025

  

• Exhibit #5: Bodycam footage - Police Lieutenant Saurian Logan, 29/MAR/2025

  
  ((Proof of RP))

• Exhibit #6: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #7: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry response

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #8: SASG IA inquiry - Second inquiry

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #9: SASG IA inquiry - Second inquiry response

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #10: Witness statement

  UNDER SEAL

• Exhibit #11: Warrant report - Ian Walter, 05/APR/2025

  

  Suspect Details

  Full Name: Ian Walter
  Phone Number: 5215004
  
  Charges:

  • AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft (Misdemeanor $4000)

  
  

  Incident Narrative

  Agents/Officers Involved:

  • Director Julia Whitehorse

  
  
  Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, and videos could be provided. Include location, time of date etc:
  Conclusion of Casefile #199781
  Method of Identification:
  ID
  

  
  

  Evidence Details

  Document the possessions confiscated from the charged 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.
  N/A

• Exhibit #12: Arrest report - Ian Walter, 06/APR/2025

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Ian Walter
    Telephone Number: 5215004
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Bobby Kirk
    Badge Number: 599
    Callsign: OMEGA-1

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-04-06
    Deputies Involved: Sheriff Bobby Kirk
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Assistant Sheriff Ian Walter voluntarily surrendered to me following a charge filed by the San Andreas State Government's Aviation Authority. He was cited with a misdemeanor for Negligent Operation of an Aircraft, stemming from an internal investigation. The incident occurred while he was off duty and not acting in his capacity as a member of the Sheriff's Department.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Paleto Station

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

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

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court confirms receipt of the evidence under seal.
  
  Defense, if you wish to object to the evidence remaining under seal, please provide your argument within the next seven (7) days otherwise the Court will make a decision regardless. If you do not wish to object, please make this known.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Ian Walter]

No objections to evidence under seal.

Just so all parties are aware, I am leaving town for about a week beginning Sunday (27/Jul) and will be gone until 5/Aug. So I would request any lenience on deadlines between those dates. I will aim to get any motions and discovery published before I leave, if possible. But some of this depends on when responses and evidence is posted in response to my subpoena, etc.

[Ian Walter]

Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,

Attached are two motions that I am submitting in tandem in reference to my defense. The first is a motion to involuntarily dismiss, the second is a motion to suppress. In the spirit of judicial efficiency, I would recommend consideration of the motion to involuntarily dismiss first as if this motion is granted the motion to suppress will be moot. Additionally, the subpoena request could also be rendered moot. If the motion to dismiss is not granted, then consideration of the motion to suppress would be applicable.

Motion to Involuntarily Dismiss

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

---

MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter
#25-CM-0108

A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 22nd day of July, 2025

The Defendant, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: Lack of jurisdiction
  • Detailed Explanation: As detailed in Exhibit #1 the charge in this case stems from an Internal Affairs complaint received and investigated by the San Andreas State Government (SASG), which is not a law enforcement agency. The purpose of SASG Internal Affairs is to conduct internal administrative review and enforce organizational disciplinary action, and the purpose of Internal Affairs is limited to that. The SASG lacks the proper jurisdiction to initiate charges, given their lack of law enforcement or arrest authority. Director Julia Whitehorse claims the SAAA handbook states that violations of flight regulations would result in the person doing so would "be investigated and/or prosecuted as a normal civilian would be for the same violations". However, this is false - normal citizens are investigated by a law enforcement agency resulting in an arrest or through indictment resulting from a criminal complaint by the Attorney General. Importantly, these procedures are not only the acceptable method of handling criminal charges, these methods are in place to ensure criminal defendants receive their constitutionally protected due process rights (criminal charges should be initiated through a process that is fair, legitimate, and adheres to established legal frameworks). To further the point of the important limited scope of an Internal Affairs invesigation and as is argued in the subsequent motion to suppress evidence, Internal Affairs investigation are limited in scope to administrative sanctions, not criminal ones. Persons subject to an administrative investigation do not enjoy the same Constituttional or evidentiary standards required for criminal prosecutions, as the potential risk following an administrative investigation only involves employment and disciplinary considerations, not someone's liberty. Yet, this case has been filed in this criminal court from an investigation held administratively, yet the Defendant was not provided with the applicable Constitutional protections and did have his liberty seized as a result. To permit this case to proceed on such a basis would be a major Constitutional violation and would encourage SASG (or other employers within San Andreas) to be able to skirt Constitutional requirements to infringe upon people's liberties.
    
    With previous counsel, we requested this case to be handled via criminal indictment through the Attorney General, but SASG insisted on pushing forward with criminal charges although they lack the law enforcement authority to do so. As noted in Exhibits #11 and #12, this is what occurred. In a "warrant report" submitted by the Government Security Bureau (GSB) listing the "agents" as Director Julia Whitehorse It is important to note, GSB was never involved in this investigation. This was an investigation initiated, conducted, and concluded singularly by Julia Whitehorse of SASG. In essence, GSB filed the charges (via the warrant report) without conducting their own independent investigation, or independent review of evidence -- the charges were filed purely on the "word" of Director Whitehorse. As a long standing member of the Sheriff's Department, this is equivalent of a law enforcement officer receiving a report of a crime from a citizen and immediately placing a charge on someone without further investigation or review of evidence. This is only possible when a report is received by a sworn law enforcement office. In this case, if Director Whitehorse was a sworn law enforcement officer, then why did she not place the charges herself?
    
    
    521-5004 — [email protected]

Motion to Suppress Evidence

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. Ian Walter
#25-CM-0108

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 22nd day of July, 2025

The Defendant filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit with annotated suppressions

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: State of San Andreas v. Ian Walter
    Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mike Luigi
    Date of Birth: 07/JAN/1997
    Phone Number: 381-5045
    Occupation: Peace Officer

  Witness Statement

  • LSPD was in a highspeed pursuit of a green 10F with multiple units, including our airship. The 10F had fled across the bridge to Cayo Perico and entered the airfield, it was immediately noted a plane was on the runway by pursuing officers. The pilot of the plane was later identified as Ian Walter, seemingly conducting duties within their capacity as a SAAA Senior Official.
    
    Police Sergeant II Saurian Logan informed the pilot to shut off the planes engine due to the ongoing pursuit. Ian Walter did comply with the directive, initially turning off the planes engine.
    
    Whilst units continued to pursue the suspect around the airfield, Ian Walter turned the planes engine back on and began to immediately speed up down the runway as cruisers were still pursuing the suspect whilst in front, alongside and behind the plane. In their haste to takeoff the plane's tail struck the ground multiple times before lifting off and making a sharp left turn. Notably, the aircrafts flight path was heading dangerously close to our airship, with our pilot being made to pullback to avoid a potential collision.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mike Luigi, 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,
    
    
    Mike Luigi
    Commander
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 10/APR/2025

  

  • Detailed Reasoning: The entire statement is an interpretation of the Defendant's state of mind and resulting action by standing the take off was done in "haste". The statement regarding the aircraft being dangerously close to the PD airship is also a subjective opinion and was not experienced firsthand by Commander Luigi. As you will find in further exhibits, the pilot of said airship will later provide some details on the level of danger posed to their aircraft from the Defendant's actions.

• Exhibit #4: Witness statement - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit with annotated suppressions

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 29/MAR/2025

  Witness Information

  • Name: Jamie Lockwood
    Date of Birth: 21/MAY/1998
    Phone Number: 400-1995
    Occupation: Sergeant II, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • While in pursuit of a 10F wide body driven by Griffin Harris, the pursuit took a turn onto the CAYO island bridge, as the pursuit entered Cayo, AIR-1 was able to gain visual, the 10F drove around the island and ultimately ended up going onto an Airfield on the westside of the island.
    
    A government fixed winged aircraft, operated by Ian Walter, was stationary ready for take off at the start of the runway. The 10F was doing circles driving up and down the runway with roughly 6-7 units in pursuit and AIR-1 directly above. In our tactical channel someone said tht they had asked the pilot to turn off the engine, I cannot confirm if this was done, however someone said the pilor had been informed and asked to not take off and to turn of the engine.
    
    AIR-1 had their government GPS aswell as their ATC tracker active, so the pilot was aware of the AIR-1 presense on scene.
    
    AIR-1 was informed in our tactical channel that the aircraft was taking off, I looked down to orient myself of the Aircraft and the aircraft was gaining altitude rapidly in the direction of AIR-1. I made a call to pull away from the trajectory of the aircraft as i was not certain if they had even seen AIR-1.
    
    The Aircraft made a sudden turn at a lower altitude and ultimately would have likely not collided with AIR-1, however, AIR-1 was near the center of the runway operating at roughly 700ft. the Airplane was taking of down the center of the strip. It was enough to cause me as a pilot doubt as to whether they were aware of AIR-1s presence, given they had not followed the direction to turn of their engine.
    
    I apologize if i left out any detail, please feel free to let me know if you need additional response.
    
    My co-pilot was Robin Long.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jamie Lockwood, 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,
    
    
    Jamie Lockwood
    Sergeant II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 29/MAR/2025

  

  • Detailed Reasoning: The section highlighted in Green: This statement is hearsay. The witness claims something was said to me (that I was told to a) turn off the engine and b) not take off. This statement is presented for the truth of the matter as an out of court statement. Not to mention, it is not entirely correct. No where will you find in the evidence was I told to not take off. This just further demonstrates the problematic nature of the inclusion of this statement.
    
    The statement in Yellow: This is speculation. What I was aware of or not is not something this witness can reliably comment on. It's pure speculation, presented from the assumption of guilt. It's prejudicial.
    
    The statement in Red: This is false. As you can see within other exhibits, the engine was in-fact turned off. This Officer should be charged with perjury for this statement.

• Exhibit #6: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The entire exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal

• Exhibit #7: SASG IA inquiry - Defendant's response
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The entire exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Same reasoning above

• Exhibit #9: SASG IA inquiry - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood's response
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Filed under seal
  

  • Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal

• Exhibit #10: Witness statement - SASG Director Julia Whitehorse
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  The entire exhibit (see reasoning filed under seal) OR partial suppressions (filed under seal)

  • Detailed Reasoning: Filed under seal

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and Defense counsel,
  
  The Court formally recognises the two motions filed by the Defense on the 22nd day of July, 2025.
  
  Given that the Prosecution currently has five (5) days remaining to formally respond to the Subpoena request, as well as the lack of staffing within the division, the Court will be providing the Prosecution until the 10th day of August, 2025 to respond to the motion for involuntary dismissal. If necessary the Court will then review the subsequent motion to suppress once a verdict has been reached on the motion for involuntary dismissal.
  
  The Court also recognises the upcoming Leave of Absence from the Prosecution, as well as the noted leave of the Defense during a similar period. The Court will review the status of all motions after the provided date and will be affording both parties a level of leniency with deadlines during this time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]