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

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution will, as commented on by Magistrate Horton, respond to the motions when returned from leave. The Prosecution will not, however, respond to the Motion to Suppress, as such matters should be handled during a hearing or during the trial, not on the docket.
  
  Regards,
  
  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,
  
  The Court would like to affirm to the Prosecution that the previous notice on the docket from this Court is an official notice on the docket, regardless of the signing Judge, and shall be afforded the appropriate level of respect.
  
  The Motion to Suppress will be reviewed, if necessary, by the Court following the outcome of the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal. If the Court determines the Motion will be heard on the docket then all parties will have the opportunity to respond as ordered before a verdict is reached. If the Prosecution wishes to abstain from providing an argument, the Court will proceed accordingly.
  
  The Court understands that changes have been made to the process for Bench Trials, however the decision ultimately lies with the Judiciary as to where a Motion will be heard, if acknowledged.
  
  Following the recent changes, the Court recognises that Motions to Suppress would ideally be heard at the scheduled trial as stated in the press release, however each motion and case are unique and shall be reviewed for its own merit.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  We appreciate your time as this matter continues. The prosecution is on an approved LOA from 24/JUL/2025 - 03/AUG/2025. We will give them 7 days to respond to the above upon their return.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 — [email protected]

[Ian Walter]

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-CM-0108

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 27th day of July, 2025

The Defendant filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: E-mail to SAAA from Governor Whitehorse, 7/Mar/2025

  Filed under seal

521-5004 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court recognises that there are unresolved matters on the docket that will be reaching their deadlines shortly. The Prosecution's leave of absence has been extended so any previous deadlines will be reviewed upon their return.
  
  The Court appreciates the patience of all during this period of absences.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court would now like to see the unresolved matters on the docket proceed.
  
  The Court notes the outstanding matters requiring response from the Prosecution:
  • Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
  • Motion to Suppress
  • Prosecution rebuttal to Objection - Filed under seal
  Prosecution will have seven (7) days to provide any objections to the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal. Given the nature of the motion, the other outstanding matters on the docket will be dealt with afterwards, if appropriate.
  
  If the Prosecution needs more time to file the appropriate objections, a Motion for Continuance should be filed. The Court understands the Prosecution is coming off of an LOA and may require additional time given all outstanding matters in this Court.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [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. Ian Walter
#25-BT-0108

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 21st of August, 2025.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following motion be stricken from the record;

• Motion being objected to:
  The defendant's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: The San Andreas Aviation Administration (SAAA) is a bureau within the executive branch, falling under the jurisdiction of the State Government (SASG). Similarly, the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) and the Legal Affairs Division (LAD) are both divisions falling under the Administration Bureau, handling all matters related to legal and internal investigations of the executive branch's bureaus and divisions, operating directly under the authority of the Office of the Governor. The Governor, through their office, also commands the operation of the Government Security Bureau (GSB), a recognized law enforcement body with members sworn in and able to enforce the state's penal code on par with any other sworn law enforcement officer, whether it be a newly graduated Police Officer or Sheriff's Deputy; GSB further operates under true statewide jurisdiction as it is not bound to a geographical boundary, as is the Los Santos Police Department and the Los Santos Sheriff's Department. Operating under the Office of the Governor, IAD is authorized to act together with the Government Security Bureau (GSB) to place criminal charges against individuals in the State Government's employ when procedural Internal Affairs constitues such action, as was the case with the investigation resulting in the defendant's charges; this capacity has been in place and used previously during the leadership of the former governor, Lewis Langley. In this instance, Director Julia Whitehorse, the head of the Administration Bureau, used the power of her position to authorize GSB to place criminal charges on the defendant's record following the conclusion of an investigation into a complaint made against the defendant. The charges were placed by Security Director Lester Conway, the leader of GSB, whose authority to place the charges again comes from the command of the Governor and the Office of the Governor.
    
    The defendant's accusation that Director Whitehose overstepped by authorizing GSB to place charges on the defendant's record rather than referring it to the Office of the Attorney General for indictment is trivial. While it is true that the Attorney General, through their office, is the primary mediator and representative as the State Government's counsel, there is no requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that demands any investigative body to defer criminal prosecution to the Attorney General. If the body is authorized to enforce the law, it can do so. As has been established in this objection, the authorization was present and unprecedented. As such, there is no basis for an involuntary dismissal, and the motion should be denied in full.

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

[Ian Walter]

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

---

RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A response was filed in the above case on the 21st of August, 2025.

The Defendant, filed this response to the Objection filed by the prosecution for consideration on Defendant's motion for involuntarily dismiss.

• The Attorney General objects summarily claiming that the Defendant's arguments are without merit because San Andreas Aviation Administration (SAAA) is a bureau within San Andreas State Government (SASG), which is commanded by the Governor, who also commands the Government Security Bureau (GSB). The Attorney General then claims that the GSB is "a recognized law enforcement body with members sworn in and able to enforce the state's penal code on par with any other sworn law enforcement officer, whether it be a newly graduated Police Officer or Sheriff's Deputy; GSB further operates under true statewide jurisdiction as it is not bound to a geographical boundary, as is the Los Santos Police Department and the Los Santos Sheriff's Department."
  
  This is an interesting position for the Attorney General to take. It is not argued that GSB may in-fact be sworn in. However, GSB's job description is not to be some sort statewide law enforcement or investigative agency for San Andreas. GSB Agents do not respond to 911 calls, they do not enforce traffic offenses, and they do not conduct investigations -- this is done by the investigative arms of the LSPD and LSSD. From the position opportunity for the job of GSB Agent, it lists the duties of GSB as follows;
  

  Assist with 24/7 Security of SASG/JB Officials and Properties.
  Chauffeur SASG and JB Officials around the state to allow them to conduct their duties in peace and security.
  Conduct regular perimeter patrols around SASG properties to ensure all access points are secure and clear of any foul play.
  Progression within the GSB will open up further certifications and responsibilities.
  Future progression within the GSB would involve assisting in the handling of recruitment and training.

  
  
  In summary, GSB is responsible for security of SASG/JB officials and properties, which includes chauffeuring these officials around the state so those officials can do their duties. While GSB does not have a direct geographical jurisdiction, their jurisdiction is arguably limited to SASG/JB properties, or anywhere where those officials while being chauffeured are located. This alleged incident happened at Cayo Perico, which is not SASG/JB property, and there were no SASG or JB officials present. The argument that 'just because the Governor oversees both SAAA and GSB, that they are effectively the law enforcement over SASG employees ("place criminal charges against individuals in the State Government's employ") is outlandish. What other employer in San Andreas has its own law enforcement entity to place charges against its employees?
  
  As argued in the original motion, law enforcement officials of this state are not permitted to file charges on a citizen based on the word, and the word alone, of a citizen. Julia Whitehorse's position in the government does not elevate her to such a position where her word is better than the word of a citizen -- at the end of the day, she was a citizen who just happened to be employed by the government. If a citizen reported to me, a Deputy Sheriff, that Julia Whitehorse robbed a bank because that citizen had done their own "extensive" investigation, that STILL would not be enough for me to charge her with a crime. But that's what happened here. A citizen reported to GSB that they had done an extensive investigation and a charge of AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft needed to be filed based on this investigation. No further investigation was done by GSB.
  
  The limitations in responsibility of the GSB is also further affirmed in the fact GSB Agents are also able to also be employed by either the LSPD or LSSD simultaneously (LSPD job posting) & LSSD job posting). This was not always true -- LSPD changed their policy to allow dual-employment of people in SASG/GSB in February 2024 (see here). It is clear that both the LSPD and LSSD no longer see employment in GSB as causing any conflict in the employment as a police officer or sheriff's deputy. But, such conflict would exist for someone employed by DOC.
  
  Again, the GSB does not regularly nor proactively investigate violations of the penal code, that's reserved for the LSPD and LSSD. Citizens are not contacted by GSB on traffic stops, nor are they arrested because of having warrants by GSB. In fact, I can speak with firsthand knowledge that the GSB regularly calls the LSSD to respond to and investigate criminal offenses they encounter. If they are some statewide law enforcement agency as claimed by the Attorney General, then why are they calling the LSPD/LSSD for assistance? The Attorney General in making this argument is trying to make the GSB much bigger than they actually are to save this case.

521-5004 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will look to begin deliberating the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal. Before that can happen, the Court would like clarification from the Prosecution on the involvement of the Government Security Bureau (GSB) in the charging of the defendant, specifically in regards to any further investigation conducted following the initial submission.
  
  The Court would like to hear from the Prosecution within seven (7) days. If that timeframe cannot be met, please file a Motion for Continuance.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  Following the complaint made by an employee with the Los Santos Police Department, a full and fair investigation was conducted by Julia Whitehorse, as the head of the State Government's IAD and director of the Administration Bureau, with oversight by Governor Emily Whitehorse. The Los Santos Sheriff's Department did not want to handle the matter, and it was kept at the state level. Following the investigation, the evidence was presented by Director Whitehorse to the governor and GSB command. Following a review of the evidence, Governor Whitehose approved of GSB command placing charges against the defendant.
  
  The Government Security Bureau did not just place the charge on a whim because they were told to. They were included in the decision, presented the evidence, and were then authorized to place the arrest warrant, which, however secondary, is nevertheless part of their duty.
  
  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 26th of August, 2025.

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

• Exhibit #13:ATC logs - Ian Walter / ATC radio logs, 29/MAR/2025

  
  ((Proof of RP))

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"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A decision was reached in the above case on the 27th day of August, 2025.

The Court has deliberated the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal submitted by the Defendant on the 22nd day of July, 2025.

The motion made arguments surrounding the procedure followed that led to the charge being placed, the jurisdiction and authority of the charging agency (Government Security Bureau), the jurisdiction and authority of the investigative body to place charges (SASG Internal Affairs) and the due process followed as a result of the alleged flaws.

Firstly, the Court will address the matters covered under previous precedent. The case of #24-CM-0093, State of San Andreas v. Huw Masons affirms that the Government Security Bureau as a Law Enforcement body within this state.

We want to note that the Government Security Bureau (GSB) is considered a part of law enforcement and, therefore, under the purview of the office of the Attorney General by way of the Constitution.

Moving on to the procedural flaws highlighted by the Defense, underlining that the Government Security Bureau placed the charges based on the investigation submitted by Director Julia Whitehorse through the San Andreas State Government Internal Affairs body. Through the submitted Motion for Discovery from the Prosecution, we see that the Warrant Report filed only lists Director Julia Whitehorse as the involved "Agents/Officers".

The Prosecution has asserted that Director Julia Whitehorse completed the investigation through the Internal Affairs body and presented the conclusion of said evidence to the GSB Command team, along with Governor Whitehorse. The Court has accepted that GSB is a Law Enforcement entity, however, that does not equate to the GSB having the capability or authority to conduct criminal investigations. The Court believes that such investigations should be performed by a department with a dedicated investigative body, or be referred directly to the Office of the Attorney General for indictment following their review.

Despite this, the Office of the Attorney General has proceeded in pursuing this case based on the evidence provided and submitted through their Motion for Discovery. The adoption of the case from the Office of the Attorney General does not excuse the initial overreach of the charging agency, however, the Court does believe that it aids in resolving the jurisdictional and investigative issues highlighted by the Defense, given the review conducted by this Office, albeit retroactively.

With this in mind, the Court will be rejecting the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal.

So Ordered,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Given that the Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was not accepted, the Motion to Suppress will now be heard on the docket. The Court intends for this to be the last Motion heard on the docket before moving to scheduling.
  
  Prosecution, you will have seven (7) days to provide any objections to the Motion to Suppress.
  
  The Court will also be deliberating the Subpoena request filed under seal during this time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Ian Walter]

I would also like to make it known on the record, exhibit 13 appears to be in response to the subpoena I requested. However, the records do not contain all the requested information. I wanted all ATC recordings, to include the recordings of PDs airship.

I also wish to state my objection to the Courts response to ordering the disclosure of pertinent LSPD information for the purposes of preserving the matter for an appeal if necessary. This Court, while acknowledging the key aspect of the Defendants defense in this information and denying the Defendant this information affects the Defendant’s ability to launch a fair defense and a fair trial. While it is true that only the Defendant is on trial, a substantial part of the case falls heavily on PDs actions. The Court has effectively decided to only hear and see half of the story.

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will be accepting the Motion for Continuance to allow the Prosecution an additional seven (7) days to respond to the Subpoena.
  
  The Court also reminds the Prosecution that they have one (1) day to respond to the Motion to Suppress on the docket, or file a Motion for Continuance for that matter as well.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [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. Ian Walter
#25-BT-0108

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 3rd of September, 2025.

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

• Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi
  Regarding subjectivity
  The statement provided by the witness should not be considered a purely "subjective opinion" on the actions of the defendant. It is an expressly analytical observation based on multiple years of working in a law enforcement environment that develops critical thinking and observational skills to assess ongoing situations. Further, calling the defendant's departure hasty is an apt description: the scene is converged and active on the runway, not 100 meters from the aircraft, with the defendant positioning the aircraft for takeoff seconds after being overtaken by the pursuit line, still actively moving around on the runway. Additionally, the defendant did not issue any transmissions to ATC and nearby aircraft regarding their departure at the time of the incident, which could have caused untold danger to the Police Department's aircraft, if not for the pilot's training and quick thinking.

• Exhibit #4: Witness statement - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood
  Regarding hearsay
  The quoted part of the statement is not hearsay, as it does not relay any information from one person to a second person to the witness. Rather, the witness heard it directly from the officer who issued the instruction, as can be seen and heard in the bodycam footage in Exhibit #5.
  
  Regarding speculation
  While the quoted statement may be considered speculation, it is not prejudicial. The defendant is a trained and experienced law enforcement agent and, at the time, a member of the San Andreas Aviation Administration. If anyone should have been aware that a police aircraft was supporting this pursuit, it should have been the defendant. The proximity alone between the two aircraft, the GPS signal, and the ATC aircraft tracker should have been enough for the defendant to be aware, on top of the police aircraft flying directly in the field of view and audible range of the defendant on the runway.
  
  Regarding perjury
  The defendant is making bold claims to call another law enforcement officer out for perjury. As we can see in the bodycam footage in Exhibit #5, the defendant is told they should turn off the engine because of the active scene, which "may take a while", inferring they should stay grounded until the scene has cleared. We can also see that the defendant indeed turns off the aircraft's engine. However, they turn the engine back on approximately 30 seconds later, while the pursuit is still ongoing and actively moving on the runway and around the aircraft. It is clear that this is the violation the witness is referencing in their statement.

• Exhibit #6: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry
  UNDER SEAL

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

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

• Exhibit #10: Witness statement
  UNDER SEAL

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 will be providing the Defense a final three (3) days to submit any final rebuttal in regards to the Motion to Suppress. If the Defense does not require this time, please inform the Court as soon as possible.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Ian Walter]

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

---

REBUTTAL - DEFENDANT RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A rebuttal to the prosecution's rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 5th of September, 2025.

The Defendant responds to the prosecution's rebuttal as follows;

Exhibit #2: Witness statement - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi
Without restating the Defendant's position ad nauseum, the Defendant does not believe the prosecution's response cures the legal issue with the statement -- While it may be true that Deputy Chief Luigi has been in law enforcement for a significant number of years, it does not mean the Deputy Chief is at liberty to make subjective statements, nor should the Defendant have to "accept" subjective statements being used against them at trial when the author is so qualified.

The Defendant does not believe the take off was done in a hastily manner, so we are now left with the word of Deputy Chief Mike Luigi and the Defendant, who is also a long-term law enforcement officer with the same "critical thinking and observational skills to assess ongoing situations". The only difference is the Defendant knows their state of mind, Deputy Chief Luigi does not. The Deputy Chief was not in the Defendant's aircraft nor in the police department aircraft, and therefore has no objective valuation on how "dangerously close" the Defendant got to the PD aircraft. As stated in the original motion, this detail has been provided by the PD pilot. So the need for this information in this specific exhibit is not only speculative, but fails the test of "best evidence". The "best evidence" comes from first hand accounts, not someone's speculation based on so-called "critical thinking and observational skills".

Exhibit #4: Witness statement - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood

For the prosecution's arguments on hearsay - it's interesting the prosecution wishes to stick to this statement not being hearsay. This is the classic example of person A saying person B did something, and person B is now reporting it for the truth of the matter. Lieutenant Lockwood is claiming someone (unidentified) factually stated in the TAC channel that the Defendant had been told to a) to turn off the engine and b) not take off. Furthermore, as noted in the motion, this is not factually true, although the prosecution claims it is. The prosecution attempts to use Exhibit #5 as support for their claim, but Exhibit #5 merely proves Defendant's position to be true.

In Exhibit 5, someone can be heard instructingLieutenant Logan to tell the Defendant to "Turn off the engine of the airplane at the very least" (1:14 timestamp). Lieutenant Logan can be heard saying he told "him" (the Defendant) to turn off the engine (2:13 timestamp). However in Exhibit #4, it is asserted that "someone" told the pilot to a) to turn off the engine and b) not take off. No where is there any transmission heard from someone ordering the Defendant to not take off. Just a request for the engine to be turned off, which was complied with until the pursuit was perceived to have cleared the runway. To the point about hearsay, the body camera footage in exhibit #5 contained evidence that Lieutenant Logan made the following request of the Defendant, "I would turn off the engine!" and "May take a minute."

Again, it's a statement made to prove the truth of the matter, which risks the court being provided prejudicial information. In this case, it's highly prejudicial, given that it's not entirely true.

Regarding the highlighted section on speculation, the prosecution admits it to be speculative, "While the quoted statement may be considered speculation,". The Defendant believes this alone requires the statement to be suppressed. Speculation in of itself is a objection to be made. The level of prejudice is irrelevant. Although for the sake of argument, the Defendant believes it to be highly prejudicial. The witness is claiming the Defendant was aware of AIR-1's presence, when this is not true. While the Defendant has requested suppression of the exhibit, Exhibit 7 can be looked to for support of this position. The Defendant will reserve arguments on the prosecution's claim on the viability of the GPS for trial, so as to not give up Defense position on this issue.

Lastly, regarding perjury. Let the Defendant be clear. The Defendant is not out to 'get' anyone. All the Defendant wants is a fair trial. Statements containing hearsay and speculation are not fair. And statements which are not true are certainly not fair. To this point, the Defendant is not "making bold claims" about perjury. The witness directly stated "given they [the Defendant] had not followed the direction to turn of their engine", which is simply false. Whether the engine was restarted is irrelevant - the statement is that the Defendant did not turn off the engine. Perhaps the witness did not intend to perjure themselves, and perhaps it's because they are recalling facts not firsthand and are filling in the gaps in their recollection of events, which lies directly at the heart and supports the Defendant's position as to the prejudicial nature of speculation and hearsay -- there's a reason speculation and hearsay should not be allowed, and this directly proves the dangers of such. The Attorney General should realistically be agreeing with the Defendant on the suppression of the non-factual aspects of this statement, so as to not subject the witness to a possible perjury claim/charge.

Exhibit #6: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry
Exhibit #7: SASG IA inquiry - Defendant's response

Filed under seal

Exhibit #9: SASG IA inquiry - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood's response

Filed under seal

Exhibit #10: Witness statement - SASG Director Julia Whitehorse
Filed under seal



Ian Walter
Defendant / Attorney
521-5004 — [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. Ian Walter
#25-BT-0108

A decision was reached in the above case on the 6th day of September, 2025.

The Court has deliberated the Motion to Suppress submitted by the Defendant on the 22nd day of July, 2025.

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Chief Mike Luigi
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:

  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.

  • Court Decision:
    The Court will be accepting the Motion to Suppress in a limited fashion. Specifically, "In their haste to takeoff" will be removed from the above quote. The Court agrees that the statement of "In their haste to takeoff" is in reference to the Defendant's state of mind.
    
    The second sentence onwards is supported by the Defendant's body camera footage submitted in Exhibit #3, from approximately 2:05 onwards. The Pilot's statement made over radio removes any speculation as to the actions being undertaken by the Pilot. As such, this will not be struck from the statement.
    
    The Court acknowledges the Prosecution's rebuttal; however, these are further arguments that can be made at trial and do not alter the improper statements made in the witness testimony.
• Exhibit #4: Witness Statement - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:

  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.

  • Court Decision:
    The Court will be striking the entirety of this snippet under the grounds of hearsay.

  so the pilot was aware of the AIR-1 presense on scene.

  • Court Decision:
    The Court will be striking the entirety of this snippet under the grounds of speculation.

  given they had not followed the direction to turn of their engine.

  • Court Decision:
    The Court does not find any cause to strike this statement. Defense may bring up their argument as to the truthfulness of the statement in cross-examination.
• Exhibit #6: SASG IA inquiry - First inquiry
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:
  Under seal.
  • Court Decision:
    Decision filed under seal.
• Exhibit #7: SASG IA inquiry - Defendant's response
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:
  Under seal.
  • Court Decision:
    Decision filed under seal.
• Exhibit #9: SASG IA inquiry - Police Lieutenant Jamie Lockwood's response
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:
  Under seal.
  • Court Decision:
    Decision filed under seal.
• Exhibit #10: Witness statement - SASG Director Julia Whitehorse
  Requested Portion to be Suppressed:
  Under seal.
  • Court Decision:
    Decision filed under seal.
  
  
  
  So Ordered,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution,
  
  The Court requires an update from the Prosecution on the status of the information being gathered for the Subpoena request.
  
  Please let the Court know if additional time is required to gather the relevant information from the appropriate agencies. We are currently two (2) days past the original deadline.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [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 26th of August, 2025.

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

• Exhibit #14: ATC logs - AIR-1 / ATC radio logs, 29/MAR/2025

  
  ((Proof of RP))

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"

---

• Parties,
  
  The Court considers all outstanding matters on the Docket to be now resolved, and as such, would like to begin scheduling this trial to take place.
  
  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,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A trial date was set on the above case on 16th day of September, 2025.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling/time-slot application, this trial shall take place at 09:00 PM on the 21st day of September, 2025 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancellation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,



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

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 16th of September, 2025.

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

• Reasoning: The State of San Andreas in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following a recent Court Decision.

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 TO AMEND

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

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

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 21st of September, 2025

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend, the original charges with the underlined amended charges.

• Original Charges
  • AM01 - Negligent Operation of an Aircraft

• Amended Charges
  • AF01 - Reckless Operation of an Aircraft
  • GF22 - Breach of Trust

• Detailed Explanation: UNDER SEAL

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