#26-BT-0054, State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank

[Robin Bank]

Defendant Name: Robin Bank
Defendant Phone: 2508323
(( Defendant Discord: is.ronin))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC+2 ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: SD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 04/JUN/2026 8PM
Charge(s):

• Failure to identify

Narrative:

I was wrongfully charged

---

I, Robin Bank, 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. ))

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 5th day of June, 2026.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. 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.

Respectfully,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 5th day of June, 2026.

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

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

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.

If at any point in time the defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,


Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 9th day of July, 2026.

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

• Reasoning: The prosecution would like to request an additional week to collect evidence, additionally we would like to apologize for the delay on this continuance, I was on LOA and it appears this continuance was not submitted.

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [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

The State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A decision was reached in the above case on the 11th day of July, 2026.

The Court will accept the Motion for Continuance, which concludes on the 16th of July, 2026. No further extension of the discovery deadline will be granted.


So Ordered,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Robin Bank]

The Defendant respectfully moves the Court to reconsider its Order granting the State's Motion for Continuance.

The Defendant was not afforded an opportunity to respond to the State's Motion for Continuance before the Court issued its ruling. Respectfully, the Defendant submits that consideration of both parties' arguments is fundamental to ensuring a fair adjudication of contested motions.

Had the Defendant been permitted to respond, the Defendant would have argued that the State has already had approximately thirty (30) days to investigate and prepare this straightforward Failure to Identify matter. The prosecution's stated justification; that the assigned prosecutor was on Leave of Absence and that the continuance was not timely submitted; is an internal administrative matter within the State's control and does not constitute good cause to delay the Defendant's right to a timely resolution.

While the Defendant appreciates the Court's limitation that no further extension of the discovery deadline will be granted, the Defendant respectfully submits that the burden of the State's internal staffing or scheduling issues should not be borne by the Defendant.

Accordingly, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court reconsider its Order, vacate the continuance, and proceed with the matter as originally scheduled.

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  While the Court appreciates the comments from the Defendant, the Court will not be rescinding the last decision.
  
  The Court affords all parties some leeway. The Prosecution was on an approved leave of absence, and as such, the Court will accept the impact that had on the Prosecution, given the breadth of cases they are handling.
  
  Additionally, the latest press release from the Judicial Branch highlights the following:

  The prosecution will generally be limited to one continuance of up to seven days for discovery-related matters. Additional continuances will only be granted in extenuating circumstances, such as an approved leave of absence or other unforeseen circumstances beyond the party's control ((OOC Reasons)).

  This decision fits squarely within these guidelines. The discovery window for your case remained at thirty days, given the original order for Discovery was prior to this press release.
  
  [Press Release #64] Discovery Timeline Changes
  
  The Court has set a limit on the time extension, so it will revisit the matter on the stated date if no discovery is submitted by that time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 16th day of July, 2026.

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

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Robin Bank
    Telephone Number: 2508323
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Pink Elegy Retro Custom, LP RUNN, VIN H2G4UHZAZCSFYA000, RO Hope Linde

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: April Harlowe
    Badge Number: 9344
    Callsign: D14

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2026-06-04
    Deputies Involved: April Harlowe, Clay Thompson
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • I pulled over a Pink Elegy Retro Custom being driven by Hope Linde, with Mr Bank in the passenger seat. I requested both of them to identify themselves so I can address them both properly, and so I can know who I am speaking with. Hope complied, however Mr Bank refused to identify himself, quoting that he knows the law and that he doesn't need to identify himself. I attempted to explain to him that as a Deputy I have the right to identify anyone I am detaining, and all people in a vehicle during a traffic stop are legally detained. He refused to listen to this explanation, exited the vehicle and demanded he be arrested for Failure to Identify as he refuses to show his ID.
      Clay Thompson then placed him in cuffs, read him his rights, and placed him in the back of my cruiser while I handed Ms Linde a 1st Degree Speeding Citation and let her go on her way. Mr Bank was then searched, identified, and taken to Sandy Station where he served 20 months for Failure to Identify.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness statement Detective Harlow

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: 04/JUN/2026

  Witness Information

  • Name: April Harlowe
    Date of Birth: 10/MAY/1995
    Phone Number: 4961177
    Occupation: Detective - Los Santos Sheriffs Department

  Witness Statement

  • On June 4th 2026, I conducted a traffic stop on a pink Elegy Retro Custom after observing a traffic offence. The vehicle was occupied by the driver, Hope Linde, and a passenger, later identified as Mr Bank.
    
    As part of the stop, I requested identification from both occupants so I could properly identify everyone involved in the detention and address them appropriately throughout the interaction. Ms Linde complied with my request without issue. Mr Bank, however, refused to identify himself, stating that he was familiar with the law and was under no obligation to provide identification.
    
    I explained to Mr Bank that, during a lawful traffic stop, the occupants of the vehicle are considered lawfully detained, and that I was entitled to establish the identity of individuals involved in that detention. Despite this explanation, Mr Bank continued to refuse to provide any identifying information. He then voluntarily exited the vehicle and repeatedly stated that he wished to be arrested rather than identify himself.
    
    After Mr Bank made it clear that he would not comply with the lawful request for identification, Deputy Clay Thompson placed him under arrest for Failure to Identify. He was searched prior to arrest, his identity was established, and he was transported to Sandy Shores Sheriff's Station for processing. Once the driver had been issued the appropriate citation for the original traffic offence, she was released from the scene without further incident.
    
    Throughout the encounter, Mr Bank was given multiple opportunities to comply before enforcement action was taken, but he remained unwilling to identify himself.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, April Harlowe, 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,
    
    
    April Harlowe
    Detective
    Los Santos Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 09/JUL/2026

  

Rowin Lawson
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 17th day of July, 2026.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


Respectfully,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0054

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st day of July, 2026.

I, Hugh R. Allgood, Chief Public Defender of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Robin Bank, in the underlying case.

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


Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  Defense has posted their availability for trial.
  
  However, also attached to this notice is a Motion for Summary Judgement. We respectfully request this Court to review the motion prior to scheduling of any trial, as a Motion for Summary Judgement is an invitation of the Court to make a ruling of law on the uncontested facts of a case. We have spelled out these facts, and our argument in the attached motion.
  
  Attachment: Motion for Summary Judgement

  

  
  

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

  ---

  MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

  ---

  
  

  IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
  
  State of San Andreas v. Robin Bank
  #26-BT-0054
  
  A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 21st day of July, 2026.

  
  
  The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
  
  

  • Reasoning: Counsel contends this is not a case of disputed facts, but rather a case of disputed law.
    
    The uncontested facts of this case are as follows;
    
    • On the 4th of June, the Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle pulled over by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department.
    • The Deputy requested the identification of the Defendant.
    • The Defendant refused to provide their identification.
    • The Deputy provided several justifications to the Defendant as to why the Deputy made the request.
    • The Defendant exited the vehicle on their own accord, continuing to affirm their refusal to provide their identification, and giving law enforcement the choice of rescinding their request or arrest them.
    • The Defendant was arrested.
    • The driver of the vehicle the Defendant was a passenger in was cited for 1st degree speeding.
    • The Defendant spent 20 months in incarceration.
    
    
    Defense argument is as follows;
    
    The 4th Amendment to the San Andreas Constitution states (emphasis added)
    

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    
    
    As the uncontested facts are, the Defendant was not arrested due to a warrant. While there are exceptions to the 4th Amendment, it is important to begin argument by stating that all searches or seizures are inherently unreasonable, unless an exception applies. For the seizure of a person, this is generally limited to an on-view arrest, supported by probable cause occurring in the presence of a law enforcement officer.
    
    GM10 - Failure to Comply/Identify states (emphasis added):
    

    Failure to comply with a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, including when he requests you to identify who you are during the course of an investigation.

    
    
    This is where the dispute over law rests. The State, by the arrest by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department and the continuation of this case by the Attorney General's Office here in the Superior Court, contends the Defendant was required to identify themself to the Deputy. The Defense contends this was not a requirement, and posits the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department effected an unlawful arrest of the Defendant.
    
    As GM10 states, a person is required to comply with a lawful command of a law enforcement, which includes the required identification during the course of the investigation. As the uncontested facts were: the Defendant was the passenger in a vehicle, which was stopped for speeding. Therefore, it is argued the Defendant was not under investigation. But rather, the driver of the vehicle (Hope Linde) was under investigation for a traffic offense of speeding. Therefore, Defense counsel believes the State has not met their burden of proving GM10 to apply to the Defendant being compelled to identify themselves, as they were not the subject of the investigation.
    
    This is where the "unreasonable" seizure aspect mentioned by the 4th Amendment comes in. The Defendant was seized, as the passenger of a traffic stop. This is, however, reasonable, because the State has a justified (and therefore reasonable) interest in maintaining the safety of the roadways, and ensuring drivers are driving at the posted speed limits and therefore safely. The Defendant was in such vehicle, which was allegedly violating the posted speed limit. While the Defendant was not driving, the only reasonable way for the State to properly address the speeding violation, requires the Defendant to be seized for the purposes of a traffic stop on the vehicle they are riding in. And, if done correctly, the seizure of both the driver and the Defendant would have only been temporary, as speeding is not an arrestable offense. However, the State decided to up the ante and seize the Defendant for an additional period of 20 months. This was unreasonable because the Defendant was not the subject of the traffic stop, and was not otherwise subject to investigation as GM10 mentions. A completed investigation for a speeding offense involves a) identifying the person who committed the offense, and b) taking the appropriate enforcement action (a traffic citation or a warning). The Defendant was not involved in either, and therefore, the State does not have a reasonable justification to compel the identification of the Defendant and both options result in the end of a seizure after the goals and interests of the State are accomplished.
    
    In addition to the above argument, Defense points to precedence established in this Court.
    
    In the verdict in #24-CM-0072, State of San Andreas v. Ed Timpson, Chief Justice Hope Kant ruled that all occupants of a vehicle were detained during the course of a lawful traffic stop and law enforcement is allowed to request identification of occupants. However, Justice Kant affirmed the Defense position here, probable cause is required to compel identification.
    

    Law Enforcement Agencies may ask passengers in a vehicle to provide identification, but the passengers are not legally required to comply unless law enforcement has sufficient probable cause

    
    
    Therefore, as articulated in this pleading. We stipulate to the fact the Defendant was detained during the course of a traffic stop for speeding. We stipulate this detention was reasonable and lawful. However, as supported by both the Constitution, the penal code, and case precedence, we contend the subsequent seizure and arrest of the Defendant to be unlawful. And we respectfully request this Court rule in the favor of the Defense.

  
  
  
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

  
  
  
  
  Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will provide the Prosecution five (5) days to provide any rebuttal to the Motion for Summary Judgement. At that point, the Court will review the request and provide a decision.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]