Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013

Post by **Jason Steel** » 27 Feb 2022, 00:51

Motion for Discovery

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Judith Mason,

We the Respondent in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: Apellant/Plaintiff
Party Members: Police Captain II Jason Steel, Police Detective I Grace Steel
Exhibit #1: LSPD
Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
- Written report submitted by a sworn officer about the firearm being entered into evidence, including serial number information, as requested.
Spoiler
All Information from the Discovery The evidence was requested by the appellant.
- Pistol .50 / Hawk & Little
  
  Ammunition (.50): x25 / .50 AE
  
  Modifications: Suppressor
  
  Serial Number: Scratched off
  
  Person in Possession: Felix Noonham - 4861466
  
  Weapon Outcome: Destroyed : Illegal

Sincerely,

Jason Steel
Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department

Post by **Darcy Valor** » 28 Feb 2022, 23:24

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

To whom it may concern,

After approval from Honorable Judith Mason I will be acting as Co-Counsel with Mr. Dakota Macaw for the Appellant in this case.

Respectfully,

Darcy Lafleur
Attorney at Law
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 241-7634 [email protected]

Post by **Sai Modi** » 02 Mar 2022, 02:15

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Your Honor,

My name is Sai Modi and I will act as co-counsel for the Los Santos Police Department in this case. I am familiarizing myself with the case and will be reaching out to the client to gather more information.

Respectfully,

Sai Modi
Attorney-at-Law
Police Prosecution District
San Andreas Judicial Branch
364-9436

Post by **Jason Steel** » 04 Mar 2022, 23:57

Motion for Summary Judgment

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment

Honorable Judith Mason,

We the Respondent in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: N/A
Party Members: Jason Steel, Grace Steel, Sai Modi
Reasoning: The evidence when taken together shows that the actions taken by law enforcement were lawful beyond a reasonable doubt.
Detailed explanation:
A large amount of evidence, which is dated, was presented to yourself and the opposing counsel, showing the legal basis for the actions of the officers that day. It is our belief that when reviewed, they objectively show that no unlawful actions took place on that day. As the appellant already confirmed that the pistol and suppressor were found in his motorbike, and with the legality of the search being clearly proven, any other esoteric, circumstantial and speculative claims are not relevant, in our opinion, and are to be taken as beyond the scope of this appeal. We are already to expand on this verbally during a hearing, if your honor deems it acceptable.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jason Steel
Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department

Post by **Judith Mason** » 05 Mar 2022, 06:59

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

Seven days have now passed since discovery has been active, therefore I am now closing discovery and we will be moving forward by scheduling a hearing.

As this case has gotten quite large and there are number of motions, I will be holding this Discovery Hearing to determine which Motions for Discovery, Motions to Compel Discovery, and other relevant motions will be granted. I will be hearing the motions in order of submission and I am hoping to hear all motions in one session, but due to the size of this case, I am not opposed to adjourning to a second hearing, should the need arise and I grant more time for oral arguments.

Only one representative is required for either party to present oral arguments during this hearing, but if scheduling allows for both representatives from either side will be available, then that timeslot will be selected. Please use this Scheduling Tool to fill in your availability for the coming week.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Judith Mason** » 07 Mar 2022, 03:31

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

It appears that most if not all those required for the hearing will be available at 9pm (( UTC )) on Monday, March 7th. This hearing will not be open to the public as there is a significant amount of information that has been filed under seal, but the appellant is welcome to attend up until the time the sealed information comes up in discussion.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Judith Mason** » 08 Mar 2022, 01:56

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Summary of Motions Hearing for Newnham v. LSPD
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

After the hearing conducted at the San Andreas Courthouse at 9pm on March 7th, 2022, the following decisions have been made:
1. Motion to Compel Discovery for the DB Case File - Appellant
  Colt Daniels wrote: ↑03 Nov 2021, 03:30
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  Honorable : Bret Hyland
  We the defense in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
  Felix Noonham vs. The LSPD
  Assigned Court Case Number: N/A
  Requesting Party: Defense
  Party Members: Felix Noonham, Colt Daniels
  Discovery from: The LSPD
  
  Type of Discovery: Document Request
  
  The Detective Bureau Case-File used to detain the appellant.
  
  Detailed reasoning:
  
  This case-file will show the legitimacy of the detention of my client & the entirety of the case is based on if the LSPD had probable cause to detain and search my client and his vehicle.
  
  Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely
  
  District Criminal Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
  - This motion was later withdrawn, therefore it is dismissed.
2. Motion to Compel Discovery of Bodycam, Arrest, and Situation Reports - Appellant
  Colt Daniels wrote: ↑09 Dec 2021, 04:33
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  Honorable : Judith Mason
  We the defemse in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
  Felix Noonham vs. The LSPD
  Assigned Court Case Number: 21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Defense
  Party Members: Felix Noonham, Colt Daniels
  Discovery from: LSPD
  
  Type of Discovery: Document Request
  
  Bodycam Footage, Officer Statements, Arrest Report, & Situation Report.
  
  Detailed reasoning:
  I would like to see the footage of how the situation unfolded and what reasoning the detectives gave Mr. Noonham to detain him and search his person and property. I would also like to have statements from the detectives and officers involved explaining their interpretations of what took place during this situation. I would also like to see all reports filed as a result of this arrest (Arrest Report and Situation Report) to see if it includes any information that would be useful to the case.
  
  Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely
  
  District Criminal Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
  - Motion granted.
3. Motion for Discovery of Previous Traffic Stop and Photograph of Mr. Newnham - Respondent
  Jason Steel wrote: ↑26 Feb 2022, 18:00
  Motion for Discovery
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion for Discovery
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  We the Respondent in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Defendant
  Party Members: Police Captain II Jason Steel, Police Detective I Grace Steel
  Exhibit #1: LSPD
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  
  Written report submitted by a sworn officer about their interaction with the appellant a short amount of time before the incident being appealed.
  
  Spoiler
  All Information from the Discovery This evidence is highly relevant as it occurred a short amount of time prior to the incidents that are being disputed by the appellant, and it shows the individuals disposition to flee from law enforcement, information which other officers, including Detective Steel and Captain Steel would've had access to.
  
  Los Santos Police Department
  TRAFFIC STOP REPORT
  "TO PROTECT AND SERVE"
  
  TRAFFIC STOP DETAILS
  
  Location: Bay City Avenue
  Narrative: Reckless Operation
  Additional Units: 23-S-2
  Approx. Time and Date: 23/OCT/2021, 20:20
  
  VEHICLE DETAILS
  
  Vehicle Driver: Felix Noonham
  Vehicle Owner: Felix Noonham
  License Plate: F3LIX
  Vehicle Model: Issi Sport
  Vehicle Color: Silver
  Vehicle Passengers (If Applicable): N/A
  
  TRAFFIC STOP OUTCOME
  Please add a "X" all relevant areas. When issuing a citation, license suspension (length), or charge, amend "Specify" inside the parenthesis.
  
  Action Taken:
  [ ] Verbal Warning
  [ ] Citation (Specify)
  [ ] Demerit
  [X] License Suspension (2 days)
  [X] Charge (VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle)
  
  Stop Verdict:
  At approximately 2015 I pulled over an individual in silver/gray Issi Sport for flying down the Bay City Avenue whilst going 158 km/h. I was suggested by an SAM unit to arrest the individual for reckless operation, considering the speed and the amount of road he was airborne. I informed individual to step out of the vehicle since he is being under arrest. After hearing those words, Felix Noonham decided to disobey my direct orders and felony evade from the scene. We initiated a pursuit in TAC 1 & requested for a high speed unit. The pursuit continued for around 20 minutes throughout the city and on Del Perro Freeway. After driving recklessly for quit a bit, suspect collided with a building and was arrested by first arriving units.
  
  Exhibit #2: LSPD
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  
  Picture of the appellant on the scene of his arrest on the 23rd of October, wearing extremely similar (if not identical) clothing as the day when he was searched by the defendants.
  
  Spoiler
  All Information from the Discovery This is supporting evidence for Exhibit #1, showcasing the defendants clothing was not a one-time fluke but a uniform that he wore proudly whenever he committed crimes against the the penal code, and which he was wearing during the incident which is being appealed.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Jason Steel
  Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department
  - The motion is split into two parts; the Motion for Discovery of the Prior Traffic Stop is denied and the Motion for Discovery of the Photograph is granted.
4. Motion to Compel Discovery to Confirm Gang Affiliation - Respondent
  Jason Steel wrote: ↑26 Feb 2022, 18:08
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  We the Respondent in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Defendant
  Party Members: Police Captain II Jason Steel, Police Detective I Grace Steel
  Discovery from: Plaintiff
  
  Type of Discovery: Deposition
  
  We would like the plaintiff to clearly admit or refute the fact that, at the time of the events, he was affiliated with a criminal organization.
  
  Detailed reasoning: [Provide a detail explanation as to the relevance of the discovery request]
  
  The plaintiff failed to address the accusation that he is affiliated with a criminal organization, and we believe that it is highly relevant when his initial statement is attempting to paint him as a regular citizen whom is just minding his own business, when in actuality, he was armed with a loaded firearm, with a suppressor in his possession and was sporting the uniform of a criminal organization. We believe that his membership in a criminal organization is highly relevant to the narrative being pushed by the plaintiff and we would like him to speak on record about it.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Jason Steel
  Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department
  - Motion denied.
5. Motion to Suppress the Prior Traffic Stop Information - Appellant
  Dakota Macaw wrote: ↑26 Feb 2022, 19:00
  Motion to Suppress
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion to Suppress
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  We the Appellant in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Appellant
  Party Members: Felix Newnham, Dakota Macaw
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Exhibit #1 "Written report submitted by a sworn officer about their interaction with the appellant a short amount of time before the incident being appealed."
  Detailed explanation:
  The Appellant's previous history with law enforcement is inconsequential to the search and or seizure of the appellant's property or person. Whether or not an individual has a criminal history or not does not change the inherent protections that all citizens may enjoy when conducting their day-to-day activities. Criminal history is not admissible as sufficient probable cause, and although there are many precautions that the Police Department and law enforcement in general may take when confronting repeat-offenders, they may not conduct searches and or seizure without valid probable cause.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Attorney Dakota Macaw
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 419-3141 — [email protected]
  - The motion is dismissed as the Motion for Discovery presenting the information has been denied.
6. Motion to Compel Discovery of Items Seized During Search - Appellant
  Dakota Macaw wrote: ↑26 Feb 2022, 22:03
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion to Compel Discovery
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  Firstly I would like to concur with the respondent's request for a hearing and look forward to meeting in hearing soon.
  
  Before this though, we the Appellant in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Appellant
  Party Members: Dakota Macaw, Felix Newnham
  Discovery from: LSPD
  
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  
  We the Appellant Request the firearm and all related contraband that was allegedly found in Mr. Newnham's vehicle to be submitted to evidence.
  
  Detailed reasoning:
  
  As the charges that are being appealed are based off of this exact evidence, proof of their existence (and clarification of any serial numbers) will be necessary to continue with the case.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Attorney Dakota Macaw
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 419-3141 — [email protected]
  - Motion granted.
7. Motion for Discovery of Seized Firearm Information - Respondent
  Jason Steel wrote: ↑27 Feb 2022, 00:51
  Motion for Discovery
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion for Discovery
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  We the Respondent in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: Apellant/Plaintiff
  Party Members: Police Captain II Jason Steel, Police Detective I Grace Steel
  Exhibit #1: LSPD
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  
  Written report submitted by a sworn officer about the firearm being entered into evidence, including serial number information, as requested.
  
  Spoiler
  All Information from the Discovery The evidence was requested by the appellant.
  
  Pistol .50 / Hawk & Little
  
  Ammunition (.50): x25 / .50 AE
  
  Modifications: Suppressor
  
  Serial Number: Scratched off
  
  Person in Possession: Felix Noonham - 4861466
  
  Weapon Outcome: Destroyed : Illegal
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Jason Steel
  Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department
  - Motion granted.
8. [UNDER SEAL] Motion for Discovery - Respondent
  - Motion granted.
9. [UNDER SEAL] Motion to Compel Discovery - Appellant
  - Motion denied.
10. [UNDER SEAL] Motion to Compel Discovery - Appellant
  - Motion denied.
11. [UNDER SEAL] Motion to Compel Discovery - Appellant
  - Motion denied.
12. Motion for Summary Judgment - Respondent
  Jason Steel wrote: ↑04 Mar 2022, 23:57
  Motion for Summary Judgment
  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Motion for Summary Judgment
  
  Honorable Judith Mason,
  
  We the Respondent in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
  Felix Newnham v. Police Department
  Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
  Requesting Party: N/A
  Party Members: Jason Steel, Grace Steel, Sai Modi
  Reasoning: The evidence when taken together shows that the actions taken by law enforcement were lawful beyond a reasonable doubt.
  Detailed explanation:
  A large amount of evidence, which is dated, was presented to yourself and the opposing counsel, showing the legal basis for the actions of the officers that day. It is our belief that when reviewed, they objectively show that no unlawful actions took place on that day. As the appellant already confirmed that the pistol and suppressor were found in his motorbike, and with the legality of the search being clearly proven, any other esoteric, circumstantial and speculative claims are not relevant, in our opinion, and are to be taken as beyond the scope of this appeal. We are already to expand on this verbally during a hearing, if your honor deems it acceptable.
  Thank you for your consideration.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Jason Steel
  Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department
  - Motion denied.
Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Judith Mason** » 16 Mar 2022, 03:30

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

I thank you for your patience in this matter. I am now giving either side 24 hours to make an argument as to whether a second round of motions should be allowed, or if your side is ready to move to trial. If I find there is a valid reason to seek more evidence, I will allow for a shortened 3-day period to submit further motions, otherwise, we will proceed with scheduling a closed trial. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Dakota Macaw** » 16 Mar 2022, 03:49

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Honorable Judith Mason,

The court has yet to receive any video footage from the incident in question. We previously requested a motion to compel discovery for bodycam footage, to which the prosecution stated there was none. After requesting further dashcam footage, the prosecution implied that they would not be forfeiting this footage until another motion was approved by the court. We request another discovery period as we still have absolutely no footage from the incident in question.

Respectfully,

Attorney Dakota Macaw
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 419-3141 — [email protected]

Post by **Jason Steel** » 16 Mar 2022, 20:27

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Honorable Judith Mason,

We, the respondent, do not oppose the appellants request for an extension; We feel that a short window for additional motions would be prudent for the pursuit of justice.

Sincerely,

Jason Steel
Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department

Post by **Judith Mason** » 16 Mar 2022, 21:45

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

As has been requested, I am now opening discovery once again for 72 hours. Please submit any further motions to the Court within that time period. Once the discovery period has closed, a hearing may be held if there is any dispute in the motions, but if not, we will move forward with scheduling the closed trial.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Dakota Macaw** » 17 Mar 2022, 22:47

Motion to Compel Discovery

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery

Honorable Judith Mason,

We the Appellant in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: Appellant
Party Members: Dakota Macaw, Darcy Lafleur, Felix Newnham
Discovery from: LSPD

Type of Discovery: Video Evidence
- We are requesting all footage of the situation in question that is available. This includes but is not limited to dashcam, bodycam, and any other recording that the LSPD is in possession of.
Detailed reasoning:
- The court previously decided that footage of the incident would be submitted so we can be more aware of the events that occurred that day.

Sincerely,

Attorney Dakota Macaw
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 419-3141 — [email protected]

Post by **Jason Steel** » 19 Mar 2022, 20:51

Motion for Summary Judgment

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment

Honorable Judith Mason,

We the Prosecution in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: 21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: Respondent
Party Members: Police Captain II Jason Steel, Police Detective Grace Steel
Reasoning: We have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the search was conducted in accordance to the law.
Detailed explanation:
We believe that, any reasonable individual, after reading the totality of the documents presented by the respondent will come to the conclusion that the individual's search was in accordance with the law, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Jason Steel
Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department

Post by **Jason Steel** » 19 Mar 2022, 20:59

Motion for Discovery

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Judith Mason,

We the Respondent in the case below are presenting a response to the appellants latest Motion to Compel Discovery.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: Appellant/Plaintiff
Party Members: Felix Newnham and Counsel
Exhibit #1: LSPD
Type of Discovery: Digital Evidence
- Written email from the Internal Affairs Command stating that they have no recordings, in any form, bodycamera, dashcamera or otherwise.
Spoiler
All Information from the Discovery The evidence was requested by the appellant.
Pierce Hardy wrote: ↑19 Mar 2022, 20:55 No, we do not. Otherwise it would have been disclosed.

Best,
Commander Hardy
-Sent on my iFruit 13 plus minus 1.

Sincerely,

Jason Steel
Police Captain II, Los Santos Police Department

Post by **Judith Mason** » 20 Mar 2022, 06:30

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

The 72 hour period for discovery has now closed. The pending motions are as follows:
1. Motion to Compel Discovery of Additional Recorded Video Evidence - Appellant
2. [UNDER SEAL] Motion for Discovery - Respondent
3. Motion for Summary Judgment - Respondent
4. Motion for Discovery Confirming Lack of Additional Recorded Video Evidence - Respondent
I would now ask that all parties use the provided scheduling tool to select their upcoming availability for this next week to schedule a Motions Hearing for this case. Thank you.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Judith Mason** » 23 Mar 2022, 05:13

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Felix Newnham v. Police Department | Docket #21-10-29-AP-013
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Parties,

Based on the responses provided to the scheduling tool, I will be setting the date and time for this hearing to be 8pm (( UTC )) on Friday, March 25th. As this case deals with motions filed under seal, the proceeding will not be open to the public.

Respectfully,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

Post by **Dakota Macaw** » 24 Mar 2022, 18:49

Motion to Suppress

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Suppress

Honorable Justice Mason,

We the Defense in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.
Felix Newnham v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #21-10-29-AP-013
Requesting Party: Defense
Party Members: Dakota Macaw, Darcy Lafleur, Felix Newnham
Requested Evidence to Suppress: All evidence retrieved from the search of Mr. Newnham and his property.
Detailed explanation:
The respondent has not been able to demonstrate proper probable cause of belief that Mr. Newnham was committing any crime, leaving the search of Mr. Newnham and his property unlawful. Furthermore, they have consistently been unable to provide any footage of the incident, leading to no evidence of a lawful traffic stop in the first place.

Sincerely,

Senior Defense Attorney Dakota Macaw
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 419-3141 — [email protected]

Post by **Judith Mason** » 26 Mar 2022, 00:17

Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict

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

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - #21-10-29-AP-013

IN THE APPEALS COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Felix Newnham v. Los Santos Police Department
#21-10-29-AP-013

CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications
WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms / Weapons
VC08 - Failure to Yield (to a TCD)

A verdict was entered in the above case on the 25th day of March, 2022.

The case of Felix Newnham v. Los Santos Police Department, Docket #21-10-29-AP-013 has hereby been concluded through the respondent’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

[REDACTED]

The Court has made a determination that the above required provisions have been established via the evidence, therefore, the judgment on the charges are as follows:
- On the charge of WM03 - Possession of Weapon Modifications, the appellant Felix Newnham is hereby found guilty.
- On the charge of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons, the appellant Felix Newnham is hereby found guilty.
- As the charge of VC08 - Failure to Yield (to a TCD) is a citation, the Court will not make a determination as per the State of San Andreas Judicial Branch Policy.
A redacted version of this verdict will be posted to the public docket to ensure all sealed evidence has been kept sealed.

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

SAJB Awards

SADOC Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

LSPD Awards for Service

LSPD Awards for Bravery

LSSD Awards

SASG Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards

SAJB Awards