#23-CM-0064, State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon

[Truls Svartlamon]

Defendant Name: Truls Svartlamon
Defendant Phone: 224-1428
Defendant Address: n/a
(( Defendant Discord: Jokl#7978 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A

Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 16/APR/2023 12:30PM
Charge(s):

• VF01 - Evading an Officer

Narrative:
Me and my friend got pulled over at a traffic stop. The police officer with the badge number 15701 did the traffic stop. My friend suddenly decided to evade since the police officer told her to step out of the car.
My friend started to drive off pretty fast and at no point during the pursuit did I have a opportunity to exit the vehicle. She just drove off and at one point the car came to stop for a split second on the offramp to a highway before she right away started to drive in reverse, so if I jumped out I might have been driven over!
When she crashed the car I walked out and put my hands up in the air right away and complied with the officer, and told him I had no idea my friend was gona evade and I had no chance to get out during the short pursuit. The officer ignored it and charged me with VF01 - Evading an Officer. The arresting officer of myself had the badge number 23673.

---

I, Truls Svartlamon, 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. ))

[Shaun Harper]

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. Truls Svartlamon

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 17 of April, 2023.

I, Shaun Harper, Deputy Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Truls Svartlamon in the underlying case.

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



Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Truls Svartlamon

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 18/APR/2023.

I, Hope Kant, a Junior Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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



Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 [email protected][/list]

[Judith Mason]

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. Truls Svartlamon

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 19th day of April, 2023.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

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.



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

[Blake Eli]

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. Truls Svartlamon

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 20th of April, 2023.

I, Blake Eli, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Truls Svartlamon

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



Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 323-9861 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Truls Svartlamon

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25th of April, 2023.

I, Tony McFornell, a Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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



Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 22nd day of June, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Defendant is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0064.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.



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

[Judith Mason]

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

---

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A court order was entered in the above case on the 22nd day of June, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0064, State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.



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

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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. Truls Svartlamon

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 23rd day of June, 2023.

I, Jacob Schmidtt, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), Truls Svartlamon in the underlying case.

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


Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 23rd of June, 2023.

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

• Exhibit #1: Truls Svartlamon Arrest Report - 16/APR/2023

  

  

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

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Truls Svartlamon
      Phone Number: 2241428
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer II Winston West
      • Police Officer III King Lee
      • Police Detective I Mike Adams
      Charges:
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • I responded to a backup request for a traffic stop. Officer King Lee was attempting to remove the driver from the vehicle, and she wasn't complying. They then began evading, and during the evasion were stopping, ramming into cruisers, giving Truls (the passenger) plenty of time to exit the evasion. After they ended up stalling, both individuals got out and I cuffed Truls. He claimed he didn't know she was going to evade and wasn't involved, but as I stated, he had multiple opportunities to exit the vehicle. He was taken to DOC, and his licenses were suspended for one day.
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Possessions:
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: Legal Evidence
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  
  Exhibit #2: Arrest Report of Fiora Sojka (The Driver)

  

  

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

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Fiora Sojka
      Phone Number: 5875174
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer III King Lee
      • Police Officer II Winston West
      • Police Detective I Mike Adams
      Charges:
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • GM08 - Vandalism
      • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
      • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • Suspect "Fiora Sojka" was originally got pulled over by officer King Lee for Vandalizing his vehicle.
        
        Fiora Sojka vandalized off duty officer King Lee vehicles.
        Plus she also rammed multiple officer cruiser while she was evading.
        
        
        On a Traffic Stop, When officer King Lee Demanded the suspect "Fiora Sojka" to Eject the vehicle and come on side walk, The suspect decided to refused and started evading and while evading she rammed multiple police cruisers with a Kamacho but the suspect vehicle "Kamacho" also got Stalled when suspect tried to brake check the Police Cruiser.
        
        Suspect was using her mask and radio to get a advantage on her illegal actions.
        
        Note: Suspect also kicked officer King Lee multiple times in a process of cuffing and frisking.
        
        Due to the actions of the suspect, She got charged with: VF01 | GM08 | GM10 | GM19.
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: 1x Face Mask
        Exhibit B: 2x Radio
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: Clothing
        Exhibit B: 2x Gps
        Exhibit C: 1x Knife
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  
  Exhibit #3: Police Officer III K. Lee's Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: [16/April/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [King Lee]
    Date of Birth: [01/Jan/1980]
    Phone Number: [414-3101]
    Occupation: [LSPD]

  Witness Statement

  • The suspect "Truls Svartlamon" was participating in crime with his friend and was also participating in Evading. Suspect also had sufficient time, multiple times to exit the vehicle but rather than that he decided to stayed with the suspect and participate in Evasion.
    Upon crashing and getting stalled, Passenger and driver both exited the vehicle and started acted like a victim.
    
    For reference: INCLUDED IN EXHIBIT# 2
    
    Suspect "Truls Svartlamon" himself also vandalized my vehicle when I was off-duty.
    The only reason suspect was not charged with vandalizing is because the charging officer was lenient with the charges and only charged the suspect with "VF01", Otherwise Originally, Suspect was liable for "VF01 and GM08" because suspect "Truls" himself in the situation near burgershot, Rammed the vehicle of Off-Duty officer by using his "kamacho" and drove over the off-duty officer vehicle "paragon".
    
    However, Suspect only got charged with "VF01".
    In the Traffic Stop situation, When they Evaded from 10-55, Suspect "Truls" decided to participate in that evasion, Suspect "Truls" had multiple opportunity to exit the vehicle multiple times in multiple occasions.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [King Lee], 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.))
    
    
    [King Lee]
    [LAU Case Inquiry - #035-LAU-23]
    [Los Santos Police Department]
    
    Date: [26/April/2023]

  
  Exhibit #4: Police Officer II W. West's Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 16/APR/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Winston West
    Date of Birth: 02/FEB/2001
    Phone Number: 321-7407
    Occupation: Los Santos Police Department Police Officer

  Witness Statement

  • I was responding to a backup request for a 10-55 on a Kamacho. Truls was the passenger at the time, and as they were talking with the officer, when he went back to his vehicle, the driver began to evade. I do believe Truls Svartlamon had the opportunity to get out. During two points in the pursuit he had a short chance to get out, but there was a chance. I have one portion of bodycam footage that shows the time he could've gotten out, and it shows that at one point, the Kamacho came to a complete stop before reversing into a cruiser. Shortly after that chance as well, the Kamacho came to another complete stop, which is shown in the clip. He did mention that he wasn't aware she was going to evade, but he had chances to exit the vehicle, so I placed the Evading charge. I believe that he was in on this pursuit, even if he maybe wasn't aware she was originally going to begin evading.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Winston West, 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,
    
    
    Winston West
    Police Officer II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 23/APR/2023

  
  Exhibit #5: Police Detective I M. Adam's Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: [16/APR/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mike Adams
    Date of Birth: 19/JUN/1996
    Phone Number: [###-####]
    Occupation: Police Detective I

  Witness Statement

  • I do not recall much of this pursuit. As seen in the arrest report's attached footage, I was rammed twice by the suspect vehicle. The second crash made me stall my engine meaning I was out of the pursuit for some time. I can not provide a statement as to what happened whilst I was out.
    
    I hope either Officer Lee or West has additional bodycam footage.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mike Adams, 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 Adams
    Police Detective I
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 23/APR/2023

  
  Exhibit #6: K. Lee Bodycam Footage - Vandalism

  ((Bodycam RP Proof))
  **Click**
  Exhibit #7: K. Lee Bodycam Footage - Police Chase

  ((Bodycam RP Proof))
  **Click**
  Exhibit #8: Review/Still of K. Lee Bodycam Footage

  
  Exhibit #9: MDC Printout of Kamacho Registration

  ((RP Proof))

  

  

---

Notary Public
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 23rd of June, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: Indisputable Facts
  • Detailed Explanation: Both sides agree on the narrative. The defendant was in a car with his friend that proceeded to run. The question in this case is whether or not the defendant is considered a "willing participant" for choosing to stay in the car once he's been a witness to a crime. The Prosecution has proven that he was present at the initial crime in the same vehicle with the perpetrator and driver, Fiora Sojka. The defendant has stated that the Ms. Sojka was his friend, therefore insinuating a willingness to be in the car initially as well as knowledge of crimes being committed. The Prosecution believes that the defendant had time to drop the perpetrator off after seeing the crime, and thus believe in his willingness to participate in any actions committed by the perpetrator in the near future. The Prosecution would like to leave it up to the courts to decide whether the wording of "willing participant" applies in this case given the evidence provided.

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
Notary Public
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  This is to serve as a notice to the courts. The prosecution no longer requires any more time for discovery. We await the Judges direction.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  With the prosecution's waiver of the remaining time provided by the Order for Discovery, the defense shall have until the 26th to file any motions in response unless a continuance is filed. The court would ask that the defense additionally respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment when ready.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

---

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A Motion to Compel Discovery was filed in the above case on the 24th day of June, 2023.

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

• Requested Discovery: Bodycam Footage
  • Detailed Reasoning: Officer West states

    I have one portion of bodycam footage that shows the time he could've gotten out, and it shows that at one point, the Kamacho came to a complete stop before reversing into a cruiser. Shortly after that chance as well, the Kamacho came to another complete stop, which is shown in the clip.

    
    We the Defense would like to see this bodycam footage.

Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution is unable to comply with the above request, as they have done exactly as requested already and provided the information. The Prosecution would like to draw the defenses eye to 00:43 of the Exhibit #7. The Kamacho can be seen, driving onto an off ramp, stopping, and then reversing into officers. If needed, the Prosecution can provide motion still photos of the event for further clarification.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,

We the defense are requesting the Bodycam Footage of Officer West. We acknowledge that Officer K. Lee has provided footage however Officer West states in his Witness Statement that he has a portion of Bodycam footage. If the bodycam footage is not available from Officer West, more stills would be acceptable.




Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[/quote]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution, unless ordered to by a Judge, will not be requesting the above evidence from the LSPD. The reason being is that we are not required to present evidence, if it is a repeat of evidence already provided. The Prosecution has done their duty by providing the information in their discovery. The statement made by Officer West is in fact confirmed in the recording in Exhibit #7.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 25th day of June, 2023.

Truls Svartlamon, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: : Truls Svartlamon Arrest Report - 16/APR/2023
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: giving Truls (the passenger) plenty of time to exit the evasion.

  Lack of Foundation

  • Detailed Reasoning: The arrest report states that there was plenty of time to exit, but no mention on how long would be considered 'plenty of time'. In the State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine,
    22-CM-0013, the court ruled that a 3 second length of time to exist the vehicle was not enough time. Given the bodycam footage provided, there was no instance that was even 3 seconds long that would allow the Defendant to exit the vehicle.

• Exhibit #3: Police Officer III K. Lee's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The suspect "Truls Svartlamon" was participating in crime with his friend and was also participating in Evading. Suspect also had sufficient time, multiple times to exit the vehicle but rather than that he decided to stayed with the suspect and participate in Evasion.
  Upon crashing and getting stalled, Passenger and driver both exited the vehicle and started acted like a victim.

  Lack of Foundation

  • Detailed Reasoning: As stated above, the officer states that the Defendant was participating in crimes and was participating in Evading. There is no evidence that has been provided to demonstrate that the client was participating, only the opinions of the officers arresting.

• Exhibit #3: : Police Officer III K. Lee's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Suspect "Truls Svartlamon" himself also vandalized my vehicle when I was off-duty.
  The only reason suspect was not charged with vandalizing is because the charging officer was lenient with the charges and only charged the suspect with "VF01", Otherwise Originally, Suspect was liable for "VF01 and GM08" because suspect "Truls" himself in the situation near burgershot, Rammed the vehicle of Off-Duty officer by using his "kamacho" and drove over the off-duty officer vehicle "paragon".
  
  However, Suspect only got charged with "VF01".
  In the Traffic Stop situation, When they Evaded from 10-55, Suspect "Truls" decided to participate in that evasion, Suspect "Truls" had multiple opportunity to exit the vehicle multiple times in multiple occasions.

  Lack of Relevance

  • Detailed Reasoning: Statements of charges that could have been presented have no bearing on the current charges. Past actions from events that were not involved with this pursuit have no relevance on the matter at hand. As stated before as well, Precedence was set in the State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, 22-CM-0013 which stated that 3 second of time with a vehicle stopped was not enough.

• 
  Junior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution appreciates the point of the Defense, however we do have several objections to the above motion.

  ---

  Exhibit #1: Truls Svartlamon Arrest Report - 16/APR/2023
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: giving Truls (the passenger) plenty of time to exit the evasion.

  ---

  The Prosecution is asking the Judge to deny this motion for the simple fact that "plenty of time" is not an actual increment of time, giving us more than enough foundation to allow the statement at trial. It is shown in the bodycam footage that the driver of the vehicle did do as described by the officer in his witness statement, which, by definition, gives him the ability to state the vehicle stopped. To reference back to the State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, 22-CM-0013, all officers were allowed to state and give their opinion that they thought "3 seconds of time was enough" to exit the vehicle. That being said, whether or not "plenty of time" qualifies as enough time to exit the vehicle is something that should be argued at trial. #22-CM-0060, State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg, allowed for officers opinions/interpretations to be included in witness testimony.
  
  Chief Justice Judith Mason - "These statements are made by the law enforcement officer who wrote the arrest report in an attempt to state why they made the arrest, as opposed to prove the truth of the matter. Whether or not the statements made are the truth is an argument best saved for trial."

  ---

  Exhibit #3: Police Officer III K. Lee's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The suspect "Truls Svartlamon" was participating in crime with his friend and was also participating in Evading. Suspect also had sufficient time, multiple times to exit the vehicle but rather than that he decided to stayed with the suspect and participate in Evasion.
  Upon crashing and getting stalled, Passenger and driver both exited the vehicle and started acted like a victim.

  ---

  The Prosecution once again has provided more than enough evidence to prove the foundation of these statements. Witness statements are essentially how someone views a specific situation. The officer was providing his opinions and viewpoint on an event he personally witnessed. Along with bodycam, what more foundation do we need? The Officer stated multiple things that are confirmed in the appeal of the defendant, such as labeling the Driver as his "friend" or that he was "participating" which is confirmed by his statement and bodycam.
  
  Let's review the definition of 'participate'. My dictionary states the word participate means "to take part in or become involved in an activity". The officer simply stated that the defendant was in fact in the car, and therefore "participating" in the act. Whether or not they were a willing participant is what's being argued, not their participation in the act. As to argue they were not participating is to state they were not in the car, which, once again, has been proven through bodycam evidence.

  ---

  Exhibit #3: Police Officer III K. Lee's Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:
  Suspect "Truls Svartlamon" himself also vandalized my vehicle when I was off-duty.
  The only reason suspect was not charged with vandalizing is because the charging officer was lenient with the charges and only charged the suspect with "VF01", Otherwise Originally, Suspect was liable for "VF01 and GM08" because suspect "Truls" himself in the situation near burgershot, Rammed the vehicle of Off-Duty officer by using his "kamacho" and drove over the off-duty officer vehicle "paragon".
  However, Suspect only got charged with "VF01".
  In the Traffic Stop situation, When they Evaded from 10-55, Suspect "Truls" decided to participate in that evasion, Suspect "Truls" had multiple opportunity to exit the vehicle multiple times in multiple occasions.

  ---

  An officers discretion is just that, an officers discretion. He does or does not have to place charges on someone, but, as these statements are his observations of the specific event in question, they have all the relevance to this case. Not only that, but they're proved by the bodycam footage provided by the Officer. The vandalism is what led to the traffic stop, which is what led to the felony evasion, which is what lead us to be here in this moment. The Defendant has been a participant in ALL three. Once again, the question is not whether he participated, but whether he was a willing participant.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of July, 2023.

In regards to the Motion to Compel Discovery, the court has found there to be sufficient reason to compel the discovery of the body-camera footage from Officer West, considering the footage has been directly referenced by the officer within their witness statement to the court and has been used as the basis for the placement of the VF01 - Evading an Officer charge by that specific officer. Should the evidence be available, it must be presented.

When it comes to the Motion to Suppress filed by the defense, however, the court will be denying the motion in full. The referenced statement in Exhibit 1 is vague and the court takes this statement as an opinion of the officer as outlined in their official arrest report written during the course of their duties rather than a specific statement of how long the defendant had to potentially exit the vehicle. When it comes to the witness statement written by Officer Lee, the court has found both referenced portions of the statement to be admissible as the first is an assertion of the officer grounded in the body-camera footage, and the second portion points to the original purpose of the traffic stop that initiated this situation.

In approximately 24 hours, the court will issue a decision on the Motion for Summary Judgment - should the defense wish to present arguments in favor or against Summary Judgment, the court would ask for a response be made prior to this time tomorrow, at which point a decision will be issued and this case will move forward as necessary.



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

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

We, the Defense, do not object against the motion of summary judgment.






Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

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. Truls Svartlamon
#23-CM-0064

A decision was reached in the above case on the 8th day of July, 2023.

The Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby granted. Starting with the prosecution, parties are permitted 72 hours each to submit arguments on the merits of their case. Once initial arguments have been submitted, each party is permitted 72 hours each for one additional response for counter-arguments, at which point I will issue a final verdict.



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

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  The question at hand is not the facts in the case, but the moment a person becomes a willing participant. To begin, Exhibit #6 shows the defendant and "friend" Fiora Sojka kicking the vehicle of Off-duty Officer King Lee. At this point in time, instead of calling police, he allowed his friend back into his vehicle. Even saying, "do something about it" to the off-duty officer. It is clear in the footage that the two were together prior to the traffic stop. It is also clear at this time, the defendant was aware that the person in his vehicle had committed a crime, as no reasonable person would think it's okay to destroy another persons property.
  
  Exhibit 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 also serve to prove that the defendant in question did know that the man walking up to the Kamacho and speaking to his "friend" Fiora Sojka was the victim of Ms. Sojka's vandalism and an officer of the law. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 all show that Officer Lee was the man who pulled over the Kamacho. Exhibits 6 and 7 prove that the Officer talked in both instances, even addressing the defendant in exhibit 6, so much so that the Prosecution feels the defendant had enough reasonable prior knowledge to know what was coming.
  
  To review:
  • The defendant did not revoke Ms. Sojka's keys to his vehicle after committing a crime.
  • The defendant allowed Ms. Sojka to drive his vehicle after committing a crime.
  • The defendant remained with Ms. Sojka after witnessing her committing a crime.
  The Prosecution argues that the defendants willingness to participate in the crime began when he saw the initial act of vandalism, and did not leave his "friend". If he was truly unwilling, then Ms. Sojka would've been dropped off and left to fend for herself after committing the crime. If he was truly unwilling, then Ms. Sojka wouldn't have keys to his car after her recent criminal act. If he was truly unwilling, he would not have waited by his friend while she continued to vandalize and off-duty officers vehicle. If he was truly unwilling, he would not have switched seats to let her drive.
  
  The question the Prosecution is asking the courts to decide on this case is, when does willingness to commit VF01 begin? We do not argue that he had time to exit the vehicle, as previous precedence would prove that the time given in the bodycam footage was not enough to exit safely. However the law states, "All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act". The Prosecution is hoping this case will set a precedence for when an occupant is defined as willing or where/when the willingness to participate in an act begins.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  
  
  
  As has been stated in past, most notably in the State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine 22-CM-0013, merely being in a vehicle and not leaving does not make one guilty of VF01. Precedent has already been established that being the passenger of a vehicle does not make one a willing participant in a crime. The prosecution would have you believe that it is still up for debate.
  
  The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, to prove that our client is guilty. In this case, the prosecution claims that the defendant, Truls Svartlamon, was actively participating in the crime and made a conscious decision to remain in the vehicle. The prosecution, however, has failed to provide any concrete evidence to show that this is the case, instead relying on the subjective opinions of officers and assumptions by the very same individuals. [
  
  The Bodycam footage alluded to in Officer West's witness statement, which was compelled by the defense, remains absent from the evidence.
  
  The prosecution's mentions of past actions, wholly unrelated to the current charges, such as the alleged vandalism of Officer Lee's vehicle, should be disregarded as they are irrelevant to the charge our client is defending against. This attempt by the prosecution to introduce unrelated offenses serves only to prejudice the court's perception of the defendant and diverts attention from the specific, and only, charge at hand.
  
  We, the defense, maintain that our client, Truls Svartlamon, had no active involvement in the decision to evade police and should not be held accountable for the actions of his friend. To ignore this fact would set a dangerous precedent in the court which would allow for unwilling hostages and passengers to be charged merely for being present at the scene of the crime.
  
  
  Junior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Mason and pertaining parties,
  
  Once again, the Prosecution has never argued that the defendant had time to exit the vehicle once the chase started, so once again the use of State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine 22-CM-0013 means little to nothing as the circumstances are not the same. In the case of the State of San Andreas v. Summer Valentine, she had offered a ride to an unknown passenger, or a friend of a friend, and complied upon exit. In this case, the passenger knew the driver, referenced them as "friend" in the appeal, and continued to stay with them after witnessing them commit a crime.
  
  The defense would like to postulate that the two crimes are not linked, but how is it possible for the driver to be pulled over for the Vandalism, as witnessed by the defendant, and then run because of said charge, and not have those two instances be linked? They are not independent of one another as one would not have happened without the other. It is the principal of cause and effect. It is because Fiora Sojka vandalized the car, because the defendant stuck around, because the defendant let her use his car as to why this effect is happening now. One simply would not have happened without the other. If the defense was to argue relevance that should've been done back during the discovery phase. As they were denied all motions to suppress, bringing up the argument now during a Summary Judgement statement has no baring or purpose, and was already ruled on by Judge Mason as not allowed.
  
  Judge Mason - "The second portion points to the original purpose of the traffic stop that initiated this situation."
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]