#23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Locked
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

#23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image
Image
Appellant Name: Gregory Kumerow
Appellant Attorney(s): Greg Kumerow, Roderick Marchisio
Image
Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0036
Presiding Trial Judge: Robert Winejudge
Notice of Appeal Filed: 15/04/2023
  • [X] Before Verdict
    [ ] After Verdict
Image
Reason for Notice of Appeal:
  • [X] Motion to be overturned
    [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
    [X] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
    [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence
Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)
  • Motion to be overturned
    The prosecution specifically notes this motion to suppress, granted 14th of April, 2023.

    Errors in judge's interpretation of the law
    Clerk Winejudge states in his decision that
    To conclude, Mr. Haswell was under no legal obligation to comply with a seemingly separate investigation that law enforcement was conducting. The court believes that due to this, his arrest was unlawful
The separate investigation is irrelevant and was provided as a supporting argument by the prosecution to bolster an argument to identify everyone nearby but is not important. He was told to take his mask off by an officer because wearing on in a public place is in violation of the penal code.

If such an exception were there, it should have been easily visible and yet only circumstantial evidence to suggest it has been brought forward.

Furthermore, he was being arrested for failure to comply.

The prosecution believes the presiding judge has misinterpreted the face concealment citation and its consequences by sidestepping the reasonability of wearing a mask in this scenario.

Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Judith Mason »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

San Andreas Court of Appeals
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-AP-0008

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 15th of April, 2023.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell is hereby activated by this Court under #23-AP-0008.

The appellant is now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor. Once received, the respondent will be given seven days to respond with any legal arguments of their own.

Once submissions have been received, the court will either issue a decision or ask that parties submit an additional response for clarification, if required. If one of the parties in this appeal have failed to submit their brief within the allotted time, the court will make a decision based on the information it has available.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
RE: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Mason,

    Firstly I'll begin by saying I'll break this down in two parts. The first pertains to the ruling itself and the second is the interpretation of the law.

    So to begin, let me reiterate; Mr. Haswell was asked to take his mask off because, as is noted in the referenced legislation branch briefing, public property does not permit the usage of masks. He repeatedly refused to do so and gave absolutely no leeway to the deputies attempting to identify him, citing a lack of "reasonable suspicion" to identify him. Halfway through the conversation, he handed a briefcase later found to contain an illegal firearm and numerous bullet casings.

    Allow me then, to once again explain the abundant reasons why the defense's argument should not have been accepted and the motion to suppress should have been rejected outright;
    • The masks worn by the two in question are cheap cloth and would be unsuitable for any kind of fume mitigation on a job site.
    • For someone who has frequently cited the health risks of a work site, the defendant never once mentions them in his defense on the scene. In fact, he frequently and mistakenly cites a "reasonable suspicion" to identify him, despite that suspicion being apparent in his usage of a mask in a public place (in this case the street). In this particular scenario, it is actually the deputy that first remarks about fumes on a work site.
    • Nobody else on the scene shows or even mentions any kind of immediate concern for the integrity of the air. You will notice in the duration of the bodycam footage present in exhibit #4, not a single person is wearing a mask besides the two people that were later found to have committed a criminal offense. The defense argued that the medical professional on the scene is wearing protective gear but as I had previously mentioned, not so. While the specifics are lost to time, it very much appears that someone wearing standard protective gear for a fire fighter is treating an (unmasked) medic. The blue object on his head is not, in fact, a mask. It is actually a firefighter's helmet with a blue coloration, See here. ((proof of rp))
    • No sign of any event requiring the usage of a mask is present in the aforementioned bodycam. In fact, it appears that the scene of the arrest is relatively calm and the road workers present are so at ease that they gather around to gawk at the confrontation between Mr. Haswell and law enforcement.
    • Furthermore, qualifying masks ARE readily available at the humane labs institute. If this were such a pressing concern and at the forefront of the defendant's mind, it is very odd that he picked a mask that seems unfit for the task.
    • A work site that is cleared (and this site very much seems to be cleared) generally consists of bare asphalt and several metal barricades and plastic cones. None of these items are known to emit toxic fumes or pose a risk to one's health through mere presence. In the absence of some other positive factor, these items alone present no exemption or reasonable mask requirement.

    Now we move to part 2. It is the belief of the prosecution that in disregarding the reasonability mentioned in GC04's exemptions, the presiding judge has failed to accurately interpret the citation. Consider the following questions;
    • Is it reasonable to refuse to simply remove the mask for the purposes of identification for only a second or two, while holding one's breath, thus eliminating the possibility of toxic fume inhalation while complying with a reasonable and lawful demand from a law enforcement officer?
    • Is it reasonable to continue to wear a mask even though there is absolutely no sign of any danger at any point?
    • Is it reasonable to refuse to move to a safer place (indeed, if any danger was present) in order to comply?
    • Is it reasonable to believe that there was danger present at the scene when nobody captured in the scope of the video believed so, especially considering this involves the most primitive of instincts in the feeling of self preservation?
    • Is it reasonable for Mr. Haswell to believe Mr. Haswell reasonably believed his mask was necessary for his safety when he never once brings it up?
    • Is it reasonable that the exemption outlined in GC04 applies beyond the scope of any danger, i.e. wearing a mask at a park hours after a flaming car is removed from the area?
    If, in your reasoning, you find you answer "no" to any of these questions, it must therefore be unreasonable for Mr. Haswell to have acquired an exemption for GC04 - failure to identify. As outlined in the law, a law enforcement officer has the authority to issue a citation for GC04 if someone is found to be wearing a mask in a public place. The middle of a street certainly qualifies as that, so let us move on. Exemptions allowed are city events (N/A) or reasonable exemptions, and failure to comply with a lawful demand enables the charging of the misdemeanor GM10 - Failure to comply/identify. Notably, GC04's exemption specifically requires a reasonable exemption.

    Now let us refer to the court's decision to suppress;
    First of all, the mask issue. Because of the harsh conditions of the incident where toxic fumes could have been emitted like heavy smoke, and the burning fuel, the court has determined that Frank Haswell's face concealment was lawful, and an exception at that time
    The problem presented here is that at the time of the request these elements are NOT present, and no effort was ever made to comply in an area where in these elements were undoubtedly not present. One could just as well argue that because Los Santos is a dangerous city, and shootings occur daily within its limits, a bullet may come whizzing through the air and strike you through the heart, thereby killing you instantly. Therefore, body armor is able to be lawfully worn.

    What this argument lacks is an element of reasonability. Because we know that you are extremely unlikely to be struck by a bullet when you are not actively involved in a shootout, much less in the heart, and because we know that body armor presents a considerable risk to the public in making juggernaut-esque criminals a reality that would significantly hamper law enforcement, the availability of body armor is restricted to law enforcement and illegal for the civilian and criminal population.

    Likewise, it is an unreasonable belief that some level of exceedingly toxic fumes were present on the scene when, as previously mentioned;
    • Nobody shows any signs of that being the case
    • None are seen in the bodycam
    • One could simply remove the mask swiftly to comply and then place it back on before inhaling, thus minimizing risk
    • The mask used by Mr. Haswell is inadequate for the purposes stated
    • There are absolutely no signs that any such event is occurring or has occurred in the near past outside of pure conjecture and an absurd level of charity provided that, if given to any other defendant, would render any and all evidence null and void as they could point to something absurd like fairies as controlling all their actions since some level of possibility exists for which nobody can account for. In both scenarios, there is an exceptional doubt on the truth of that claim but as the prosecution currently lacks omnipotence, it has a very small chance of being true.

      For these reasons I ask that you overturn the motion to suppress. Thank you.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Prosecuting Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    To be clear, the respondent has until approximately 5:30pm on the 28th of April to provide arguments and interpretation for this case before a decision will be made.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    On the 28th of March, 2023, the Defense filled a Motion to Suppress to exclude ''All mentions of the briefcase and any of it's alleged contents such as a Firearm and Bullet Casings''.

    Please find the reasoning for the Motion bellow:
    Spoiler
    • Detailed Reasoning: The Defense is wanting to suppress any part of the exhibits showing or claiming that a briefcase was recovered and it's alleged content such as any firearm or bullet casings.

      On the 18th of January, 2023, several Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department approached an active road work site and unlawfully demanded that the Defendant remove his mask.
      Exhibit 1:
      We were detaining the suspect over failure to comply while he was working road work for refusing to take off his mask. He was seen in possession of a briefcase and handed it over to his friend.
      Exhibit 3:
      Towards the end of the situation we noticed Deputy Devine asking Frank Haswell to take off his mask multiple times. Mr. Haswell was claiming he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on but Deputy Devine said that they had already cleared the fire and situation so he no longer needed the mask.
      The Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had neither reasonable suspicion to detain and demand the Defendant remove his mask nor probable cause to continue with an arrest after the Defendant refused.

      The penal code for GC04 - Face Concealment states that ''An individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas.'' However, it likewise states ''Exemptions apply when facial concealment is worn during masquerades and other entertainment events that are deemed appropriate by the city (such as Halloween), or where there's reasonable cause e.g. motorcycle protection or medical reasons (with documentation from a registered medical practitioner).''

      Given the Deputies own reasoning for stopping the Defendant was ''over failure to comply while he was working road work for refusing to take off his mask'' and the Defendant's assertion that ''he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on'' it is clear that there was no lawful basis to stop the Defendant.

      Reasonable Suspicion can be established by Law Enforcement when there is specific and articulable facts that when taken together with rational inferences from those facts leads a reasonable person to believe a suspect was involved in a crime.

      It is our assertion that Reasonable Suspicion was not met, let alone Probable Cause, a higher standard for arrests and warrants. The Defendant was actively working in a construction site where fumes were present due to a fire, easily meeting the ''reasonable cause'' standard that outlines an exemption under GC04 - Face Concealment. Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had no reason to suspect that a crime had been committed or an infraction had been committed as it is standard for Road Workers to protect themselves with PPE.

      To draw a comparison for the court, it would likewise be unreasonable to detain and/or arrest someone under GC04 if a firefighter was present at a Public Road putting a fire out or ask a paramedic to remove his PPE mask while he treats a patient.

      To conclude, the Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had a clear picture of the scene as they approached, as they've claimed themselves under Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #3. They saw road workers working to block the road, clear a fire and otherwise complete their jobs as assigned by the State of San Andreas. Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department unlawfully detained the Defendant while they were fully compliant with the penal code.

      As such, the Defense believes that any an all evidence gathered due to this unlawful arrest is considered Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and should be excluded from discovery.
    On the 14th of April, 2023, a decision was reached on the Motion to Suppress.
    [...]Partially granting the Motion to Supress submitted by the defense. The contents of the briefcase in question will be suppressed as the court has determined that law enforcement officers did not establish probable cause that a crime had been committed and therefore, Mr. Haswell's arrest was unlawful and the evidence found as a result of the search of the briefcase is subject to suppression. However, as the briefcase itself was in plain view throughout the situation, it is not subject to suppression.

    The Defense believes the initial decision made by the presiding Judge was correct. The Defendant, Frank Haswell, was on the clock on the 18th of January as a road worker.

    The job of a road worker is to go from job site to job site and set up barriers, clean up debris, put out fires and generally work on other assortment of hazardous tasks. These employees are the people that keep our streets safe, in a literal sense.

    The prosecution has filled this appeal, claiming that there were ''Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law''. We feel compelled to respond in full, although sadly this will mean that the presiding Judge in this appeal will have to bare with us while we analyze the prosecution's brief. To make this easier we will likewise divide these arguments in two sections, with a brief summary before each section for convenience sake.

    Part 1: The Ruling
    Summary: The prosecution continues to split hairs on specifics regarding the type of mask worn and the progress of the incident. They assert that there was no hazard, despite their own evidence going against that assertion. Furthermore, the reasonable cause exception accounts for this. Was the facial protection perfect? No, but anything is better than nothing when it comes to fires, debris and other airborne substances. The prosecution is free to petition the state for subsidized equipment instead of expecting people to know where and how to purchase higher quality equipment. Equally as damning is the fact that a firefighter was present with a face mask as well, yet the road workers are the only ones being scrutinized and harassed.
    Full Analysis
    • The masks worn by the two in question are cheap cloth and would be unsuitable for any kind of fume mitigation on a job site. - This point is irrelevant. The efficacy of the facial protection is not something that is mentioned within the penal code, just ''reasonable cause''. In this case, the Defendant and other colleagues use a mask, even something as simple as a cloth, to reduce any risk of exposure to debris and other airborne substances. These types of masks might not be as effective as full respirators, but sadly the SASG does not provide the workers with their own protection.
    • For someone who has frequently cited the health risks of a work site, the defendant never once mentions them in his defense on the scene. In fact, he frequently and mistakenly cites a "reasonable suspicion" to identify him, despite that suspicion being apparent in his usage of a mask in a public place (in this case the street). In this particular scenario, it is actually the deputy that first remarks about fumes on a work site. - Not sure what opposing counsel is arguing here. The Defendant did not submit a witness statement, but even his own evidence disputes the assertion that he ''never once mentions them''. Exhibit #2 - ''Mr. Haswell was claiming he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on''
    • Nobody else on the scene shows or even mentions any kind of immediate concern for the integrity of the air. You will notice in the duration of the bodycam footage present in exhibit #4, not a single person is wearing a mask besides the two people that were later found to have committed a criminal offense. The defense argued that the medical professional on the scene is wearing protective gear but as I had previously mentioned, not so. While the specifics are lost to time, it very much appears that someone wearing standard protective gear for a fire fighter is treating an (unmasked) medic. The blue object on his head is not, in fact, a mask. It is actually a firefighter's helmet with a blue coloration, See here. ((proof of rp)) - Once again, not sure what the argument is here. No one mentioned a blue helmet. The footage is clear, that same firefighter is wearing a respirator mask, another from of face concealment. We do not know why the prosecution is trying to assert the contrary. We will assume it is a lapse in evidence analysis and not a malicious attempt to deceive the court. Just like the firefighter is wearing a mask while performing his duties, road workers have the same right, afforded to them by the reasonable cause exception under GC-04
    • No sign of any event requiring the usage of a mask is present in the aforementioned bodycam. In fact, it appears that the scene of the arrest is relatively calm and the road workers present are so at ease that they gather around to gawk at the confrontation between Mr. Haswell and law enforcement. - To assert this is to cast doubt on the prosecution's own witness statements. As mentioned before, Exhibit #2 states: ''Deputy Devine said that they had already cleared the fire and situation so he no longer needed the mask'' while there is disagreement on whether the mask was still warranted, there seems to be no dispute that at one point in time, fumes were present on scene. Neither the Defendant, Prosecutor nor any of the Deputies on scene at the time have the knowledge needed to provide expert testimony on whether or not lingering fumes would still remain after the fire has been put out.
    • Furthermore, qualifying masks ARE readily available at the humane labs institute. If this were such a pressing concern and at the forefront of the defendant's mind, it is very odd that he picked a mask that seems unfit for the task. - Lacks any foundation. Furthermore, even if true, the masks worn did provide some sort of protection, even if not optimal. Especially when it comes to fires, soaking some cloth and placing it over your mouth can help with breathing in these conditions.
    • A work site that is cleared (and this site very much seems to be cleared) generally consists of bare asphalt and several metal barricades and plastic cones. None of these items are known to emit toxic fumes or pose a risk to one's health through mere presence. In the absence of some other positive factor, these items alone present no exemption or reasonable mask requirement. - Already addressed bellow, the Prosecution's own witness statements disagree with this assertion. Furthermore, the site is not cleared, otherwise the blockades would have been removed. Additionally around 2:43 on the body-cam a road worker can still be observed removing certain parts of the incident, like the generator.

    Part 2: Interpretation of GC-04
    Summary: The Superior Court Judge's interpretation of GC-04 in his initial ruling was correct in our view. The Defendant was on-duty as a road worker, a job which is known to only place it's employees in dangerous and hazardous situations. The Defendant was in an active incident when he was approached and asked to remove his mask, no reasonable suspicion existed to warrant such a request given the GC-04 exception. The Deputies' lack of knowledge of these exceptions does not justify the request to identify. To further supplement this, a firefighter is observed wearing a mask and from the evidence gathered he isn't asked at any point to remove it, despite both individuals finding themselves within the same area. It is clear that this was a situation where Deputies believed they had the authority to request the removal of a mask without having the proper legal basis to do so. More worryingly, they chose to selectively enforce this (unlawfully) on the Defendant and not others present with masks.
    Spoiler
    • Is it reasonable to refuse to simply remove the mask for the purposes of identification for only a second or two, while holding one's breath, thus eliminating the possibility of toxic fume inhalation while complying with a reasonable and lawful demand from a law enforcement officer? - Yes, one should not be compelled to identify themselves unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed based on a set articulable facts. The facts in this case are simple. Deputies approached on-duty Road Workers during a clearly active incident with potentially hazardous substances present and demanded the Defendant remove his mask, despite there being more than clear reasonable cause for the usage of masks for protection as shown by a firefighter wearing a mask, thus placing the Defendant under not legal obligation to identify himself given the GC-04 reasonable cause exception.
    • Is it reasonable to continue to wear a mask even though there is absolutely no sign of any danger at any point? - No, but the premise is faulty. As previously mentioned, neither the Prosecution, Defendant or Deputies are experts when it comes to hazards that might be present while on the job as a Road Worker. Arguably, the Defendant would have more experience with how his mental and physical states are affected given his experience with being a road worker. Thus, the claim ''even though there is absolutely no sign of any danger at any point'' is false. Both due to the prosecution's own evidence but the fact we have a road blocked off, several fire, EMS and police vehicles and an active work site still being taken down.
    • Is it reasonable to refuse to move to a safer place (indeed, if any danger was present) in order to comply? - Yes, the Defendant is on the job and under the GC-04 reasonable cause exception is under no obligation to halt his work to comply with an unlawful request to identify. The only thing making him unsafe is the request to remove the protective mask while he's working.
    • Is it reasonable to believe that there was danger present at the scene when nobody captured in the scope of the video believed so, especially considering this involves the most primitive of instincts in the feeling of self preservation? - Yes, the firefighter seems to believe there was a reason to continue to wear a mask. Furthermore, parts of the incident can be seen being cleared, namely the generator. Although it is unclear if the generator was a part of the support structure for the road workers or part of the hazard, an incident in of itself is a dangerous and potentially hazardous situation which would fully justify the use of face concealment for the purposes of protection.
    • Is it reasonable for Mr. Haswell to believe Mr. Haswell reasonably believed his mask was necessary for his safety when he never once brings it up? - Yes, he did bring it up. ''Mr. Haswell was claiming he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on''
    • Is it reasonable that the exemption outlined in GC04 applies beyond the scope of any danger, i.e. wearing a mask at a park hours after a flaming car is removed from the area? - No, but once again, this is being misrepresented and at this point we believe it's being done so in a malicious manor. Hours had not gone by. In the footage it can be observed that the roads are still blocked and parts of the incident as still being cleared. The idea that the Defendant was standing around for hours after everything is cleared is not true. What is reasonable, is that individuals employed in capacities such as Road Worker where incidents happen every 20-40 minutes should be able to keep their face concealment on, but this is outside of the scope of this case since the Defendant was in an active incident.
    It is with the above considerations that we believe the initial decision on the motion to suppress should stand.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Mason,

    I'll make this a brief response if at all possible.

    Regarding the defense's points:
    • This point is irrelevant
      It is not. Unless the defense is arguing that their client is genuinely too stupid to know how cloth works, the efficacy is relevant. If he wore for example, cheese cloth, there would be no reason to bother because it's patently obvious how little protection is provided.
    • Not sure what opposing counsel is arguing here.
      The opposing counsel is arguing this wasn't really his intention, and while exhibit 2 does say that, we have video of the encounter and he doesn't mention it once. If this were his motivation, it makes no sense for him to simply switch right after the video takes place. It's more than likely the deputy misinterpreted his fellow deputy since Mr. Haswell himself never seems terribly bothered by what the defense is suggesting is his major motivation.
    • Once again, not sure what the argument is here. No one mentioned a blue helmet. The footage is clear, that same firefighter is wearing a respirator mask, another from of face concealment.
      Once again the prosecution is not sure how the defense is able to see straight through low resolution pixels but regardless, FD has informed me it's entirely arbitrary outside of large-scale chemical spills which require a hazardous materials suit that is clearly not the one being worn here, meaning that seeing a firefighter wearing one is functionally irrelevant to any danger presented. You will once again notice that the medic on scene is not wearing any kind of facial covering and so one is left to wonder why everyone but Frank Haswell is so incompetent in regards to their own safety.
    • To assert this is to cast doubt on the prosecution's own witness statements. As mentioned before, Exhibit #2 states: ''Deputy Devine said that they had already cleared the fire and situation so he no longer needed the mask'' while there is disagreement on whether the mask was still warranted, there seems to be no dispute that at one point in time, fumes were present on scene
      Once again, that right does not extend forever until the end of all time. That reasonability has to expire and once again the prosecution asserts that the presiding judge failed to answer this question and thus has provided an interpretation of the law that allows one to wear a mask for as long as they like as long as some kind of noxious fumes were present at any given point, which is clearly not intentional by the lawmakers.
    • Lacks any foundation. Furthermore, even if true, the masks worn did provide some sort of protection, even if not optimal. Especially when it comes to fires, soaking some cloth and placing it over your mouth can help with breathing in these conditions.
      The prosecution is consulting common sense here. If a mask is obviously incapable of protecting one from fumes and that is their stated goal, one would have to assume they are incompetent at the one thing they have shown concern in. Assuming nobody was holding a gun towards Mr. Haswell from afar and forcing him to perform road worker duties, he would have had ample time to find an appropriate mask beforehand.
    • Already addressed bellow, the Prosecution's own witness statements disagree with this assertion. Furthermore, the site is not cleared, otherwise the blockades would have been removed. Additionally around 2:43 on the body-cam a road worker can still be observed removing certain parts of the incident, like the generator.
      In order; Yes, the defense has asserted something I addressed earlier. There exists a point in time between the clearing of debris and the retrieval cones/barricades etc. If such a thing can exist and logically must exist, the prosecution's point stands and to argue otherwise is a pointless semantic trick with no bearing on the truth. Notably a generator is not a hazard and will not cause smoke inhalation issues unless one is sucking it out of a muffler.
    • No, but the premise is faulty. As previously mentioned, neither the Prosecution, Defendant or Deputies are experts when it comes to hazards that might be present while on the job as a Road Worker. Arguably, the Defendant would have more experience with how his mental and physical states are affected given his experience with being a road worker. Thus, the claim ''even though there is absolutely no sign of any danger at any point'' is false. Both due to the prosecution's own evidence but the fact we have a road blocked off, several fire, EMS and police vehicles and an active work site still being taken down
      The defense's own argument betrays itself here. See the highlighted section. The site is being wound down. The danger is past. If it were clear an obvious, it makes absolutely no sense for nobody else to react to it. The major sticking point in this case is going to be how long the exception to wear a mask applies. I would argue it is only reasonable to wear one for as long as an obvious danger is present. When that is passed, the exception must no longer apply else the law is functionally worthless.
    • Yes, the firefighter seems to believe there was a reason to continue to wear a mask
      This is a baseless assertion in which the defense is mind-reading a firefighter for wearing standard protective gear. Again the prosecution must point out that for this to be true it implies that every other human being on the scene lacks the single most fundamental and commonly shared instinct in the animal kingdom: self-preservation. There can be no argument around it. Either all the fellow road workers, law enforcement, and the sole medic on the scene lack the basic instinct to protect themselves from smoke (which would be very clearly visible and universally understood to be unhealthy, if any proof that it existed at the time of recording was there), or there was no reasonable need for a mask in the first place at the time of the request.
    • Although it is unclear if the generator was a part of the support structure for the road workers or part of the hazard, an incident in of itself is a dangerous and potentially hazardous situation which would fully justify the use of face concealment for the purposes of protection.
      Again the prosecution points out that one could fear being shot in the heart at any given moment but we as a society have collectively decided that is an irrational fear given the circumstances and have banned body armor. Similarly, the prosecution asserts that protection from fumes where there are no signs of any fumes existing nor any reason to believe that a hazard is present means that no protection from these imaginations are necessary, so no exception should apply.

      The law must feature some reasonability aspect to the expiration of its exemption or else one could just as well argue that they require indefinite protection from fumes, rendering the citation fully meaningless. The most logical endpoint for the exemption is after any present danger has passed. The defense asserts that such a thing could exist at the scene, but any manner of thing could be happening just beyond our perception. We could all be brains in a jar, but absent any obvious evidence that that is the case, it is illogical to come to that conclusion. We must focus on what we have, and what we can see. We can see no signs of a hazard. We see no signs of strife on anyone on the perimeter. If something hazardous were on scene, does it make sense for nobody else to be concerned? One is meant to believe that a firefighter wearing an oxygen mask is proof that some great hazard is present at the time of the request to identify is given.

      A firefighter. Wearing a mask on call. Surely there can be no other explanation. Preposterous.

      Decisions such as these cannot be made out of ignorance and the belief that if something could be happening despite a lack of evidence, it must be. That is a standard of proof so far removed from reasonable that it borders into insurmountable; who would be proven to be a murderer absent camera footage when one could just as easily say they were framed? Are we to believe that any set of facts, no matter how damning, are worthless without the omnipotence to determine with total accuracy of every fact imaginable, or is it more like a threshold, say something like "beyond a reasonable doubt"? If it is the latter, the prosecution argues that there is no reasonable doubt and asserting that there is requires several leaps of faith that would render 90% of the world's criminals free men because they weren't caught on camera committing an act.

      All signs point to Mr. Haswell being unreasonable for wearing a mask. The alternative is that just beyond the boundaries of the bodycam footage is some massive hazard and that all parties involved are simply too incompetent to know they're risking life and limb by their mere presence. If this is not satisfactory enough a thought process, one must affirm the prosecution. To that end, we ask you overturn the motion to suppress.

      Respectfully,

      Image
      Prosecuting Attorney
      San Andreas Judicial Branch
      (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    Does the respondent wish to file any final arguments in response to the latest assertions by the appellant in this case? If so, please do so within a timely manner, otherwise, the court will make preparations to finalize a decision within the upcoming days.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Judith Mason,

    I believe we've provided a sufficiently detailed argument to justify this appeal being rejected and the original decision by the Superior Court be upheld so we will keep it brief.

    The basis behind the prosecution's brief is that the Superior Court Judge did not correctly interpret what is ''reasonable cause'' under GC-04. The prosecution has not been able to provide an appealing alternative interpretation, resorting to statements such as:
    The law must feature some reasonability aspect to the expiration of its exemption or else one could just as well argue that they require indefinite protection from fumes, rendering the citation fully meaningless. The most logical endpoint for the exemption is after any present danger has passed.
    The prosecution seems to imply that anything short of immediate removal of any face concealment the millisecond any visible fumes disappear (I guess non-visible gases are not a thing) is unreasonable.

    An individual engaged in a capacity such as the Road Worker where all of their incidents have some sort of hazard ought to contain enough ''reasonable cause'' to justify the use of any personal protective equipment, including masks for the duration of the time they are on the clock. In this specific case, the incident that Mr. Haswell and his co-workers had been dispatched too contained hazardous fumes, likely due to a fire as mentioned in the prosecution's own evidence under Exhibit #3 ''Mr. Haswell was claiming he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working''. We can not think of a clearer reasonable cause then this.

    Ironically, this standard is something that the prosecution agrees with. Except they seem to hold Firefighters wearing facial protection as ''standard'', but not a Road Worker.
    This is a baseless assertion in which the defense is mind-reading a firefighter for wearing standard protective gear.
    They go on to say, in a sarcastic tone I imagine:
    A firefighter. Wearing a mask on call. Surely there can be no other explanation.
    If there is a specific point you would like to see more argumentation on, please do inform us so we can provide a more pointed response.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-AP-0008, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
San Andreas Court of Appeals

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

COURT DECISION


IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-AP-0008

A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of May, 2023.


In the underlying case of #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell, the presiding judge in the Superior Court issued a decision on the 14th of April, partially granting a Motion to Suppress the contents of a briefcase that was removed from the scene of an arrest which occurred within the bounds of an incident that a group of road workers were mitigating.

Within the decision, the presiding judge asserted that the defendant's face concealment was lawful under the reasonable cause exception in the GC04 - Face Concealment citation as there were allegedly hazardous conditions which permitted use of face concealment in order to protect from emissions such as heavy smoke and burning fuel.

The appellant in this case has made arguments including but not limited to: Mr. Haswell's face concealment was not suitable for the purposes of fume mitigation in addition to better alternatives being available for purchase; the fact that very few, if any, other individuals were masked at the time; how the work site where the situation occurred was in the process of being wrapped up and, as such, a mask was no longer necessary; and how the law enforcement officer's order to remove the mask and identify himself was reasonable and the defendant should have been accommodating to this order by momentarily moving to a safer location or by briefly removing the mask for purposes of identification. The appellant asserts that the elements required for an exception to the face concealment citation were not present and the defendant made no attempt to comply with the order from officers, which would constitute a violation under the penal code.

To counter the appellants claims, the respondent argues that due to the defendant's position as a road worker which directly places them in dangerous situations involving hazardous conditions, the defendant's face concealment was entirely reasonable and would fall under the reasonable cause exception to the GC04 - Face Concealment citation. The respondent further argues that while the defendant's choice of mask might not be the best tool for the job, so to speak, "anything is better than nothing when it comes to fires, debris and other airborne substances." Finally, the respondent asserts that the defendant was under no obligation to identify themselves or comply with the order to remove his face concealment "unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe a crime is being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed based on a set articulable facts."

The court has found that, on a general basis, face concealment is lawful under the reasonable cause exception provided within the GC04 - Face Concealment citation for hazardous conditions that may adversely affect the visual, olfactory, auditory, and other such sensitive sensory and respiratory systems, as those hazardous conditions would likely be mitigated to some degree by the use of face concealment.

Furthermore, the court recognizes that those employed in the State of San Andreas as road workers are routinely placed in dangerous situations where the above mentioned hazardous conditions may exist, therefore, use of such face concealment by road workers while on the scene of an incident where hazardous conditions exist is lawful. The court finds that should a road worker be subjected to hazardous conditions during the course of their duties, the face concealment exception allowing for lawful use of a mask that mitigates hazardous conditions be applicable from the time the employee arrives at the general location of the incident to the time the employee departs from the general location of the incident as this not only covers the hazardous conditions that are immediately apparent upon arrival, but also covers any residual hazards that may remain on scene throughout the cleanup process.

The court additionally recognizes that the wide variety of masks and respirators available for purchase within the state provide a varying degree of protection against these dangerous conditions, however, there are a number of factors that come into play when determining the level of protection that an individual should obtain. For example, while a simple cloth mask similar to the one worn by the defendant might not provide the highest level of protection, it costs a fraction of the $5,000 it takes to obtain a full respirator-type mask from then Humane Labs facility as suggested by the appellant. While this decision to choose a mask with less efficacy than the higher priced respirator or to choose not to wear a mask at all would result in increased risk to the individual, the court finds that such a determination on which quality of mask, or whether to even wear a mask, is up to the individual being exposed to those hazardous conditions. So long as the mask in questions provides some amount of protection against the hazardous conditions present, the court will uphold an individual's choice to determine what is best for their individual circumstances.

Finally, the court has found that an individual who is lawfully wearing face concealment is under no obligation to identify themselves to law enforcement officers nor required to comply with a request to remove such face concealment, provided that the individual is not suspected of violating the law through the standard of reasonable suspicion. As the State of San Andreas does not have a "stop and identify" law, such requests to remove a lawful face concealment and present identification is just a request that does not require that the individual comply.

Based upon the original arguments for and against the Motion to Suppress in addition to the arguments made in this case by the appellant and respondent, the court has come to the following conclusion: hazardous conditions were present and Frank Haswell's use of face concealment while on the scene of a road worker incident that he was directly involved in mitigating was lawful under the reasonable cause exception of the GC04 - Face Concealment citation. As such, the order given to Mr. Haswell to remove the face concealment and identify himself immediately was not a lawful order, thereby causing his arrest to be similarly unlawful and any evidence seized during the subsequent unlawful search of Mr. Haswell's person and belongings are subject to suppression under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.

With that said, despite the contents of the briefcase being subject to suppression, the court finds that the briefcase itself is considered admissible evidence for the GF16 - Tampering with Evidence charge brought forth by the prosecution's Motion to Amend. The defendant's act of handing the briefcase to another individual after having been told that the defendant was under arrest is considered a separate act than that of the claimed failure to comply and it has been determined that this act helps to establish probable cause for the GF16 charge.

It is with the above considerations that this court affirms the decision rendered in the Superior Court that the contents of the briefcase are subject to suppression while the briefcase itself remains admissible evidence. This case is now remanded back to the presiding judge in the Superior Court and this appeal is now closed.


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

Return to “SAJB - Archived Appeal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests