#23-CM-0062, State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka

[Fiora Sojka]

Defendant Name: Fiora Sojka
Defendant Phone: 252-6124
Defendant Address: Eclipse apartment 423
(( Defendant Discord: Frey#8815 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A if none

Charging Department: SD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 15/04/2023
Charge(s):

• Accessory to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive-By) of a Gov. Employee

Narrative:

This night i was at bayview repairing my gargoyle when a red sportscar approached me, i talked with him when he asked me if i was affiliated, i said no and moved on towards paleto parking, looking behind me i noticed the red sports car following me, as soon as i parked my gargoyle the red sports car pulled up to my side aiming a pistol out of his window telling me to get in as he has some business to fullfill and needs me to help him, why i was targeted was at this time very questionable to me considering i stayed out of crime and away from gangs and crime for around 3-4 weeks at this time, i was gonna change my life back around and had no affiliation or was around anyone that could cause me any trouble.

Fast forward, he then moved around with the gun in the car telling me to get in the driver seat at bayview, which i did, he then removed the knife that i had on my right hip and aimed it towards me assuring he was for a fact still having me in full pressure next to him being scared for my life, he then told me as soon as an individual with purple hair went next to a police car to drive towards it, as he took his gun and started shooting at the individual that was standing next to the police officer, he said to me "keep on driving." as we approached the highway for a short moment and he hadn't successfully killed the individual he told me to circle back, which i did, the knife coming closer to my thigh and me being under immense amount of pressure i had to listen to his demands, he then told me "you're a shit driver, keep on driving now." as i noticed we did not have any front tires anymore i tried driving a straight line, he told me multiple times to keep on driving or i will regret it, i felt extremely anxious and started just driving straight, i managed to drive into a barrier on strawberry ave where my passenger finally ran off and emerged from the vehicle, i immediately ran out of the vehicle put my hands up finally being free from this pressure and stress, i tried explaining myself at doc to the highest person on shift and he stated that he does understand my situation and that the cctv did not show me doing anything and there was a glance of a knife and not visibly enough but he still would charge me based on my criminal record, which i find as someone that really wanted to change her life sad, i hope that this charge can be looked into and there will be a better outcome, i also want to talk about the mental abuse i had to take from my hostage taker all the way calling me a shit hostage and a shit driver, it made me have a panic attack inside DOC which got acknowledged by them but did not change the outcome due to my criminal history..

---

I, Fiora Sojka, 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. ))

[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. Fiora Sojka

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 15th 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]

[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. Fiora Sojka

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 16th 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]

[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. Fiora Sojka

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 06/MAY/2023.

I, Hope Kant, 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 Co-Counsel alongside Senior Prosecuting Attorney McFornell and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



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

[Lisa Winter]

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. Fiora Sojka

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 15th of June 2023

I, Lisa Winter, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Fiora Sojka in the underlying case.

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



Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 17th of June, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0062.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case. However, prior to ordering discovery, the Court would request the defense to confirm consultation with the defendant, and update the court with the defendant's name and phone number, as the presiding judge cannot locate the individual in the database by either their name or phone number.




Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[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. Fiora Sojka

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

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

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



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

[Lisa Winter]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0062, State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Allgood,
  
  We have made contact with the defendant and confirmed they have not changed their name and are wanting to proceed. They have provided a new number to reach them at 252-6124.
  
  
  

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A court order was entered in the above case on 27th of June, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0062, State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka 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.


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [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. Fiora Sojka
23-CM-0062

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 2nd of July, 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: Fiora Sojka Arrest Report - 15/04/2023

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Fiora_Sojka
    Telephone Number: 587-5174
    Licenses Revoked: Yes
    • Driver
    
    Charges:
    • WF02 - Accessory to Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive of a Gov. employee
    
    How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
    Suspect pleaded not guilty to all charges.
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Red, Sultan RS, LP ARAARA, RO Drake Hunter

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Jeff Dayton
    Badge Number: 23886
    Callsign: 12-R-47

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2023-04-15
    Deputies Involved: Commander Luka Rosselli, Agent Bert Martin, Deputy Milo Quinn, Deputy Jeff Dayton
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Shots were fired at Deputy Michael Keen at Bayview. The Sultan RS fled East bound on Great Ocean Hwy then South on Senora Fwy into the city. The passenger Drake Hunter began shooting at the deputies following him and flattened tires on Cmd Rosselli's Kumacho. After a short pursuit into the city the driver of the Sultan (Fiora Sojka) crashed and both occupants got out of the vehicle. Hunter fled west bound and started firing at Deputies. While this was going on Sojka surrendered in front of my cruiser and I placed her under arrest. Hunter was taken down by Deputies and treated by MD. Sojka advised that she was being held hostage but after Agent Bert Martin reviewed CCTV footage from bayview it was unclear that she was a hostage at that point. Sojka was charged by Commander Rossellli with WF02-Accessory to Shooting from a vehicle(drive by).

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Exhibit A:

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #2: Drake Hunter Arrest Report - 15/04/2023

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Drake Hunter
    Telephone Number: 3196363
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • SF02 - Attempted Murder of a Gov. employee
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons
    • WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive of a Gov. employee
    • VF04 - Felony Public Endangerment
    How did the suspect plea to the above charges?
    Suspect pleaded guilty to all charges.
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Red, Sultan RS, LP ARAARA, RO Drake Hunter

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Jeremy Williams
    Badge Number: 20281
    Callsign: 3-W-21

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2023-04-15
    Deputies Involved: Investigator Jeremy Williams, Commander Luka Rosselli, Deputy Milo Quinn, Agent Bert Martin, Deputy Jeff Dayton
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • There was a radio call about a red Sultan RS that just evaded. Thankfully myself and Agent Martin were driving toards him and we were able to intercept him. Once we caught up, we followed behind him where he soon started shooting back at us, taking two of our tires. Another unit was close behind and was able to keep up and follow them into the city where they then crashed. The driver out out and surrendered but the passenger got out and started to run. Afte a bit of running back and forth, they started shooting at deputies... he was quicky shot back at and injured.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Exhibit A: Pistol .50, Serial 1667177343535
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #3: Agent Bert Martin Written Statment

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [UNKNOWN]
    Incident Date: 15/APR/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Bert Martin
    Date of Birth: 07/JUL/1977
    Phone Number: 470-5152
    Occupation: Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • As my unit was heading back to Paleto Bay, we received a radio transmission about a Purple Sultan RS having just been involved in a shooting at Bayview and was now headed SB on Senora Fwy, approaching the tolls. We intercepted the vehicle just after the tolls and chased them down Senora Fwy back into Los Santos. During the chase, the vehicle opened fire on our vehicle and took out our tires, so we returned fire in an attempt to do the same.
    
    The pursuit ended when the vehicle crashed under the Olympic Freeway at Strawberry Avenue. As we arrived on scene of the crash, I could see one of the occupants running away from the vehicle and then circling around one of our cruisers. After their first lap, they put their hands up and surrendered to the deputies. The second occupant attempted to flee through the parking lot, but shortly afterwards turned back around towards the entrance, drew his firearm, and started to open fire on me. We were able to neutralize the shooter and obtained medical treatment for him and myself. While we were both in the ambulance on our way to Pillbox MD, the shooter claimed that he was holding the driver hostage the entire time.
    
    My unit participated in the transport of both 10-15s to DOC, then retuned to Paleto Bay. A short while later, we were requested to review the CCTV footage from Paleto Parking in an attempt to corroborate the driver's claims that she was taken hostage by the passenger. As there was no CCTV cameras at Paleto Parking, we went to Bayview to obtain the CCTV footage from them. The wireless connection to the camera was malfunctioning ((unable to scriptly pull the footage)) so were granted access by the Bayview workers to enter their security room and review the footage at the main console.
    
    In reviewing the footage, it was difficult to confirm whether or not the driver was being held hostage due to the window tint and poor angle of the vehicle during the incident. We could confirm there was a knife resting on her hip, but whether or not the passenger had his hand on the knife wasn't clear. I communicated this information to Commander Luka Rosselli via radio, and made a copy of the CCTV footage for further analysis. A copy of the footage has been attached to this statement.
    
    [INCLUDED IN LATER EXHIBITS]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Bert Martin, 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,
    
    
    Bert Martin
    Agent
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: [17/APR/2023]

  
  Exhibit #4: Deputy Sheriff III Jeff Dayton Written Statment

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: []
    Incident Date: [15/APR/2023]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Jeff Dayton]
    Date of Birth: [11/AUG/1991]
    Phone Number: [370-9616]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff]

  Witness Statement

  • [Deputy Michael Keen came over the radio and advised there were shots being fired from a red Sultan Classic. When we arrived at Bayview Deputy Keen advised that the suspect vehicle fled east on Great Ocean Hwy. Deputy Keen was staying behind to administer medical aid to the injured person at Bayview so Deputy Quinn and I headed south towards the city to look for the suspect vehicle. Agent Bert Martin spotted the suspect vehicle travelling south bound on Senora RD so he called out a pursuit. We were able to get caught up to them as we entered the city. Suspect crashed On Strawberry Ave at the overpass of Olympic freeway. Both occupants fled the vehicle. The passenger (Drake Hunter) fled west bound through the alley and shot at Deputies chasing him. The driver (Fiora Sojka) Fled south bound under the overpass and ran a circle around our cruiser before surrendering at the front of our cruiser. After Hunter was detained I placed Sojka in handcuffs, Searched her, and placed her in the back of my cruiser until an investigation could be conducted. Sojka advised me when I went to search her that she did have a knife on her person. On the way to DOC Sojka advised that she wanted to speak with a supervisor. Commander Rosselli Spoke with her about her concerns. Agent Bert Martin went to Bayview and reviewed security camera footage of the shooting. Agent Martin and Commander Rosselli both watched the footage and Commander Rosselli made the decision to charge Sojka accordingly. Charges were placed by Commander Rosselli and Sojka was booked in to DOC. ]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Jeff Dayton], 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,
    
    
    [Jeff Dayton]
    [Deputy Sheriff III]
    [Los Santos County Sheriff Department]
    
    Date: [04/APR/2023]

  
  Exhibit #5: Commander Luka Rosselli Written Statment

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: 15/04/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Luka Rosselli
    Date of Birth: 23/06/1995
    Phone Number: 273-5722
    Occupation: Deputy Sheriff, Lost Santos County Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • I responded to a Jtac where a vehicle was reported to have parked at Bayview and shot at a Civilian, the vehicle was reported by a deputy on the Radio, can't remember the name at the moment, then was quickly spotted going south on Senora by responding Unit, Bert Martin. They evaded as Agent Martin tried to pull them over, and continued to drive towards the city, before they got to the city they started shooting, bullets seemed to be coming from the passenger side. In the city they crashed and both ran on foot, the Driver surrendered and the Passenger decided to start shooting at us, he was quickly taken down. After transporting them to DOC the Female Driver of that vehicle Claimed at first that she was taken Hostage at Bayview, once I said that I will be taking CCTV to confirm the story she changed it to "I was taken from the Parking lot" Knowing that there is no camera there. Since she claimed to have been held hostage by having a knife placed on her thigh while the passenger aimed outside with his other hand to shoot at us, we changed the Bayview CCTV where the shootout had happened, the CCTV only showed the Knife resting on her thigh, not signs of him holding it. This matched the fact that at the time of the arrest, the knife was on her, and not in the possession of the Passenger. Agent Bert Martin was the one who watched the CCTV at Bayview.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Luka Rosselli, 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,
    
    
    Luka Rosselli
    Commander
    Lost Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 19/04/2023

  
  Exhibit #6: Attached .mov file of CCTV footage from Bayview

  
  

  ((RP proof of bodycam))

  
  Exhibit #7: Pictures of Civilians with Holstered Knives ((Proof of RP Included))

  
  
  
  

---

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 TO AMEND

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 2nd of July, 2023.

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

• Original Charges
  • Accessory to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive-By)

• Amended Charges
  • Accessory to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive-By)
  • VF01 - Evading an Officer
  • GF24 - Perjury

• Detailed Explanation:
  As shown in the evidence provided, the defendant had a knife holstered on their side. The CCTV shows a man shooting from a vehicle at Law Enforcement Officials with the defendant driving with a knife, once again, holstered on her side. She agreed when submitting the appeal "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." Writing the false narrative shown does the exact opposite of what she's agreed to.

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

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0062, State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  The court is acknowledging receipt of the prosecution's motion for discovery, and the motion to amend charges. The court will now be allowing the defense 72-hours to provide any response to these motions.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Lisa Winter]

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. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 3rd of July 2023

The Defendant, Fiora Sojka, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #: Exhibit #5: Commander Luka Rosselli Written Statment
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #5: Commander Luka Rosselli Written Statment

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: 15/04/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Luka Rosselli
    Date of Birth: 23/06/1995
    Phone Number: 273-5722
    Occupation: Deputy Sheriff, Lost Santos County Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • I responded to a Jtac where a vehicle was reported to have parked at Bayview and shot at a Civilian, the vehicle was reported by a deputy on the Radio, can't remember the name at the moment, then was quickly spotted going south on Senora by responding Unit, Bert Martin. They evaded as Agent Martin tried to pull them over, and continued to drive towards the city, before they got to the city they started shooting, bullets seemed to be coming from the passenger side. In the city they crashed and both ran on foot, the Driver surrendered and the Passenger decided to start shooting at us, he was quickly taken down. After transporting them to DOC the Female Driver of that vehicle Claimed at first that she was taken Hostage at Bayview, once I said that I will be taking CCTV to confirm the story she changed it to "I was taken from the Parking lot" Knowing that there is no camera there. Since she claimed to have been held hostage by having a knife placed on her thigh while the passenger aimed outside with his other hand to shoot at us, we changed the Bayview CCTV where the shootout had happened, the CCTV only showed the Knife resting on her thigh, not signs of him holding it. This matched the fact that at the time of the arrest, the knife was on her, and not in the possession of the Passenger. Agent Bert Martin was the one who watched the CCTV at Bayview.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Luka Rosselli, 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,
    
    
    Luka Rosselli
    Commander
    Lost Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 19/04/2023

  
  

  • Detailed Reasoning: Speculation We are putting forth this motion to suppress the highlighted part of this witness statement as speculation. Commander Rosselli makes speculative remarks about the contents of the CCTV that do not align with statements about the same footage made by Agent Martin, he then goes on to state he did not himself watch the footage only Agent Martin did.
    
    Section 2.6.6 states A witness may not testify about any matter of which they have no personal knowledge. Only if the witness has directly observed an event may the witness testify about it. Personal knowledge must be shown before a witness may testify concerning a matter.
    
    Commander Roselli admits in his own statement that he did not watch said footage but speculates on its contents in contradiction to the Agent who did. He also speculates at the defendants knowledge of camera locations.
    
    In regards to the orange highlighted portion, we the defense also feel this falls under this purview as at no time in any of the testimony or CCTV evidence is it even suggested that our client fired a weapon and the use of the phrase "They started shooting" implicates our client was in fact doing so.

Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution is concerned by the nit-picky way in which the evidence and subsequent witness statements have been examined by the Defense. It is one thing to Motion to Suppress legitimate objections, and another to grasp at straws. Witness statements are personal first-hand accounts, which have ALWAYS been allowed in court. Not only that, but ALL of his (Commander Rosselli) statements have been proved in other exhibits.
  
  To begin, instead of taking the entire sentence in the context it was meant to be taken, the defense has only included the first part of it. "They evaded as Agent Martin tried to pull them over, and continued to drive towards the city, before they got to the city they started shooting, bullets seemed to be coming from the passenger side." Once again, witness statements are a first-hand account of events. "They" can either mean singular or plural, especially in the year we are currently, and the officer was using it to describe the actions of both or one of the occupants. He even clarifies at the end of the statement "bullets seemed to be coming from the passenger side". This is his account of the day in the order they happened.
  
  As for the yellow highlighted statement, I want to break it up into sections.
  
  
  "Knowing that there is no camera there."

  A note made by the officer that there is no camera at Paleto Parking.

  
  
  
  

  "Since she claimed to have been held hostage by having a knife placed on her thigh while the passenger aimed outside with his other hand to shoot at us,"

  First hand account of events as witnessed by the officer. Proved in the appeal statement, witness statement, and CCTV camera footage

  
  
  
  
  

  "We changed the Bayview CCTV where the shootout had happened,"

  First hand account of events as witnessed by the officer. Confirmed by the witness statement of Agent Martin and CCTV footage aquired.

  
  
  
  
  

  "The CCTV only showed the Knife resting on her thigh, not signs of him holding it."

  The only statement made in the entire witness statement that is about what was viewed on the CCTV footage. After reading the witness statement by Agent Martin, you can see the two were partners that day and conferred together on the footage as well as the events of the day.

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  "This matched the fact that at the time of the arrest, the knife was on her, and not in the possession of the Passenger."

  First hand account of events as witnessed by the officer. Confirmed by the witness statement of Agent Martin and arrest report.
  
  Quoted from exhibit 3: "My unit participated in the transport of both 10-15s to DOC, then retuned to Paleto Bay. A short while later, we were requested to review the CCTV footage from Paleto Parking in an attempt to corroborate the driver's claims that she was taken hostage by the passenger. As there was no CCTV cameras at Paleto Parking, we went to Bayview to obtain the CCTV footage from them. The wireless connection to the camera was malfunctioning ((unable to scriptly pull the footage)) so were granted access by the Bayview workers to enter their security room and review the footage at the main console.
  
  In reviewing the footage, it was difficult to confirm whether or not the driver was being held hostage due to the window tint and poor angle of the vehicle during the incident. We could confirm there was a knife resting on her hip, but whether or not the passenger had his hand on the knife wasn't clear. I communicated this information to Commander Luka Rosselli via radio, and made a copy of the CCTV footage for further analysis. A copy of the footage has been attached to this statement."
  
  Due to the reasons listed above, the Prosecution requests that the Judge deny the Motion to Suppress in full.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecuting Attorney
  Notary Public
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[Lisa Winter]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  Your Honor, while witness statements are valuable forms of evidence, they must still follow the rules of the court. Section 2.6.6 clearly states that a witness may only testify about matters of which they have personal knowledge, meaning they must have directly observed the events in question. In this case, Commander Rosselli himself admits that he did not watch the CCTV footage in question, thereby lacking personal knowledge of its contents. His speculative remarks about the footage go beyond the scope of his firsthand observations, making them unreliable and potentially misleading.
  
  The prosecution is attempting to justify including speculative remarks by claiming that "they" can refer to one or more occupants.
  The defense is not objecting to the use of the word "they" itself but instead to the nature of the Commanders Statement. By saying "before they got to the city, they started shooting" he is implying that our client was involved in the shooting, a claim unsupported by any other evidence. We feel allowing this speculative remark is prejudicial and should be suppressed to ensure a fair trial.
  
  The prosecution refers to the yellow highlighted statement made by the commander about a lack of cameras at parking. We are not denying this statement is factual. Or objection lies with Commander Roselli's speculation about the defendants knowledge of camera locations. He is making an assumption about the defendants knowledge of cameras, which is not substantiated by any evidence whatsoever. Such a speculative statement should not be admitted where it can be used to further paint a false picture.
  
  The prosecution points of the partnership between Commander Rosselli and Agent martin, however it is vital to note here that Agent Martin's witness statement as the sole viewer of the CCTV footage does not align with the Commanders remarks. Agent martin simply confirms that it was difficult to determine whether the passenger had a hand on the knife. Nowhere in his own remarks does Agent Martin confirm Commander Rosellis speculation about the knife being solely in the drivers possession.
  The disparity in these accounts raises reasonable doubt about the accuracy of Commander Rossellis speculative remarks.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 233-5420 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A decision was reached in the above case on the 6th day of July, 2023.

The court will first take up the prosecution's motion for discovery. Given the defense motion to only suppress portions of exhibit #5, the court will be granting the prosecution's motion for discovery on the remaining exhibits as the discovery is uncontested. Therefore, exhibits #1 through 4, and exhibits 6 through 7 are being admitted in whole.

Next, the court will take up the prosecution's motion to amend charges. This Presiding Judge takes notice the two requested amended charges are felonies, which meets current judicial procedure, and will therefore grant the prosecution's motion to amend charges. The defendant will now be facing the original appealed charge, Accessory to WF02 - Shooting from a Vehicle (Drive-By) of a Gov. Employee, VF01 - evading an officer and GF24 - perjury. The Presiding Judge will not, however, make any ruling on the sufficiency of evidence of this charge due to precedence set in 23-AP-0004, which was
a decision appealed from this judge's ruling in 23-CM-0027, wherein this Presiding judge denied a prosecution motion to amend on the belief the prosecution lacked probable cause to support a requested charge. The Court will remind the prosecution that granting this motion to amend will still require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof of these additional charges, despite a probable cause sufficiency determination not being made at this stage of the process.

Lastly, the court will take up the defense motion to suppress. The defense wishes to suppress the specific statement from Commander Rosselli higlighted here, on grounds of speculation;

Knowing that there is no camera there. Since she claimed to have been held hostage by having a knife placed on her thigh while the passenger aimed outside with his other hand to shoot at us, we changed the Bayview CCTV where the shootout had happened, the CCTV only showed the Knife resting on her thigh, not signs of him holding it. This matched the fact that at the time of the arrest, the knife was on her, and not in the possession of the Passenger. Agent Bert Martin was the one who watched the CCTV at Bayview.

The Court will be granting the defense motion in part, and denying it in part.

The court will suppress the statement, "Knowing that there is no camera there", as it appears the Commander is speculating on the knowledge of the defendant, not the fact that a camera is there or not. This is also further evidenced by the Commander allegedly telling the defendant they would be checking the CCTV at the Paleto Parking lot, which leans more credence to the Commander being unaware whether there is a camera there or not. Therefore, it is evident the Commander is speculating to the knowledge of the defendant, which is not something he could know without being a mind reader.

The court will suppress the statement, "the CCTV only showed the Knife resting on her thigh, not signs of him holding it". In agreement with the defense, Commander Rosselli did not personally witness the footage from the CCTV, by his own admission.

In accordance with the granting of the motion for discovery, the prosecution is free to use Agent Martin's statement and the CCTV footage itself to discuss what the CCTV shows or doesn't show. The court will be disagreeing with the prosecution's assertion that Commander Rosselli should be allowed to testify about the contents of the CCTV because "you can see the two were partners that day and conferred together on the footage as well as the events of the day". This is directly contradicted in exhibit 2, wherein Deputy Jeremy Williams claims to have been partnered up with Agent Martin, and also in Commander Rosselli's statement about Agent Bert Martin locating the vehicle prior to the pursuit. This lends itself to be more in line with Commander Rosselli not being in the same patrol vehicle as Agent Martin, and therefore the remainder of the prosecution's argument citing specific elements of exhibit #3 (Agent Martin's statement) is not persuasive towards a decision in their favor for this motion to suppress.

The court will be allowing the remainder of the statement, which details the Commander's recollection of the defendant claiming to having been held hostage (in the defendant's own admission they requested to speak with a supervisor about their charges), law enforcement being shot at by the vehicle (one of the evidence exhibits directly mentions Commander Rosselli's vehicle was directly impacted by gunfire), the fact CCTV footage was reviewed (but not the contents or conclusion from the review), and the defendant having a knife on their person at the time of the arrest, which is detailed in the arrest report.

In regards to the statement;

They evaded as Agent Martin tried to pull them over, and continued to drive towards the city, before they got to the city they started shooting,

The court will denying the motion to suppress in regards to this specific statement. The Commander, as evidenced in the exhibits, was personally and directly involved in the pursuit (as a reminder, had his vehicle fired upon). Therefore, the court believes it is reasonable for the Commander to claim "they" (in the plural) sense evaded, driving towards the city. The court believes changing "they" to "he" or a specific name in the second sentence to be inconsequential, as the defendant in this case is not charged with anything related to a shooting. Therefore, regardless of the pronouns used in this instance, it does not have any negative effect on the defendant.

The court will now give 72 hours to each side to review this decision and inform the court how they wish to proceed. At the expiration of 72 hours, attempts will be made to schedule the case for trial unless the court is advised otherwise.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

MOTION FOR CHANGE OF JUDGE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A Motion for Change of Judge was filed in the above case on the 7th of July, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: The Prosecution in this case has reason to believe the Judge to have conflicts of interest. That being said, we are requesting a new Judge be assigned to the case prior to trial. If detail is needed, it can be provided in chambers and not on the public docket.

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

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Motion for Change of Judge "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  While I find it very impugnment for the latest motion by the prosecution, I will seek review by the Court of Appeals on this motion.
  
  For the record, I will not be recusing myself from this case. But will leave this decision to the Court of Appeals. I apologize in advance to all involved parties for yet another delay. I will request expedited review by the Court of Appeals.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Judith Mason]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0062, State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  Upon review of the underlying situation, of the circumstances that brought about this motion, and of the Motion for Change of Judge itself, the San Andreas Judicial Branch will not be recognizing the motion at this time and no changes in Judicial Branch Personnel will be ordered. This case shall continue as it left off and the appeal submitted by Justice Allgood shall be dismissed.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 9th day of July, 2023.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.

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

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




Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A trial date was set on the above case on 15th day of July, 2023.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 02:30 PM on 15th day of July, 2023 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

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



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Fiora Sojka
#23-CM-0062

A decision was reached in the above case on the 15th day of July, 2023.

The defendant comes before the Superior Court of San Andreas to appeal a charge of Accessory to WF02 - Drive by shooting of a government employee. Further, through motion of the Prosecution division, the defendant also comes before this court on charges of VF01 - Evading an Officer and GF24 - Perjury.

The prosecution argues the defendant was a willing participant in the drive-by shooting of the government employees, and also a willing participant in the evasion. The prosecution argues broadly a few things – the defendant was in possession of a knife, and the 3rd party was in possession of the firearm used to conduct the drive-by shooting and subsequent shooting of pursuing officers, and therefore unable to really control the defendant.

The defense argues the CCTV footage at Bayview is not clear on the positioning and possession of the knife used to allegedly hold the defendant hostage, and believes it would be easy for a 3rd party to control the defendant with a knife and shoot a firearm. The defense argues the defendant was forced to drive the vehicle under threat of being injured by the passenger of the vehicle, who was allegedly holding a knife to the defendant’s leg, and therefore not a knowing participant in this offense, and did so under threat of their life.

Through review of evidence, the following facts are uncontested; the defendant was in a vehicle pursued by law enforcement, shots were fired at law enforcement from this vehicle, and after the vehicle wrecked the defendant eventually surrendered to law enforcement. However, the court must determine the willingness of the defendant to participate in these acts, and the level of culpability they consequently have. And lastly, whether the defendant had lied in their submission and testimony provided to this court.

The clarity, or lack of clarity of the CCTV footage only comprises a small element of this overall case and decision of this court. The court acknowledges the lack of clarity, but notes the rest of the situation provides context as to what happened. There is no CCTV footage of what happened after the vehicle left Bayview, but what happened during this evasion and after the pursuit ended helps the court understand what happened.

Through evaluation of all the evidence and arguments, the court concludes the defendant was in fact a willing participant, and therefore liable for criminal charges. This is based greatly on the fact the defendant was in possession of the knife at the time of their arrest, which places more weight on the prosecution's arguments that the 3rd party was not physically in control of the knife. In other words, if the defense arguments were true, the 3rd party would have been in possession of the knife, as it does not make sense for the 3rd party to suddenly place the knife on the defendant’s person in the split second between the defendant crashing her vehicle and subsequently surrendering to law enforcement. Additionally, it does not make much sense for the third party to be able to control the knife while leaning backwards out of the passenger side of the vehicle to accurately shoot at pursuing law enforcement. The defense has offered no reasonable explanation of this, and therefore the doubt presented does not rise to the level of reasonable doubt to counter the prosecution’s case.

The defendant’s claims of being kidnapped also changed throughout the contact with law enforcement, specifically the location where the captivity happened - raising doubt about the defendant's story. Furthermore, the defendant claims they immediately surrendered after the pursuit. However, there is several pieces of evidence showing after the defendant crashed, they got out of the vehicle, ran a short distance, ending up running circles around patrol vehicles, and then surrendering. It is the courts believe the defendant only surrendered, because they were cornered, and not on their own volition. This court has reviewed situations like this before, and concluded an individual's actions immediately after a pursuit carry a considerable amount of weight on their culpability during and after the pursuit. Running away from a vehicle being surrounded by law enforcement does not offer much credibility to the story of being kidnapped or forced to do something against one’s own will.

Considering the statements provided by the defendant, it is clear the defendants false statements were intended to, and had the potential to, affect the outcome of this trial, and the orderly administration of justice.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of WF02 - Accessory to drive-by shootingI find the defendant, Fiora Sojka, guilty.
• On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer find the defendant, Fiora Sojka, guilty
• On the count of GF24 - perjury, I find the defendant, Fiora Sojka, guilty

The defendant is hereby sentenced to serve 120 months in the San Andreas Department of Corrections, pay $25,000 in court fees, in addition to $6,000 in fines for the charges of VF01 and GF24.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]