#23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

---

DEFENSE RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

Your Honor,

I will wait for your response to the objection the prosecution raised without continuing a back and forth with them.



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

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0086 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Sorry for this delay, but I will be out of the office until next week. Therefore, I will not be able to respond to the latest filings until then. I would ask the parties to refrain from going into a back and forth on this - I will review the filings and this matter can proceed next week.

---

Respectfully,


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"

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A decision was reached in the above case on the 9th day of October, 2023.

First off, I appreciate the all of the parties involved patience as I tended to some very important matters that kept me away from the office.

I will be ruling on the objection raised by the prosecution on the defense's case in-chief. At the conclusion of this ruling, I will invite the parties to prepare and publish their closing statements, so this case can be concluded.

I will go through each of the specific objections as follows;

It's crucial to remember that my client's refusal to consent to a search is well within his rights as a citizen.

The prosecution raises this objection on grounds of claims of uncontested evidence that the defendant was liable for the reckless operation charge, and therefore, law enforcement was within legal grounds for searching the defendant's vehicle. The defense argues, "Even if Mr. Haze was liable for reckless driving, it does not automatically authorize a vehicle search without proper consent or other lawful justification, which the defense argues he did not have." The Court agrees with the prosecution that the charge of reckless operation is a misdemeanor, resulting in the arrest of an individual, and therefore, law enforcement would be legally able to search the individual and any area within the individual's immediate control. However, of the specific statement being made by the defense, the Court also agrees with a citizen's right to refuse a search. And therefore, finds no error in this statement being made by the defense, and will therefore, be overruling the prosecution's objection. This overruling is limited to the specific statement to be suppressed; both parties are free to use their specific statements in the formulation of their arguments to be presented in this case -- in other words, both statements are true and can be used in argument.

Officer Andollini, while making this offer, drew his Taser, a use of force that escalated the situation dramatically and goes counter to the policies of the LSPD and their use of force continuum.

I will have to agree with the prosecution here. This argument is misrepresenting the facts as presented in evidence. This argument suggests the "offer" allegedly made by Officer Andollini was made simultaneously as the taser was pulled out of the Officer's holster. But the evidence suggests this occurred after the defendant informed the officer that if they were to receive a speeding citation, the search could not take place, and the defendant asserted their right to refuse a search. Secondly, the statement about the Officer's actions going counter to the policies of the LSPD, I will be suppressing on three grounds. First, the policies of the LSPD have no bearing in this case. What this Court reviews and weighs on is the legality of actions taken. Secondly, this Court is not in the appropriate position to determine the Officer's compliance or lack of compliance with LSPD procedure. This needs to be taken up with the LSPD. Thirdly, the procedures mentioned were not admitted as an exhibit in this case, therefore, the foundation is lacking. The defense is essentially asking the Court to adopt a particular view point on the LSPD procedure manual without providing any evidence of what the manual states. This objection is sustained.

But this created a deeply distressing scenario – my client felt he had no choice but to comply with the officer's request, under the implicit threat of Taser deployment.

I will be overruling this objection -- I disagree with the prosecution on this fact being in evidence and also believe this objection lacks relevance in the overall case. The defendant essentially stated their belief in the written statement submitted to the Court. Therefore, this is in-fact evidence that has been admitted. Feeling compelled to give consent is still an important factor to be considered when evaluating the free-will of an individual's consent. However, this is not a case about consent. If the defendant consented to a search of their vehicle under threat of the taser being used against them, this would be a topic to be litigated here. However, as the prosecution stated and the defense as affirmed, the defendant chose to flee at that point. The lethality of the Taser is also irrelevant here.

The prosecution must rely on the statement of one officer out of the multiples on the scene. An officer that was unable or unwilling to provide body camera footage and who had no corroborating witnesses.

Added to all of this as well, we raise the question of charge stacking. Mr Haze was charged with three crimes: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
VF01 - Evading an Officer
VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

We the defense will state that Evading an officer carries the charge of both misdemeanors, and that adding them to the charges was entirely pointless, we therefore would seek that a judge clarify this matter for both the prosecution, and the law enforcement offices.

This objection is sustained, and I agree with the prosecution. The case in-chief is not a time to make global arguments to the Court. The case in-chief is to examine evidence admitted in a trial, and highlight/emphasize important elements of the evidence. Arguments to the Court are reserved for opening arguments and closing arguments.

As stated in the beginning of this ruling, the parties may now provide their closing arguments. The prosecution's will be due within 48 hours of this ruling, and the defense's will be due within 48 hours of the prosecution's argument being published, or 96 hours of this ruling -- whichever occurs first. To not delay this case any further, any missed deadlines will be considered waivers of arguments. This Court will strive to have a verdict on this case by the end of the next weekend.



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

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

Prosecution Closing Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The prosecution's opening argument was filed in the above case on the 9th of October, 2023.

Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties, the prosecution once again thanks everyone involved in handling this case. We, the prosecution, would once again like to remind the court of the charges that are being contested today; these charges being GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, VF01 - Evading an Officer, and VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. This is not a case that focuses on the policies and procedures of the LSPD, it is not up to the discretion of the Court to analyze Officer Andollini's actions as those that may or may not be up to standard within the LSPD. As such, the prosecution asks the court not to entertain any arguments made by the defense pertaining to suggested breaches within the policies of the LSPD.

The prosecution would like to begin by quoting the Defense's opening statement, "As the prosecution stated in their opening statement Mr. Haze was driving at an excessive speed. We do not deny this. The defendant himself admitted this, but that is not why we are here." , but that is exactly why we are here. The initiation of this traffic stop and subsequent attempt to arrest was due to the fact that the defendant was clocked traveling at excessive speeds and witnessed driving recklessly; this is something that both the defense and defendant have admitted numerous times. In the defendant's witness statement, it is stated, "I had pulled out of del perro on the way to LSC admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH and had gotten pulled over." With the defendant personally admitting guilt to the offense of driving recklessly, and the defense counsel not contesting this, the prosecution will ask the court to uphold justice and find the defendant guilty of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.

We will next move on to a statement made in the defense case-in-chief, in which the defense states "But this created a deeply distressing scenario – my client felt that he had no choice but to comply with the officer's request or he would be tased.", this statement made by the defense from the perspective of the defendant shows that the defendant knew he had a choice to make. This choice made by the defendant was deciding to comply with the officer's request to exit the vehicle or alternatively, choose not to comply with the request - which the defendant subsequently chose to do, therefore resulting in the defendant's failure to comply in the situation. I would additionally like to make mention of the Judge's previous statement, in which Honorable Judge Allgood stated, "this is not a case about consent." the prosecution would like to note that whether or not the defendant consented to the search plays no matter in the court of law; this means that because the defendant failed to comply with the lawful order to exit the vehicle for Law Enforcement to search it, the defendant qualifies for the charge of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify.

Finally, in regard to the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer, the prosecution will direct the court's attention to the defense's exhibit, in which the defendant states in the witness statement, "At that moment i fled in my vehicle and had gotten away." The defendant made the conscious decision to flee the scene and evade the officer attempting to make an arrest, as he had successfully evaded the officer's custody after initial identification, the officer placed the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer.

To wrap things up, the prosecution will once again draw attention to the defense's own opening statement, where they have stated, "we will address the defense-provided witness statement in which Mr. Haze allegedly admits his guilt." There is nothing alleged in this case, the defendant was pulled over after being clocked at a speed of 213 kilometers per hour, upon initiation of a misdemeanor traffic stop and subsequent arrest, the defendant, Bongo Haze, failed to comply with the officer's lawful demand to exit the vehicle, and then the defendant evaded the scene when he was informed that use of a taser would result in his noncompliance.




Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

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

---

Closing Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The defense's closing argument was filed in the above case on the 10th of October, 2023.

Ladies and gentlemen of the court,

Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to paint a story of events that unfolded on that fateful day as we approach the culmination of this trial. In our tale, Mr. Bongo Haze stands at the crossroads, facing three charges: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, VF01 - Evading an Officer, and VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.

Our journey on that day begins with a dispute – not about the policies and procedures of the LSPD, but about the very essence of our rights as citizens. Mr. Haze's actions on that day were not the result of mere stubbornness; they were a resolute assertion of his rights, a stand against what he perceived as an unlawful intrusion.

During the events that took place, we shine a light on the illegality of the officer's actions.

In our state, citizens are not bound to obey unlawful orders, and Mr. Haze's choice to remain within the confines of his vehicle, and his decision to flee a threat was a manifestation of that very principle.

But that's not all, in our tale there a missing piece in this puzzle – the absence of solid evidence, like bodycam footage or reliable witness accounts from officers who arrived at the scene as backup, only deepens the mystery surrounding the officer's actions. Did he know there would be no evidence? Or was it simply luck? Would his actions have changed if there were?

As our tale unfolds, we find Mr. Haze being pulled over, an indisputable fact as the prosecution likes to say. Yet, what follows is a pivotal moment. The officer presented Mr. Haze with a choice, a choice that felt to him like a demand. He asked Mr. Haze to surrender his constitutional rights in exchange for a citation. This demand was then followed up with an implied threat of force. I'm sure we can all agree that if we were faced with that same demand and threat, we would not be capable of rational decision making. I know I wouldn't.

The climax of our story lands at this choice. The crux of our dispute and the legality of that choice. If the officer had opted for VM03 from the outset, we might not be here today. If the officer had refrained from brandishing his Taser and issuing threats, we might not be here. Our presence in this courtroom is a consequence of a citizen's resistance to an unlawful order, a stand for his rights.

Now, let's shift our focus to the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer. Mr. Haze did indeed leave the scene, but let us delve into the motives behind this action. The officer's use of force, combined with the looming threat of Taser deployment, created an atmosphere of fear. Fear for his safety, fear of being tazed if he did not surrender his rights.

In this tale, there's also void – a distinct lack of supporting witnesses, statements, or any trace of bodycam footage from the officer or his colleagues. Despite the fact that multiple officers arrived on the scene to backup the arresting officer, not a single officer was able to provide a statement in his support. Not a single officer had bodycamera footage to provide in order to back up his side of the story. Not a single officer felt willing, or able, to corroborate the actions that Mr Andollini took during this traffic stop.

The prosecution rightly asserts that this case isn't about consent, and they are correct. This isn't about consent; it's about the violation of rights and the legality of orders given in an attempt to circumvent those rights.

The prosecution argues that facts are not disputed, but the facts tell us that Mr. Haze was well within his constitutionally protected rights to defy unlawful orders, to resist threats, and, when faced with a threat to his own life, to seek safety through flight.

In closing, the story's facts may seem unchallenged, but the circumstances that guided Mr. Haze's actions are also unchallenged. Reflect on the potential illegality of the officer's conduct, ponder the void of evidence, and remember the fundamental right to resist unlawful orders. Justice in this case hinges on a thorough exploration of these facets.

With all that being said and all that has been presented, all the evidence and lack thereof, we implore you to find out client not guilty.

Respectfully,


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

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

Prosecution Final Closing Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The prosecution's closing argument was filed in the above case on the 12th of October, 2023.

Honorable Judge Allgood and the court, before you begin with your deliberations, please keep the facts of this case in mind. Those facts being, that when Bongo Haze was visualized driving recklessly and clocked at a speed of 218 kilometers per hour, the misdemeanor charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle became applicable. It was well within the officer's lawful authority to proceed by not only initiating the stop, but also have the individual exit for arrest and have their vehicle for be searched, as the it was used in the crime.

Mister Haze was never asked to give up any of his constitutional rights, he was not coerced into behaving anyway, but rather given an opportunity to exit the vehicle peacefully for the misdemeanor arrest, before further escalation would be necessary in the situation. No rights were subsequently violated, and Mister Haze should have felt no threat to his life when the officer explained that deployment of a taser would be necessary if he resisted the lawful order to exit the vehicle for his arrest and subsequential search of the vehicle. Furthermore, although Mister Haze believed it was well within his rights to resist lawful order and flee the scene, it is also the officer's duty to place charges in accordance with laws that have been broken.

Despite the defense's persistent desire to have the court "reflect on the potential illegality of the officers conduct", the prosecution asks that the court does not waste their time educating themselves on a conduct that no resources have been presented to the court in regards to, but instead reflect upon the facts of the case. Bongo Haze drove exceedingly recklessly, as such the misdemeanor VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle was the reason for the initiation of the traffic stop. Bongo Haze disobeyed a lawful order to exit the vehicle, refusing to let the officer proceed with a lawful search of his person and vehicle in accordance with a misdemeanor arrest order, and landing the charge of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify. Bongo Haze readily departed from the scene in his vehicle when lawful demands were made and an officer was attempting to make an arrest, concluding in the charge of VF01 - Evading an Officer.


Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [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. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A decision was reached in the above case on the 13th day of October, 2023.

As usual, the Court would like to again thank the involved parties on their patience as this case made its way through the Superior Court of San Andreas. It is does not fall on deaf ears that this case has been pending litigation for some time now, and the Court believes it speaks for all parties in expressing gratitude to see this case come to conclusion. As this Presiding Judge has said many times -- the criminal justice system is a vital element of our society. We are a society of laws. These laws extends far beyond the penal code that differentiates lawful from unlawful behavior, but it also extends into laws differentiating between the lawful and unlawful reach of our government's intrusion into our private lives. This case without a doubt is a testament to this challenge in striking a balance between both.

For this verdict, the Court will first begin with a summary of the incident using the undisputed facts, and then move towards a discussion of the areas of this incident that were in dispute. Following a review of these disputed facts, this verdict will present the legal analysis of these disputed facts before finally arriving at the ultimate verdict.

On the 22nd of June, 2023, the Defendant was charged with VM03 - reckless operation of a vehicle, VF01 - evading an Officer, and GM10 - failure to comply/identify. These charges are related to a traffic stop effected by Los Santos Police Department Officer Andollini due to the defendant traveling in excess of 80 km/hr over the posted speed limit on Boulevard Del Perro. The alleged speed will become important later on, as it is one of the first elements of dispute in this case. During the traffic stop, a request/order was made for the defendant to exit their vehicle, a request the Defendant did not comply with, and the defendant evaded capture. Officer Andollini filed a warrant report detailing the charges the Defendant were to be charged with, and the defendant later turned themselves into law enforcement.

Moving into the areas of dispute -- (a) the defendant's speed, (b) the conduct of Officer Andollini and its impact on the defendant's actions, (c) and the lawfulness of the attempted search and/or arrest;

Although the speed issue is important, it only scratches the surface at the issues which need to be resolved in this case. As such, the Court will not speed a large amount of time on this matter, but believes it does have some relevance in this case. According to the prosecution's exhibits, the measured speed of the defendant preceding the traffic stop was 218 km/h on Boulevard Del Perro, which has a 80 km/h posted speed limit -- this calculates to 138 km/h over the posted speed limit. According to the defense's exhibit, the defendant acknowledges they were traveling at an excessive speed, approximating their speed at around 160 MPH. The issue of MPH vs km/h was not brought up by either side in this case, but the Court notes 160 MPH converts to 257 km/h, which would be 177 km/h over the posted speed limit. Giving the benefit of doubt to the defendant on this being a typographical error, the Court notes 160 km/h would calculate to 80 km/h over the posted speed limit. At any rate, rather the Defendant was traveling at 80, 138 or 177 km/h over the posted speed limit, these speeds are clearly excessive and in violation of law. Therefore, the Court makes the first conclusion in this case -- the traffic stop was legally justified.

The Court opines the biggest area of dispute in this case was the alleged conduct of Officer Andollini. Before going into this matter, the Court reminds everyone that Officer Andollini is/was not on trial here, and therefore the Court will not be making any definite conclusions on the alleged conduct of Officer Andollini. The Court however must review Officer Andollini's conduct generally to appropriately resolve the legal dispute at issue in this case. The defense alleges and raises concern with Officer Andollini's conduct during the traffic stop, alleging Officer Andollini gave the Defendant an ultimatum -- essentially a 'choice' between receiving a speeding citation if the Defendant permitted Officer Andollini to search their vehicle, or being charged with reckless operation and the vehicle being searched anyway -- with the brandishing of a Taser occurring at some point in time within this timeline. The defense argues this put the Defendant into a precarious situation of having to essentially choose between enjoying his rights to refuse a search of their person or property or choosing to be free from their rights to being involuntarily seized and restrained, all while being threatened with force being used against him. The Court agrees -- no citizen of San Andreas should have to choose one of their rights over another; all rights afforded to citizens under the Constitution shall be enjoyed. It is important to note that if this was a case about the search of the defendant's vehicle being conducted strictly under these circumstances, the core analysis and heart of the verdict would end here. If the Defendant complied with a search of their person or vehicle to avoid the consequences of their other choice, the Court would be reviewing the willingness of the consent, and under these circumstances, the Court would likely determine the consent to be not freely given, and the search would be suppressed, and any evidence bore from the fruit of those actions would be excluded.

Rather, this case involved the second scenario -- the defendant was instructed to exit the vehicle. Whether this was offered in an ultimatum or this was the order given is inconsequential in this legal analysis, as this Court is only tasked with evaluating the lawfulness of the request and arrest. Any concerns with the conduct of Officer Andollini should have been forwarded to the Los Santos Police Department for review as a potential breach of protocols.

To begin the analysis of the reasonableness of the arrest, the Court must first determine if law enforcement had sufficient probable cause to effect an arrest of the Defendant. To do so, we will briefly return back to the speed issue. The Court acknowledges that traveling at 80 km/hr over the posted speed limit could be punished as a 3rd degree speeding citation, as the speed range for this charge is 41 km/h (inclusive) to 80 km/h (inclusive). The difference between a discretionary 3rd degree speeding citation and a reckless operation charge is 1 km/hr, by definition, as there is no 4th degree speeding citation for speeds in excess of 80 km/hr. Law enforcement officers have the right to use this discretion in their duties, and as such the choice of going with a speeding citation or a misdemeanor charge of reckless operation would be the choice of the officer for a speed of exactly 80 km/h over the posted speed limit. However, this is a case where the Defendant was undoubtedly going somewhere between 80 and 177 km/h over the posted speed limit, based on the evidence presented and statements made. As noted earlier, and there was concurrence by the defense that the defendant's driving was indeed reckless, the Court concludes no error on the charge of VM03 - reckless operation of a vehicle, and makes the second conclusion in this case -- the arrest was legally justified.

Now as noted earlier, this is not a case of evaluating the reasonableness of a search, as this did not occur due to the Defendant's choice to evade. So, the Court will only briefly mention the reasonableness of a search, as it was called into question by the defense in the alleged conduct of Officer Andollini. Upon arrest of a person, law enforcement may search that person, and that person's immediate area of control, incident to a lawful arrest. As concluded, this was a lawful arrest, therefore, the search of the Defendant's vehicle would have been upheld had this been the challenge at issue here.

To wrap-up, the Court now turns to the alleged crimes which the Defendant is charged, and highlighting what elements of these crimes within the penal code;

VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

Intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle.

This conclusion was already drawn earlier in this decision. The Defendant did engage in an intentional disregard for life and/or property through their operation of a road vehicle at speeds in excess of 80 km/h.

GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify:

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

The Defendant was given a lawful command by a law enforcement officer (Officer Andollini) to exit the vehicle. As noted above, this is a lawful command, as the Defendant was to be arrested for VM03 - reckless operation of a vehicle. Although the conduct of Officer Andollini was called into question by the defense, this challenge does not overturn the Court's view on this matter for this particular case. This aspect is emphasized, because if Officer Andollini did in-fact make this ultimatum, this could potentially change the Court's view had the Defendant remained at the traffic stop and made a different decision in response to the ultimatum. The Court sincerely hopes this was not the ultimatum made, and if it did, the Court issues a stern warning to all law enforcement officers within the State of San Andreas that if this is occurring in practice, this practice is not only frowned upon, but unlawful. Any cases in the future that come in front of the Superior Court should reviewed in light of the conclusions made within this decision -- in summary, a citizen should NEVER be asked to waive any Constitutional right(s) in exchange for enjoyment of other Constitutional rights.


VF01 - Evading an Officer

Any person who, while operating a standard road vehicle, off-road vehicle, or bicycle, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to elude a pursuing law enforcement officer, is guilty of Evading an Officer.

All occupants of a vehicle are liable to be charged with VF01 if they willfully partake in the act.

This was not disputed in this case -- the Defendant did indeed make a willful choice to flee law enforcement. The reasons for the choice to evade are really, unfortunately, not remedies to the actions taken. If the Court may give some advice to the Defendant -- as noted earlier in this ruling, this case would have largely went in the Defendant's favor if the Defendant had consented to the speeding citation and allowing the search of their vehicle. While the Court strongly opposes this tactic, if used, by law enforcement, the Court also notes this would have provided an easy legal remedy for the Defendant -- the fruits of that search being unlawfully obtained and therefore not usable in any further legal proceedings. In this case, the Defendant would have had the 3rd degree speeding citation allegedly promised by law enforcement, a refund of any fines paid for any charges that were related to the unlawful search, and further compensation for any jail or prison time.

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

• On the count of VM03 - Reckless operation of a road vehicle, I find the defendant, Bongo Haze, guilty.
• On the count of GM10 - Failure to comply/identify, I find the defendant, Bongo Haze, guilty.
• On the count of VF01 - Evading an Officer, I find the defendant, Bongo Haze, guilty.

Pursuant to Superior Court guidelines, the Defendant will be assessed a fee of $25,000 for the Court's time and resources expended by the government in this adjudication.



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