#23-CM-0105, State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto

[Vitto]

Defendant Name: Antonio Vitto
Defendant Phone: Withheld
Defendant Address: Withheld
(( Defendant Discord: Whiteboyy604#3425 ))
Requested Attorney: Shaun Harper

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 20-08-2023 9:43 am
Charge(s):

• GM10 – Failure to Comply

Narrative:
I am filing this dispute. All legal contact or questions regarding this court filing will need to go through Shaun Harper.

---

I, Antonio Vitto, hereby affirm that all information provided above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, and understand that knowingly providing false information could result in additional charges and/or fines. (( I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means. ))

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21 of August, 2023.

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

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


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

[Robert Winejudge]

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. Antonio Vitto

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 21st of August, 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.



Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Antonio Vitto

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 26th of August, 2023.

I, Kendall Groyce, a Prosecuting 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.



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

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 30th of October, 2023.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0105.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, however, due to the current Leave of Absence of the assigned prosecutor I will be waiting to file the Order for Discovery until they have returned.

In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A court order was entered in the above case on the 8th of November, 2023.

The case of #23-CM-0105, State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto 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.




Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 11th of November, 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: Arrest Report of Antonio Vitto, Los Santos Police Department
  Arrest Report of Antonio Vitto, 20/AUG/2023

  

  

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

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Antonio Vitto
      Phone Number: 2367350
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective II Samuel Martin
      • Police Detective I Mikael Cowell
      Charges:
      • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
      • VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 20/AUG/2023
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • Whilst conducting a traffic stop on the suspect, he was issued a suspension on his license and a demerit. He was ordered to step out of the car several times, yet failed to do so.
        
        He was tased and placed under arrest, his vehicle being impounded.
        
        Legal items at Mission Row.
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible, the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Possessions:
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: 2x Clothing
        Exhibit B: 1x GPS
        Exhibit C: 1x Bottle
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement of Mikael Cowell, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Detective I Cowell, Witness Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 26/AUG/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Mikael Cowell
    Date of Birth: 23/AUG/1995
    Phone Number: Redacted
    Occupation: LSPD Detective

  Witness Statement

  • On the date of the 20th of August, 2023, myself and Detective Martin were partnered up and conducting standard patrol duties in the area of East Vinewood. During the patrol, we noticed a dark coloured vehicle abruptly break on Mirror Park Blvd, then reversing in the south-bound lanes around fifty (50) meters, before coming to a full stop to speak with the driver of a parked vehicle in front of Starlight Motel.
    
    Myself and Detective Martin initiated a traffic stop to determine the condition of the driver and the reasoning for his actions that we had witnessed. After deliberation with Detective Martin, it was decided that he would receive a citation for VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. In addition to the citation, he would receive a third demerit, ultimately leading to his license getting suspended.
    
    I again approached the driver, asking him to step out of the vehicle. He refused to comply with the lawful order, presented to him by a law enforcement officer conducting his duties. I asked the driver again, to which he responded "no" to. He told me he was not going to leave the vehicle, despite myself ordering him out several times.
    
    Ultimately, a taser was deployed on him to assist in breaking his non-compliance. He was removed from the vehicle and placed under arrest for failing to comply, as he had failed to comply with my several lawful orders/commands to exit the vehicle.
    

    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.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Mikael Cowell, 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,
    
    
    Police Detective I Mikael Cowell
    Gang and Narcotics Division
    Los Santos Police Department
    [/b]
    Date: 26/AUG/2023

  

• Exhibit #3: Witness Statement of Samuel Martin, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Detective II Martin, Witness Statement

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 20/AUG/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Samuel Martin
    Date of Birth: REDACTED
    Phone Number: REDACTED
    Occupation: Police Detective

  Witness Statement

  • During a traffic stop Antonio Vitto (hereafter, "the suspect") was told multiple times to get out of his vehicle. The suspect kept failing to comply which resulted in an escalation of the suspect being tased. The suspect had plenty of time to comply but decided that he would not comply when given a lawful order.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Samuel 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,
    
    
    Samuel Martin
    Police Detective II
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 26/AUG/2023

  

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

[Mary Burrows]

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. Antonio Vitto

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 12th of November, 2023.

I, Mary Burrows, Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Antonio Vitto in the underlying case.

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


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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

---

WITNESS LIST

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A Witness List was filed in the above case on the 12th of November, 2023.

• The defense designates the following list of individuals as witnesses, who may be called to the stand.
  
  Name of Witness:
  Antonio Vitto
  Description: (party, fact witness, expert, other)
  Defendant
  Witness Agency:
  N/A

Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A decision was reached in the above case on the 18th day of November, 2023.

With no months filed within 7 days of the discovery I will be moving to hear this case at trial. With the holiday next week I will be holding off on attempting to schedule such an event until after the holiday has passed.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on Day of Month, 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.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the 5th of December, 2023.

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

• Reasoning: Indisputable Facts
  • Detailed Explanation: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify is defined in the penal code as "failure to comply with a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, including when he requests you to identify who you are during an investigation." In the evidence provided by the Los Santos Police Department, reports state that the defendant was observed reversing in a lane in which on-coming traffic would be traveling, as such, the charge VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle was applicable. This charge (VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle) was placed with the addition of a demerit to the defendant's license. As this was the third demerit to the defendant's license, a license suspension was ultimately issued. The defendant was then asked to exit the vehicle by Law Enforcement, as his license suspension would not permit him to leave the scene through operating the vehicle he was in. The defendant refused to leave the vehicle, and upon being asked multiple times the defendant continuously responded "no" to the officer's commands. After failing to comply with the officer's lawful commands on multiple attempts to get the defendant to exit the vehicle, a Taser was deployed in accordance with his non-compliance, and the charge GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify was placed by law enforcement.

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

[Mary Burrows]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Daniels and included parties,
  
  The defense has no objection and agrees with the prosecution’s Motion for Summary Judgement for the rest of the case.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Junior Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 339-5979 — [email protected]
  

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

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

I will be granting the Motion for Summary Judgement filed by the prosecution. As the defense has stated in their last correspondence, they have no objection and agrees with the prosecutions motion.

The court will now allow the prosecution seventy-two hours to present their initial arguments to the court. The defense will then be given the same opportunity to give a response. At that point the prosecution will then be given another seventy-two hours for any counter-arguments to be made, once again allowing the defense the same opportunity after. Once both sides have been given their opportunity to make their stance on the case known, I then render my decision and issue a verdict.


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

The prosecution's opening argument was filed in the above case on the 7th of December, 2023.

Honorable Judge Daniels and pertaining parties; the prosecution believes this case's facts are indisputable. On the 20th of August 2023, the defendant, Antonio Vitto, was visualized reversing in the southbound lane on Mirror Park Boulevard. As the defendant was conducting improper traffic maneuvers by reversing in a lane that on-coming traffic would be traveling, a traffic stop was initiated. After deliberations, the initiating officers issued the citation VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, in addition to a license demerit. As this was the third demerit to Mister Vitto's license, his license was subsequently suspended.

As the defendant's license was now suspended, and his driving privileges were temporarily revoked, the officers asked him to step out of the vehicle so they could ensure he would not be leaving the scene by driving on a suspended license. The defendant, Antonio Vitto, refused to comply with the officer's request, so the officers again made the lawful order to exit the vehicle. As the defendant, Antonio Vitto, was given multiple lawful orders to exit the vehicle, all of which he refused to comply with, ultimately the charge GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify was placed on the defendant.

The facts of this case are irrefutable. Per the evidence submitted in the Discovery, the officers of the LSPD, Detective Cowell and Detective Martin, made lawful commands that the defendant failed to comply with. As such, the charge GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify is explicitly applicable beyond a shadow of a doubt, and the defendant is guilty of this crime.



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

[Mary Burrows]

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

---

DEFENSE OPENING ARGUMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

#23-CM-0105 State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto

The Defenses Opening Argument has been filed.

Your Honor, in examining the circumstances surrounding the alleged failure to comply, it's essential to consider the environment my client, Mr. Antonio Vitto, found himself in on the 20th of August 2023. The incident, involving the Los Santos Police Department's Charging Department, not communicating any reason to the defendant on why they needed him to step out. Therefore questioning if this command was lawful or not.

We assert that Mr. Vitto's actions were not willful disobedience but rather a reaction to an environment clouded by unprofessional conduct. The defense contends that the detectives exhibited questionable behavior, leading to the submission of an Internal Affairs report within the LSPD. This report highlights concerns regarding the legitimacy of their actions, particularly in relation to the detectives wearing civilian clothing while on duty which can lead to my clients questioning on the legitimacy of the officers.

The defense would like to remind the parties that the code GM-10 specifically requires compliance with a "lawful command" by a law enforcement officer. In this case, the defense contends that the officers' commands lacked justification and therefore cannot be deemed lawful. The officers' orders had no reasoning behind asking my client to get out as my client did not know his license was suspended.

As we delve into the events preceding the charge, it becomes evident that my client may have been unfairly treated, influencing his response to the officers' commands. We request a thorough examination of the circumstances, considering the potential impact of unprofessional conduct on the defendant's actions during the alleged failure to comply.


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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

---

PROSECUTION CLOSING ARGUMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

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

Honorable Judge Daniels and pertaining parties; the defense argues that the conduct by the Los Santos Police Department was unprofessional and questionable, but the prosecution questions where they are drawing these conclusions from. The prosecution believes that these officers` worked within their scope of policies and conduct. The Internal Affairs report that the defense mentions has not been submitted into evidence and as such we question if this report is legitimate or even exists. As such, we request that the following statement be suppressed when considering the final verdict of this case.

The defense contends that the detectives exhibited questionable behavior, leading to the submission of an Internal Affairs report within the LSPD. This report highlights concerns regarding the legitimacy of their actions, particularly in relation to the detectives wearing civilian clothing while on duty which can lead to my clients questioning on the legitimacy of the officers.

The demands made by Officer Martin and Officer Cowell were both lawful and with reason. If the defense believes conduct in this situation was unprofessional and unlawful, they had an opportunity to showcase this. However, the evidence accepted into discovery does not display the officers doing anything unlawful or unprofessional. The requests of the Law Enforcement Officers in this scenario, the request for Antonio Vitto to exit the vehicle, was both a lawful request on behalf of the Police Department and justified with good reason despite the defense stating otherwise. As two officers were repeatedly making the same lawful command, there should be no questioning or confusion on behalf of the defendant. The command to exit the vehicle was a lawful command, and after being repeated numerous times with continued non-compliance, the change of GM-10 is entirely valid and indisputable.

Once again, the prosecution would like to reiterate the facts of this case. Antonio Vitto, was visualized reversing in the southbound lane on Mirror Park Boulevard. As the defendant was conducting improper traffic maneuvers by reversing in a lane that on-coming traffic would be traveling, a traffic stop was initiated. After deliberations, the initiating officers issued the citation VC08 - Negligent Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, in addition to a license demerit. As this was the third demerit to Mister Vitto's license, his license was subsequently suspended. As the defendant's license was now suspended, and his driving privileges were temporarily revoked, the officers asked him to step out of the vehicle so they could ensure he would not be leaving the scene by driving on a suspended license. The defendant, Antonio Vitto, refused to comply with the officer's request, so the officers again made the lawful order to exit the vehicle. The defendant, Antonio Vitto, was given multiple lawful orders to exit the vehicle, all of which he refused to comply with, ultimately the charge GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify was placed on the defendant.




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

[Mary Burrows]

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

---

DEFENSE CLOSING ARGUMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

#23-CM-0105 State of San Andreas v. Antonio Vitto

The Defenses Closing Argument has been filed.

Honorable Judge Daniels and included parties,

As we approach the conclusion of this case, it is imperative to reevaluate the circumstances surrounding the alleged failure to comply by my client, Mr. Antonio Vitto, on the 20th of August 2023.

The prosecution contends that the demands made by Officer Martin and Officer Cowell were both lawful and justified. However, the defense asserts that lawful commands must be based on legitimate grounds and communicated clearly to the defendant. In this case, the defense argues that the officers' orders lacked justification and transparency, creating an environment of confusion for Mr. Vitto.

The prosecution questions the legitimacy of the Internal Affairs report mentioned by the defense. While the report may not have been submitted as evidence, its existence is real, and its concerns regarding the officers' conduct, including the wearing of civilian clothing while on duty, raise valid questions about the legitimacy of the orders given. The defense firmly believes that these concerns are pertinent to the case, as they contribute to the atmosphere in which Mr. Vitto found himself on that fateful day.

We must consider the sequence of events leading up to the alleged failure to comply. Mr. Vitto was initially stopped for a traffic violation, which resulted in a citation and the suspension of his license. It is crucial to note that Mr. Vitto was not aware of the suspension at the time of the officers' commands. The defense argues that the lack of communication regarding the reason for asking Mr. Vitto to exit the vehicle raises doubts about the lawfulness of the command, especially considering the officers' prior conduct.

The defense acknowledges the prosecution's version of events, but we maintain that Mr. Vitto's actions were not willful disobedience. Instead, they were reactions to a series of events characterized by unclear communication, questionable conduct, and an atmosphere of uncertainty created by the officers' actions.

In closing, we urge the court to carefully consider the evidence and the context in which it unfolded. The defense maintains that the officers' commands lacked justification and were not communicated clearly to Mr. Vitto. We request a fair examination of the circumstances and a recognition that the defense has raised valid concerns about the officers' conduct. We trust that the court will deliver a just verdict based on a thorough understanding of the events that transpired on that day.


Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Colt Daniels]

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. Antonio Vitto
#23-CM-0105

A decision was reached in the above case on the 12th day of December, 2023.

In the case of Antonio Vitto and the charge of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, a review of all evidence and arguments made by both parties has taken place following the granting of a Motion for Summary Judgement leading me to rendering this verdict.

The initial incident commenced with law enforcement officers observing Vitto engaging in improper traffic maneuvers, prompting them to rightfully issue citations and subsequently suspend his license due to the accumulation of demerits. Subsequent to the license suspension, officers requested Vitto to exit his vehicle, a lawful directive seemingly intended to ensure compliance with the suspension and prevent any potential unlawful operation of a vehicle. Regrettably, Vitto adamantly and persistently refused to comply with these repeated lawful commands, resulting in the application of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify.

The prosecution's argument rests upon a chronology of events: the initial traffic stop due to Vitto's violations, the subsequent citations, demerits, the resulting license suspension, and finally, the lawful request for Vitto to exit the vehicle. They contend that Vitto's steadfast refusal to comply with the officers' lawful commands, given the context of a suspended license, unequivocally constitutes a violation of GM10.

In contrast, the defense raises pertinent concerns regarding the legitimacy and transparency of the officers' directives. They emphasize issues such as officers wearing civilian attire during duty and a lack of clear communication regarding the rationale behind Vitto's required exit from the vehicle. Furthermore, the defense underscores Vitto's lack of awareness regarding the license suspension at the time the officers issued their commands.

GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify constitutes the failure to adhere to a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, inclusive of situations where identification is requested during an investigation. It emphasizes the crucial obligation of individuals to heed the lawful directives of law enforcement, particularly when those commands are pertinent to preserving order, ensuring safety, or facilitating a lawful investigation.

In this specific case, Antonio Vitto's actions directly align with the criteria outlined in GM10. When confronted by officers during a traffic stop, he was repeatedly directed to exit his vehicle due to the suspension of his license, a lawful command intended to ensure compliance with the law and prevent any potential unlawful operation of a vehicle. However, Vitto willfully refused to comply with these directives, persistently disregarding the officers' lawful requests despite being aware of their authority and the circumstances surrounding the license suspension. His consistent refusal to adhere to the officers' orders constitutes a clear violation of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify.

Considering the weight of the evidence, the legitimate concerns raised by both parties, and the totality of circumstances, including Vitto's repeated and deliberate non-compliance, It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict,

• On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Antonio Vitto, guilty.

It is crucial to emphasize that, within the context of this case and the events presented, a precedent emerges: the refusal to comply with lawful orders from law enforcement regarding exiting a vehicle constitutes a violation of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify. This precedent is a direct result of the circumstances and determinations made within this specific case.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]