#24-AP-0003, State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes

[Rowin Lawson]

Appellant Name: Rowin Lawson
Appellant Attorney(s): Rowin Lawson

Trial Docket Number: #23-CM-0111
Presiding Trial Judge: Judge Bret Hyland
Notice of Appeal Filed: MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

• [X] Before Verdict
  [ ] After Verdict

Reason for Notice of Appeal:

• [X] Motion to be overturned
  [ ] Errors in the trials procedure
  [ ] Errors in the judge's interpretation of the law
  [ ] New evidence proving appellants innocence

Grounds for Appeal: (Maximum 150 words)

• The defense argued a search was conducted without appropriate consent from Mr. Reyes, saying it lacked the requisite procedural steps to ensure compliance with constitutional protections against The Fourth Amendment which safeguards individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures and mandates that warrants be issued based on probable cause supported by oath or affirmation.
  
  The reason for this appeal is that consent was given by Mr. Reyes. In Exhibit #2: Detective Coral Lafleur's Witness Statement, the following can be found.

  "Due to the obstruction of the investigation that was shown by Jacob Schmidtt, Detectives used their totality of circumstances, with the evidence shown within the arrest report, bodycam and known knowledge about Kevin Reyes to determine there was more than enough probable cause to see Kevin Reyes tattoos to either gain the final piece of evidence, or to prove Kevin innocent. Kevin Reyes and Jacob Schmidtt were told the plan of which to remove Kevin Reyes from the area to a more private location so he can remove his shirt to see if said tattoos matches the individual in the bodycam footage saved, to which Kevin stated he did not want to leave that corridor we were within which was his own want of the situation.
  
  As law enforcement detectives attempted to remove Kevin Reyes shirt as a lawful order due to probable cause given, Jacob Schmidtt began to interfere, refusing to remove out of the way of law enforcement, raising his voice and completely obstructing the justice of which officers were acting from their own internal policies to perform this act. It was mentioned multiple times that the 4th amendment was being broken, however as stated "but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." There was reasonable probably cause against Kevin Reyes to have his shirt removed and tattoos to be seen, Kevin Reyes removes his pants at his own free will, and when asked to put them back on, he refused."

  Specifically noting the last sentence, "Kevin Reyes removes his pants at his own free will and when asked to put them back on, he refused". Removing his pants when asked to remove a different article of clothing should be attributed as compliance with the request. The removal of pants rather than a shirt could've been a misunderstanding by Mr. Reyes as we do not know his motive or thoughts in this situation. When asked to put his pants back on, Mr. Reyes refused to redress himself which displays further intent on remaining disrobed in front of law enforcement which could be seen as continued compliance. We have no evidence of Mr. Reyes verbally refusing the search, only that of his attorney at the time Jacob Schmidtt but the actions of a defendant speak louder than the words of an attorney.
  
  By the conclusion of all of the above, the prosecution urges the court to reconsider its decision to grant the Motion to Suppress in light of the consent originally given by Mr. Reyes through his actions as it still shows compliance with the request to disrobe.

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes
#24-AP-0003

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above appeal on the 8th day of August, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes is hereby activated by this Court under #24-AP-0003.

Both parties in this case are now hereby ordered to submit an initial written brief within the next seven days outlining their position of this appeal and giving any legal arguments as to why the court should rule in their favor.

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


So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

APPEAL BRIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Kevin Reyes v. State of San Andreas
#24-AP-0003

Appeal Brief was filed in the above case on the 8th day of August, 2024.

• Your honor,
  
  The defense maintains that the search of Mr. Reyes was conducted unlawfully, violating his Fourth Amendment rights. The search, which involved the removal of Mr. Reyes's shirt to identify tattoos, was performed without a warrant, valid probable cause, or consent. The evidence shows that law enforcement officers decided to conduct the search to gather evidence, rather than based on prior evidence, which is a clear violation of constitutional protections, according to a quote in exhibit 3 "We then decided with out evidence that we are going to search Kevin and remove his shirt to gain evidence".
  
  The officers reasonings behind the search is that Kevin Reyes, matched the same shoes and trousers as he alleged bank robber. These reasoning does not uphold probable cause to search the individual and remove his clothing. This is backed up by precedence in a ruling made by Hugh R. Allgood on the case State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba #23-CM-0027 he stated: "Hearing someone's voice, seeing their clothing, and a similar vehicle, while good factors towards reasonable suspicion to detain someone for further investigation, these factors are not enough to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” We can see that Hugh R. Allgood ruled saying these factors are good towards reasonable suspicion which we all know is lesser then probable cause, which is needed for a search.
  
  Mr. Reyes’s removal of his pants, instead of his shirt, was a deliberate act of disobedience meant to clearly show the officers how he will not follow this specific request for consent. This action highlights a clear refusal to consent to the search. The prosecution says in the appeal "We have no evidence of Mr. Reyes verbally refusing the search, only that of his attorney at the time Jacob Schmidtt but the actions of a defendant speak louder than the words of an attorney." The defendant did almost the opposite of what he was being asked to consent for and the attorney was refusing the search verbally, shouldn't this be enough to show there was no consent given?
  
  This is the third excuse the prosecution has given for the search over 3 different prosecuting attorneys. However the defense has stood in the same position since the original suppression. There is no probable cause, there was no consent given and there are no exigent circumstances. Therefore, the evidence obtained should remain suppressed. The defense urges the court to uphold the suppression due to the violation of Mr. Reyes' Fourth Amendment rights.
  
  
  
  
  Acting Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

RESPONSE TO DEFENSE'S APPEAL BRIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Kevin Reyes v. State of San Andreas
#24-AP-0003

Response Filed on August 09, 2024 in the above case on the 9th day of August, 2024.

• Your Honor,
  
  The prosecution respectfully submits this response to the defense's appeal brief, seeking to clarify the points raised and reaffirm the legality of the search conducted on Mr. Kevin Reyes.
  
  
  The defense contends that the search of Mr. Reyes violated his Fourth Amendment rights due to a lack of probable cause, consent, or exigent circumstances. However, it is crucial to address these points with the context provided by the case's specific circumstances:
  
  The search of Mr. Reyes was conducted based on an accumulation of evidence that linked him to the crime in question. As outlined in Detective Coral Lafleur's witness statement (Exhibit #2), Mr. Reyes was identified through his clothing, tattoos, and behavior, all of which matched the description of the suspect captured in the bodycam footage. This evidence provided law enforcement with a reasonable basis to believe that Mr. Reyes was the individual involved in the criminal activity, thereby establishing probable cause.
  
  The defense argues that Mr. Reyes did not provide consent for the search. However, the prosecution maintains that Mr. Reyes’s actions—specifically his removal of his pants—demonstrated a form of compliance with the request to disrobe, even if it was not exactly as instructed. While the defense may characterize this as deliberate disobedience, the fact remains that Mr. Reyes did not physically resist or vocally refuse the search, aside from his attorney’s objections. This behavior can reasonably be interpreted as tacit consent, especially given the chaotic nature of the interaction.
  
  The defense cites the case of State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba (#23-CM-0027) to argue that the evidence used to justify the search was insufficient for probable cause. However, the circumstances of this case differ significantly:
  
  In State of San Andreas v. Scoobie Bathsheba, the court ruled that hearing someone's voice, seeing their clothing, and recognizing a similar vehicle were insufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. However, in the present case, the identification of Mr. Reyes went beyond mere suspicion. The detectives had video evidence showing tattoos matching those of the suspect, which provided a stronger basis for probable cause.
  
  The defense argues that the prosecution has changed its reasoning multiple times throughout the case. While it is true that different prosecutors may emphasize different aspects of the case, the underlying argument remains consistent: that the search of Mr. Reyes was conducted lawfully, based on the totality of the circumstances, and that Mr. Reyes’s actions did not clearly indicate a refusal to consent.
  
  Finally, the prosecution asserts that the evidence obtained during the search should not be suppressed. The search was conducted in accordance with the law, and the defendant’s behavior, when viewed in its entirety, did not constitute a clear refusal of consent. Suppressing this evidence would unjustly impede the pursuit of justice and allow a potential criminal to evade accountability.
  
  
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Kevin Reyes v. State of San Andreas
#24-AP-0003

The defenses response to the prosecution response to the appeal brief was filed in the above case on the 8th day of August, 2024.

• Your honor, let's focus on a few facts the prosecution has said that just isn't true in any way shape or form. In the prosecution's third paragraph, they state they the search was conducted lawfully due to Mr. Reyes being identified "through his clothing, tattoos, and behavior, all of which matched the description of the suspect captured in the bodycam footage." For one, the search was to see his tattoos, I don't understand how the prosecution can use evidence after the fact to justify a search. Secondly, the prosecution says he is identified through behavior which makes no sense since it was a picture from the body camera footage. ((I believe the picture has since been deleted due to it being discord hosted, it was in the arrest report))
  
  In the 4th paragraph, the prosecution argues that "the fact remains that Mr. Reyes did not physically resist or vocally refuse the search". It's commonly understood that consent must be communicated. Just because someone doesn’t explicitly say "no" doesn’t mean they’ve permitted something. In almost every scenario consent requires a clear, affirmative "yes," not just the absence of a refusal. The prosecution also hinges on the argument that he didn't physically resist, which I believe would be difficult to do when it's a question.
  
  In the 6th paragraph, the prosecution argues that the precedence from the case of Stelio Bathsheba is different. Due to a bodycam of matching tattoos, however, this bodycam was never entered into evidence nor ever brought up. The one piece of bodycam given to the court was a bunch of people running away towards bikes.
  
  In the 7th paragraph, the prosecution argues "that the search of Mr. Reyes was conducted lawfully, based on the totality of the circumstances, and that Mr. Reyes’s actions did not indicate a refusal to consent." Let me make this clear once more: just because someone doesn't say no, doesn't mean they’re saying yes.
  
  
  Acting Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

RESPONSE TO DEFENSE'S APPEAL BRIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Kevin Reyes v. State of San Andreas
#24-AP-0003

Response Filed on August 09, 2024 in the above case on the 9th day of August, 2024.

• Your Honor,
  
  The prosecution will assert one last point:
  
  While it is universally accepted that "just because someone doesn't say no, this doesn't mean they are saying "yes", the defendant removing his pants is certainly not a refusal.
  
  The prosecution has nothing further to add and will await the judge's decision.
  
  
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

Kevin Reyes v. State of San Andreas
#24-AP-0003

The defense is ready for a verdict. We require no more say.

• 
  Acting Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL

---

IN THE APPEALS COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes
#24-AP-0003

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 10/AUG/2024.

I, Terence Williams, Acting Attorney General of 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.


Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge and Pertaining parties,
  
  I would like to post this notice in order to recuse myself from this case. The recusal is effective as of the 10th of August, 2024.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes
#24-AP-0003

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 10th of August, 2024.

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

• Reasoning: Formulating final response
  • Detailed Explanation: Following the recusal of Attorney Blaise, the Prosecution would like an additional 48 hours to formulate a final response to the appeal prior to judge's verdict.

Terence Williams
Acting Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable McFornell and Pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecutor has clearly confirmed the finality of there statements. In 15 more days my clients superior court case hits the one year mark. The statement "will await the judge's decision" suggests that the prosecution is now waiting for the judge to make a ruling based on the information provided during this appeal. This gave my client hope that he can finally get this trial over before hitting the one year mark.
  
  The prosecution has attempted to make its point, so have we. We both said we are done and now the prosecution is trying to get a continuance so they can say more. This is highly improper and we ask the judge presiding over the case to disallow the motion for continuance and also disallow any further statements to keep my clients 6th amendment right in check.
  
  Thank you, your honor.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Acting Chief Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

• Parties,
  
  The Prosecution has had ample opportunity to submit their brief, and they have done so. The Court will be denying the Motion for Continuance and will move to deliberation.
  
  As of this moment, no more submissions will be considered
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Superior Court Justice
  Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SAN ANDREAS COURT OF APPEALS

State of San Andreas v. Kevin Reyes
#24-AP-0003

A decision was reached in the above case on the 5th day of September, 2024.

The Prosecution has appealed the decision rendered by Judge Bret Hyland, in which he grants a Motion to Suppress.
The prosecution contends that the search of Mr. Reyes was conducted lawfully and in accordance with constitutional protections. They argue that Mr. Reyes's actions, specifically his removal of his pants, constituted tacit consent to the search, even though it was not the specific item of clothing the officers had requested. The prosecution emphasizes that Mr. Reyes did not verbally refuse or physically resist the search, which they interpret as implicit consent. Furthermore, they assert that probable cause was established based on Mr. Reyes's clothing, tattoos, and behavior, which matched the description of the suspect captured in bodycam footage. The prosecution seeks to distinguish this case from prior legal precedents, arguing that the circumstances provided sufficient justification for the search. They assert that the suppression of evidence would unfairly hinder the pursuit of justice.

The defense argues that the search of Mr. Reyes was unconstitutional, as it lacked valid consent and probable cause. They assert that Mr. Reyes’s removal of his pants, rather than his shirt, was an explicit act of disobedience meant to protest the unlawful nature of the search, and not an indication of consent. The defense emphasized that consent must be clearly communicated and cannot be inferred from a lack of verbal refusal. They criticize the prosecution's reliance on evidence that was obtained as a result from the search, and not the evidence that was gathered beforehand -which they also added, was not enough to conduct the search-. The defense also points out that the legal precedents cited by the prosecution do not support the arguments made, given the discrepancy between the evidence claimed and the actual evidence presented. They maintain that the search violated Mr. Reyes’s Fourth Amendment rights and urge the court to uphold the suppression of the evidence.

After reviewing the arguments presented, it is evident that the search of Mr. Reyes was conducted without valid consent. The prosecution's assertion that Mr. Reyes' removal of his pants equated to consent for the forcible removal of his shirt to verify tattoos is unreasonable. The defendant's act of removing his pants can clearly be interpreted as a form of protest against the unlawful search, rather than an indication of consent. Furthermore, the absence of a verbal "no" does not imply a "yes" or consent to a search involving bodily removal of clothing. The context of the situation, including the vocal opposition of Mr. Reyes' defense attorney, reinforces that Mr. Reyes did not give valid consent for the search. Furthermore, the aforementioned circumstances are aggravated by the fact that it had been stated on multiple occasions in the evidence suppressed by Judge Hyland that due to the lack of evidence held against the defendant, only a bodily search would sustain the arrest. In that regard, it becomes clear for the Court of Appeals that the search violated Mr. Reyes' constitutional rights, and therefore, the order to suppress evidence from the docket rendered by Judge Hyland was not mistaken. In conclusion, the Superior Court's decision is affirmed and the case is remanded back to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]