#24-CM-0061, State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera

[CortezRivera]

Defendant Name: Cortez Rivera
Defendant Phone: 590-6286
Defendant Address: Del Perro Apartment 300
(( Defendant Discord: heelsoul ))
Requested Attorney: David Coast

Charging Department: SD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 19/FEB/2024 21:00
Charge(s):

• Bank Robbery
  Accessory to Assault of a deadly weapon

Narrative:
I was minding my own business, enjoying the evening talking to a few people I know, having fun. Out of no where what almost feels like an army of detectives and deputies;officers show up with lights on and detain all of us for an "Active Investigation", then I got searched and stripped of everything. After sitting in the back of an SD cruiser for more than hour. I am not sure how this happened, but after trying to reason with the officers and try help them figure out the situation, they finally decided to arrest me and only me for the charges provided above - Bank Robbery; Accessory to Assault of a deadly weapon.

---

I, Cortez Rivera, 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. ))

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 27th of February, 2024.

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.



Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

[CortezRivera]

I have chosen to work with a private law firm on this case. Namely, Wood Law.

[Mary Burrows]

Notification Of Counsel
State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera

To whom it may concern,

I, Mary Burrows, an Associate with Wood Law, will be representing the Defendant, Cortez Rivera in the underlying case.

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

Respectfully,

Mary Burrows
Associate
Bar Certified Attorney
☏ 339-5979

[Daniel Carmello]

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. Cortez Rivera

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 29/AUG/2024

I, Daniel Carmello, a Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Cortez Rivera, in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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. Cortez Rivera

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 29/AUG/2024

I, Izaak Scott, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Cortez Rivera in the underlying case.

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


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

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on the 3rd of September, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0061.

At this time the Defendant has adequate representation, however, a State Prosecutor has not been assigned to this case. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned and they inform the court they are ready to proceed.

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.

So ordered,

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

[Izaak Scott]

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 3rd of September, 2024.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  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 SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of September, 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]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A court order was entered in the above case on the 3rd of September, 2024.

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.

So ordered,

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

[Aleksandar Pulaski]

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. Cortez Rivera

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 3rd of September, 2024.

I, Aleksandar Pulaski, 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 Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.



Junior Prosecuting Attorney Aleksandar Pulaski
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 365-8706 — [email protected]

[Margot Rousseau]

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. Defendant

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 04/SEP/2024.

I, Margot Rousseau, a Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Cortez Rivera, in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 293-8398 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 8th of September, 2024.

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 - Cortez Rivera, 19/FEB/2024

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Cortez Rivera
    Telephone Number: 590-6286
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A:

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Oscar Black
    Badge Number: 20596
    Callsign: 3-Z-1

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-02-19
    Deputies Involved: Undersheriff H. Payne, Captain O. Black, Lieutenant A. Clark, Corporal L. Helgarson, Investigator I A. Harlowe, Investigator I M. Young, Master Deputy S. Yukimura, Deputy Sheriff I S. Dobrev
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Cortez Rivera was detained on the 19th of February, 2024, at their organisation, "The Shadows" headquarters. The reason for the detainment was simple, a Route 68 bank had its alarm sounding after a group of six (6) people ran in, trying to rob it, for its money. Unfortunately for us, they managed to get away, however, since they failed, nothing was lost. I managed to obtain CCTV footage and found around five (5) men and one (1) women. The woman, later identified as Zoe Williams was caught and arrested by Investigator I April Harlowe. A radio frequency was found throughout the arrest, and I tuned into it. I heard plenty of people speaking on it, talking about calling the bank robbery off and going back to their headquarters.
      
      I made the executive decision to scrap trying to catch them at a bank robbery, and instead catch them at their headquarters, and that we did. We pulled up and blocked off the entrance/exits. A few people inside managed to escape, but for the majority, we caught and detained them, matching them to the CCTV. Unfortunately, we managed to match only Mr Rivera to the CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, as well as skin tone. He was transported to SADOC by Investigator I Messiah Young, and charged by myself.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
    Exhibit A: **Both body-cam & dash-cam from Oscar Black would be attached showcasing all the events unfold**
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Captain Oscar Black

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: Not applicable.
    Incident Date: 19th of February, 2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Oscar Black
    Date of Birth: 21st of June, 1998
    Phone Number: 299-1811
    Occupation: Captain, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • On the 19th of February, 2024, Route 68 bank was robbed by an infamously known organisation, going by the name of "The Shadows". I obtained CCTV and also a radio frequency from previously arresting one of their members. I tuned into it and heard them talking about meeting up after giving up the bank robbery attempt after failing it.
    
    Upon detaining all individuals at their headquarters, I matched the CCTV and found that Cortez Rivera was the only one wearing the same outfit.
    
    Attached is the arrest report.
    
    ► Show Spoiler

    

    ARREST REPORT
    

    MUGSHOT

    SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

    • 
      Full Name: Cortez Rivera
      Telephone Number: 590-6286
      Licenses Revoked: No
      Charges:
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon
      Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

    VEHICLES INVOLVED

    • Vehicle A:

    DEPUTY DETAILS

    • Full Name: Oscar Black
      Badge Number: 20596
      Callsign: 3-Z-1

    INCIDENT DETAILS

    • Date of Arrest: 2024-02-19
      Deputies Involved: Undersheriff H. Payne, Captain O. Black, Lieutenant A. Clark, Corporal L. Helgarson, Investigator I A. Harlowe, Investigator I M. Young, Master Deputy S. Yukimura, Deputy Sheriff I S. Dobrev
      
      Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
      • Cortez Rivera was detained on the 19th of February, 2024, at their organisation, "The Shadows" headquarters. The reason for the detainment was simple, a Route 68 bank had its alarm sounding after a group of six (6) people ran in, trying to rob it, for its money. Unfortunately for us, they managed to get away, however, since they failed, nothing was lost. I managed to obtain CCTV footage and found around five (5) men and one (1) women. The woman, later identified as Zoe Williams was caught and arrested by Investigator I April Harlowe. A radio frequency was found throughout the arrest, and I tuned into it. I heard plenty of people speaking on it, talking about calling the bank robbery off and going back to their headquarters.
        
        I made the executive decision to scrap trying to catch them at a bank robbery, and instead catch them at their headquarters, and that we did. We pulled up and blocked off the entrance/exits. A few people inside managed to escape, but for the majority, we caught and detained them, matching them to the CCTV. Unfortunately, we managed to match only Mr Rivera to the CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, as well as skin tone. He was transported to SADOC by Investigator I Messiah Young, and charged by myself.

    EVIDENCE DETAILS

    • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
      Exhibit A: **Both body-cam & dash-cam from Oscar Black would be attached showcasing all the events unfold**
      
      Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

      

      ---

    ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
    
    

    ---

    

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Oscar Black, 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.))
    
    Best regards,
    
    Captain Oscar Black
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    Date: 1st of March, 2024

  

• Exhibit #3: Witness Statement - Investigator I April Harlowe

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Unknown]
    Incident Date: [19/FEB/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [April Harlowe]
    Date of Birth: [10/MAY/1995]
    Phone Number: [4961177]
    Occupation: [Investigator]

  Witness Statement

  • Can you please provide a detailed and factual timeline of events leading up to the bank robbery and later arrest of the suspect "Cortez Rivera"
    I can only answer for my involvement, which was the following. I was called for assistance detaining a Suspect, Zoe Williams, as she had been seen leaving the area of a bank robbery wearing the same clothing as suspects seen in CCTV footage of the bank robbery. During the detainment, we observed Zoe to have the same tattoos and clothing as one of the suspects seen on the CCTV. We transported her to Sandy Shores and interrogated her about the bank robbery. I explained the CCTV footage showed enough evidence, including her tattoos, placing her at the bank robbery. I offered her the option to give up the suspects who held up the tellers in return for getting fewer charges. She refused to comment, so was charged with Bank Robbery & Accessory to Ass. with a Deadly Weapon. Her radio frequency was active so I gave this to Oscar Black, who I believed used this radio frequency to locate the other suspects on the radio, to detain them for further investigation. That is as far as my involvement goes.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, April Harlowe, 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,
    
    
    April Harlowe
    Investigator I
    Los Santos Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 01/MAR/2024

  

• Exhibit #4: Arrest Report - Zoe Williams, 19/FEB/2024

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Zoe Williams
    Telephone Number: 2481916
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A:

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: April Harlowe
    Badge Number: 9344
    Callsign: 3-W-13

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-02-19
    Deputies Involved: April Harlowe, Oscar Black
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Zoe was spotted on CCTV footage of a bank robbery on Route 68. We found her down the street in the clothing store and detained her for investigation. She was wearing the same outfit spotted in the Bank Robbery CCTV footage. We transported her to Sandy Shores and interrogated her about the bank robbery. I explained the CCTV footage shows enough evidence, including her tattoos, placing her at the bank robbery. I offered her the option to give up the suspects who held up the tellers in return of getting less charges. She refused to comment, so was charged with Bank Robbery & Accessory to Ass. with a Deadly Weapon.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: CCTV Footage
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #5: Expert Witness Statement - Lieutenant Zero Hunter

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [N/A]
    Incident Date: [19/FEB/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Zero Hunter]
    Date of Birth: [08/JAN/1995]
    Phone Number: [REDACTED]
    Occupation: [Sherrif's Deputy (LSSD)]

  Witness Statement

  • I am Lieutenant Zero Hunter, the current Assistant Commanding Officer of the LSSD Gangs & Narcotics Division. I have been in this division for the last almost 4-5 months and actively working on Shadows specifically for the last two.
    
    Cortez Rivera is someone we affiliate with the gang that goes by "The Shadows". The first record that we have on Cortez Rivera is an arrest that was made on the 27/DEC/2023. He was arrested for numerous serious felonies such as Attempted Murder of a Gov, Evading an Officer and Possession of a Class 2 firearm. During this arrest we saw that the suspect was wearing all Black and more specifically the Black Oni Mask. The Obsidian Oni mask is the biggest tell when it comes to identifying potential Shadow Members, all members respect this mask and wear it to show their affiliation with the gang. Here is a picture of what the mask looks like OBSIDIAN ONI . In almost every single arrest since this day, Cortez Rivera has been arrested with this mask either on his person or on his face.
    
    Below are a list of all charges the suspect has faced in the last couple months that show affiliation:
    • 30/DEC/2024, the suspect was arrested amongst 6 other confirmed shadow members for robbing Chumash Bank. One of which is a confirmed high-command member of Shadows.
    • 12/JAN/2024, the suspect was arrested with another two members of Shadows, one of which is second-in-command. The suspect actively shot at Deputies conducting a 10-55 to help his fellow Shadow members try and evade. He later confessed to the entire crime.
    • 29/JAN/2024, suspect was arrested with another high command members of Shadows for a GND operation.
    • 19/FEB/2024, suspect arrested at Shadows HQ after being found on a Shadows Frequency that GND got, for Bank Robbery.
    • 07/MAR/2024, suspect arrested with 3x Shadows members in his vehicle, all evading after a K9 stop.
    • 13/MAR/2024, suspect was found to be lingering in the area of Shadows HQ's raid. He was the first to attempt to go into the property and attempted to use his keys which did not work.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Zero Hunter], 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,
    
    
    Lieutenant Zero Hunter
    Commanding Officer, K9 Detection Team
    Assistant Commanding Officer, Gangs & Narcotics
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    [/b]
    Date: [15/MAR/2024]

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

Aleksandar Pulaski
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 365-8706 — [email protected]

[Margot Rousseau]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 09/SEP/2024

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

• Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 19/FEB/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #1: Arrest report - Cortez Rivera, 19/FEB/2024

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Cortez Rivera
    Telephone Number: 590-6286
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A:

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Oscar Black
    Badge Number: 20596
    Callsign: 3-Z-1

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-02-19
    Deputies Involved: Undersheriff H. Payne, Captain O. Black, Lieutenant A. Clark, Corporal L. Helgarson, Investigator I A. Harlowe, Investigator I M. Young, Master Deputy S. Yukimura, Deputy Sheriff I S. Dobrev
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Cortez Rivera was detained on the 19th of February, 2024, at their organisation, "The Shadows" headquarters. The reason for the detainment was simple, a Route 68 bank had its alarm sounding after a group of six (6) people ran in, trying to rob it, for its money. Unfortunately for us, they managed to get away, however, since they failed, nothing was lost. I managed to obtain CCTV footage and found around five (5) men and one (1) women. The woman, later identified as Zoe Williams was caught and arrested by Investigator I April Harlowe. A radio frequency was found throughout the arrest, and I tuned into it. I heard plenty of people speaking on it, talking about calling the bank robbery off and going back to their headquarters.
      
      I made the executive decision to scrap trying to catch them at a bank robbery, and instead catch them at their headquarters, and that we did. We pulled up and blocked off the entrance/exits. A few people inside managed to escape, but for the majority, we caught and detained them, matching them to the CCTV. Unfortunately, we managed to match only Mr Rivera to the CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, as well as skin tone. He was transported to SADOC by Investigator I Messiah Young, and charged by myself.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
    Exhibit A: **Both body-cam & dash-cam from Oscar Black would be attached showcasing all the events unfold**
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    On the grounds of speculation, highlighted in the document with green:
    • Line 1. "at their organisation, "The Shadows" headquarters"
    No evidence has been provided to support this allegation, therefore it is heavily speculative and lacks foundation.
    • Line 3. "trying to rob it, for its money."
      Line 4. "since they failed"
    Overall, there has been no evidence submitted to support these allegations. Mr Black specifically mentions in his arrest report that nothing was found missing at the premises. They are purely looking for a smoking gun when they associate the ringing of the alarm with motive and speculative failings.
    • Line 9. "and instead catch them at their headquarters"
    Again, no evidence has been provided to support this allegation, therefore it is heavily speculative and lacks foundation.
    
    On the grounds of irrelevance, highlighted in the document with yellow:
    • Line 5. "Zoe Williams was caught and arrested by Investigator I April Harlowe. A radio frequency was found throughout the arrest, and I tuned into it. I heard plenty of people speaking on it, talking about calling the bank robbery off and going back to their headquarters."
    We would argue that the arrest of Zoe Williams has no relevance to this case. The evidence finds no link between Ms. Williams and Mr. Rivera. We have no indication of where Ms. Williams was detained, when she was detained, at what time the bank alarm began to ring, and we have no evidence of the clothes she was arrested in other than a mugshot where she is in fact wearing another top from that of the woman seen in the CCTV footage.
    Futhermore, the only evidence submitted by Law Enforcement Agents is a timestamp indicating 19:10PM on February 19th. On the arrest records, Zoe Williams was charged at 19:43PM. That leaves a window of 33 minutes between the CCTV footage and when Zoe Williams was charged. With no further information, the details and relevance of her arrest become a superflux of speculation to whether or not she can be properly ascertained relevant to this case.
    Therefore, we believe that her detainment and consequent arrest is irrelevant to whether or not Mr Cortez was allegedly robbing a bank.
    
    On the grounds of lack of evidence, highlighted in the document with blue:
    • Line 12. "Unfortunately, we managed to match only Mr Rivera to the CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, as well as skin tone."
    Once again, the arresting deputies have failed to provide evidence of the clothing, they have failed to provide documentation of the mask and gold chain. We ask for the suppression of this evidence as the evidence they proclaim to have was not disclosed in the arrest report.
    • Exhibit A **Both body-cam & dash-cam from Oscar Black would be attached showcasing all the events unfold**
    The arresting deputies have disclosed that Exhibit A should contain bodycam and dashcam from Deputy Black. However, disclosed to the courts is only a photograph of the CCTV. We move to suppress the mention of other evidence if one cannot provide said evidence.
    
    On the grounds of contradictory evidence, highlighted in the document with orange:
    • Line 2. "After a group of six (6) people ran in." and Line 4. "and found around five (5) men and one (1) women. The woman, later identified"
    In the first statement that Deputy Black makes, he reviews six people running inside the bank. On the second statement, Deputy Black uses the adverb "around" defined as approximately. We have one statement said with certainty and then an estimate on the second statement within the same arrest report. With shown uncertainty provided by Deputy Black, we move to suppress the evidence on grounds of it being contradictory.
    
    On the grounds of lack of specific probable cause, highlighted in orange:
    • Line 11. "we caught and detained them, matching them to the CCTV."
    The arrest is made based on CCTV footage of a suspect "matching" Mr Rivera. Mr Rivera was compared to a suspect on CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, and skin tone. However, this identification is not direct evidence of Mr Rivera's involvement in the bank robbery. The clothing in question is available for purchase at various clothing stores, which weakens the conclusiveness of this evidence.

• Exhibit 2: Witness Statement - Captain Oscar Black
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Captain Oscar Black

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: Not applicable.
    Incident Date: 19th of February, 2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Oscar Black
    Date of Birth: 21st of June, 1998
    Phone Number: 299-1811
    Occupation: Captain, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

  Witness Statement

  • On the 19th of February, 2024, Route 68 bank was robbed by an infamously known organisation, going by the name of "The Shadows". I obtained CCTV and also a radio frequency from previously arresting one of their members. I tuned into it and heard them talking about meeting up after giving up the bank robbery attempt after failing it.
    
    Upon detaining all individuals at their headquarters, I matched the CCTV and found that Cortez Rivera was the only one wearing the same outfit.
    
    Attached is the arrest report.
    
    ► Show Spoiler

    

    ARREST REPORT
    

    MUGSHOT

    SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

    • 
      Full Name: Cortez Rivera
      Telephone Number: 590-6286
      Licenses Revoked: No
      Charges:
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon
      Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

    VEHICLES INVOLVED

    • Vehicle A:

    DEPUTY DETAILS

    • Full Name: Oscar Black
      Badge Number: 20596
      Callsign: 3-Z-1

    INCIDENT DETAILS

    • Date of Arrest: 2024-02-19
      Deputies Involved: Undersheriff H. Payne, Captain O. Black, Lieutenant A. Clark, Corporal L. Helgarson, Investigator I A. Harlowe, Investigator I M. Young, Master Deputy S. Yukimura, Deputy Sheriff I S. Dobrev
      
      Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
      • Cortez Rivera was detained on the 19th of February, 2024, at their organisation, "The Shadows" headquarters. The reason for the detainment was simple, a Route 68 bank had its alarm sounding after a group of six (6) people ran in, trying to rob it, for its money. Unfortunately for us, they managed to get away, however, since they failed, nothing was lost. I managed to obtain CCTV footage and found around five (5) men and one (1) women. The woman, later identified as Zoe Williams was caught and arrested by Investigator I April Harlowe. A radio frequency was found throughout the arrest, and I tuned into it. I heard plenty of people speaking on it, talking about calling the bank robbery off and going back to their headquarters.
        
        I made the executive decision to scrap trying to catch them at a bank robbery, and instead catch them at their headquarters, and that we did. We pulled up and blocked off the entrance/exits. A few people inside managed to escape, but for the majority, we caught and detained them, matching them to the CCTV. Unfortunately, we managed to match only Mr Rivera to the CCTV, wearing the same mask, gold chain, clothing, as well as skin tone. He was transported to SADOC by Investigator I Messiah Young, and charged by myself.

    EVIDENCE DETAILS

    • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
      Exhibit A: **Both body-cam & dash-cam from Oscar Black would be attached showcasing all the events unfold**
      
      Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

      

      ---

    ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
    
    

    ---

    

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Oscar Black, 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.))
    
    Best regards,
    
    Captain Oscar Black
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    Date: 1st of March, 2024

  

• Detailed Reasoning:
  On the grounds of contradictory evidence, highlighted in the document with orange:
  • Line 1. "Route 68 bank was robbed" and Line 2. "a Route 68 bank had its alarm sounding [...] nothing was lost".
  Once again, there is contradictory statements being given to the courts, the first underlined in this statement where Deputy Black affirms that the bank was robbed. However, looking over his arrest report at the time, he does not mention the bank being robbed but simply states that the alarm was ringing and nothing had been stolen.
  
  On the grounds of speculation, highlighted in the document with green:
  • Line 1. "by an infamously known organisation, going by the name of "The Shadows"
  Once again the defense argues that no evidence has been provided to support this allegation, therefore it is heavily speculative and lacks foundation.
  • Line 5. "at their headquarters"
  Once again the defense argues that no evidence has been provided to support this allegation, therefore it is heavily speculative and lacks foundation.
  
  On the grounds of relevance, highlighted in the document with yellow:
  • Line 2. "and also a radio frequency from previously arresting one of their members. I tuned into it and heard them talking about meeting up after giving up the bank robbery attempt after failing it."
  As with Exhibit A, the defense argues that there is no proven relevance between the arrest of Zoe Williams and our defendant Mr Cortez Rivera. We ask that this portion of the statement be suppressed on the same grounds we argued for Exhibit A.
  We would also like to add on these same grounds, that there has been no evidence in the arrest report or other testimonies provided that Zoe Williams is a member of this organisation. The initial reasoning for her detainment was due to localisation and not due to her affiliations.
  
  On the grounds of lack of foundation, highlighted in the document with blue:
  • Line 5. "found that Cortez Rivera was the only one wearing the same outfit"
  The defense argues once more that the arresting deputies have failed to provide evidence of the clothing, they have failed to provide documentation of the mask and gold chain. We ask for the suppression of this evidence as the evidence they proclaim to have was not disclosed in the arrest report.
  
  On the grounds of lack of specific probable cause, highlighted in blue:
  • Line 5. "found that Cortez Rivera was the only one wearing the same outfit"
  The defense reiterates that clothing alone does not provide adequate probable cause for an arrest on charges of bank robbery. CCTV of a suspect with matching clothes is not a direct link to the criminal activity. Probable cause requires a more substantial basis than clothing that is available to anyone who walks into a clothing store.

• Exhibit 3: Witness Statement - Investigator I April Harlowe
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Exhibit #3: Witness Statement - Investigator I April Harlowe

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Unknown]
    Incident Date: [19/FEB/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [April Harlowe]
    Date of Birth: [10/MAY/1995]
    Phone Number: [4961177]
    Occupation: [Investigator]

  Witness Statement

  • Can you please provide a detailed and factual timeline of events leading up to the bank robbery and later arrest of the suspect "Cortez Rivera"
    I can only answer for my involvement, which was the following. I was called for assistance detaining a Suspect, Zoe Williams, as she had been seen leaving the area of a bank robbery wearing the same clothing as suspects seen in CCTV footage of the bank robbery. During the detainment, we observed Zoe to have the same tattoos and clothing as one of the suspects seen on the CCTV. We transported her to Sandy Shores and interrogated her about the bank robbery. I explained the CCTV footage showed enough evidence, including her tattoos, placing her at the bank robbery. I offered her the option to give up the suspects who held up the tellers in return for getting fewer charges. She refused to comment, so was charged with Bank Robbery & Accessory to Ass. with a Deadly Weapon. Her radio frequency was active so I gave this to Oscar Black, who I believed used this radio frequency to locate the other suspects on the radio, to detain them for further investigation. That is as far as my involvement goes.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, April Harlowe, 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,
    
    
    April Harlowe
    Investigator I
    Los Santos Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 01/MAR/2024

  

  • Detailed Reasoning:
    
    On the grounds of hearsay, highlighted in the document with green:
    • Line 2. "as she had been seen leaving the area of a bank robbery wearing the same clothing as suspects seen in CCTV footage of the bank robbery"
    The defense would like to bring the first sentence of the testimony to attention, "I can only answer for my involvement": Ms. Harlowe is clearly relaying the events lived by other deputies at the time when she describes what happens before her involvement. We request that this portion be suppressed as it is not directly involving Ms. Harlowe.
    We would also like to argue this case with presedents met on several occasions such as #22-CM-0057, #22-CM-0066, #22-CM-0071, and #23-CM-0001, "witness statement are not covered under the exception to hearsay as a witness, even if a public employee, cannot quote what someone outside the courtroom has said" rules Chief Justice Daniels at the time under the case #23-AP-0004. We have no way of verifying where this information came from and Ms. Harlowe has indeed confirmed herself not to have been involved until after the detainment of Ms. Williams.
    
    On the grounds of lack of foundation, highlighted in the document with blue:
    • Line 3. "During the detainment, we observed Zoe to have the same tattoos and clothing as one of the suspects seen on the CCTV."
    The defense would like to again suppress this statement as there is no evidence at this time. They have failed in both arrest reports to provide any concrete evidence of the so-called clothing factors that was used to identify the suspects. There is again, no photo documentation of the tattoos, nor of the clothing.
    Furthermore, the mugshot of Zoe Williams on the arrest report puts the woman in different clothing entirely than the one we can see on the CCTV photograph.
    
    On the grounds of lack of relevance and speculation, highlighted in the document with yellow:
    • Line 8. "Her radio frequency was active so I gave this to Oscar Black, who I believed used this radio frequency to locate the other suspects on the radio, to detain them for further investigation."
    The defense would once more argue that for the same reasons brought up in Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2, the evidence and contradictory testimonies regarding the involvement and link between Zoe Williams and Cortez Rivera, that this portion of the testimony be suppressed.
    Futhermore, Ms. Harlowe affirms speculation when she states "I believe" and therefore the defense would like to suppress the second part of the statement on the grounds of speculation.

• Exhibit 4: Arrest Report - Zoe Williams, 19/FEB/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The entirety of Exhibit 4.
  
  • Detailed Reasoning:
    • At this time, our overall objection and motion to suppress for any evidence from Ms. Zoe Williams stems from the speculative and irrelevant nature of her involvement with our defendant, Mr Cortez Rivera. The arresting deputies have failed to provide any evidence that links the two persons together and even demonstrate that at no time do they witness the two together. They have failed to provide any concrete evidence as to the items of clothing worn, as to the tattoo identifications and as to the whereabouts of Ms Williams following the ringing of the alarm. We have one arrest report that places Ms Williams being found at a clothing store (Exhibit 4) and we have another testimony that places her being seen leaving the bank (Exhibit 3).

• Exhibit 5: Expert Witness Statement - Lieutenant Zero Hunter
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The entirety of Exhibit 5.
  • Detailed Reasoning:
    • We request that the entirety of the Statement be suppressed on the grounds that we argue that ex-Lieutenant Hunter does not hold any category to define himself as an expert witness. An expert witness is defined as "a witness with specialized knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular field relevant to the case. They provide their opinion or analysis to help the judge or justice understand complex issues." The defense argue that being active in arresting a suspect does not make someone an expert on the matter. If this were the case, all deputies could be called as Expert Witnesses given that it is part of their job to arrest suspects.
      We would also like to highlight that alongside this argument of holding no weight as an expert witness, this very Lieutenant was dishonorably discharged only 29 days later, the reason being "unfit for duty".
    • We would like to bring to the attention of the court the ruling for the suppression of evidence from Judge Colt Daniels in State of San Andreas v. Harley Pavlovich #22-CM-0065. The motion to suppress a similar witness testimony was granted on the grounds that the testimony "brings into note the past criminal history of the defendant which has no baring to this case and additionally speculates on what the intent of the defendant is when they choose to use their right to have their case heard by the court." We would like to add that, like in the case of State of San Andreas vs. Harley Pavlovich, anybody could access the MDC to view upon the charges placed on our client. Many of which were found to have no mention in this testimony. We would furthermore argue, that the witness is speculating on the intentions of our client.
    • The evidence mainly revolves around Mr Rivera's alleged gang affiliation, rather than direct evidence of his involvement in the bank robbery. This is a break of the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence excludes evidence if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. This evidence may give our defendant unduly influence in court.

Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 293-8398 — [email protected]


Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 313 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

Rebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 12th of September, 2024.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents a rebuttal to the recent motion;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Cortez Rivera, 19/FEB/2024
  Regarding speculation
  • The suspects gathering at the Shadows organization's headquarters is first mentioned by the suspects themselves when the information
    as described in the arrest report when deputies overheard the information being shared on the compromised frequency following the arrest of Zoe Williams. The Bay City Avenue property has even been acknowledged by the State Government as the organization's headquarters in the sixth (6th) executive order, seizing the property in March of this year, approximately a month after the defendant's arrest.
    
    The bank robbery is also mentioned by the suspects themselves while talking on the compromised frequency, as mentioned in both the arrest report and witness statements. This, coupled with the CCTV footage and the activated alarm proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant and their organization was attempting to rob the bank, but was foiled by the silent alarm being activated by one of the two clerks. The silent alarm is one (1) of only two (2) reasons an alarm would go off at any bank owned by the Fleeca banking company, the other being an unauthorized breach of the vault. Additionally, the San Andreas Penal Code definition for SF07 - Bank Robbery states that there is no "attempted" modifier available for this charge. Thus, the arrest report stating that the defendant and their organization members failed the bank robbery and that nothing was missing from the vault (since it was not breached) has no bearing on the charging of the suspects as they would be charged in full.
    
    There is more than adequate evidence provided that the defendant and their organization attempted to rob the bank in question and that they were apprehended at their publicly and self-stated headquarters.
  
  Regarding relevance
  • The arrest of Zoe Williams and its use by the Prosecution in this case is highly relevant as it gives context to the investigation that led to the defendant's arrest. Zoe Williams is a proven member of the same criminal organization as the defendant, directly linking them. It was the frequency obtained from Zoe Williams' radio that provided further evidence of their organization's and the defendant's involvement in the bank robbery. Additionally, the identification of Zoe Williams was made through means that have been validated in binding precedent set in the cases #24-CM-0007 State of San Andreas v. Tyler Masons, #22-CM-0060 State of San Andreas v. Edward Greeg, and #23-CM-0102 State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.
    
    Furthermore, the Prosecution would argue that the time between the bank robbery, subsequent arrest, and final charging of Zoe Williams lacks relevance to this case. The timestamp of 1910 in the provided CCTV footage is not the final point in time at which Zoe Williams was in the bank. Additional time would have gone by until the alarm was activated, the law enforcement response and investigation of the robbery, the detainment, arrest, and charging of Zoe Williams, all of which fit within a ~30-minute timeframe.
  
  Regarding lack of evidence
  • The defendant was identified and subsequently arrested by the same means validated in the binding precedent set in the cases mentioned previously. The mask and gold chain are missing from the mugshot as they have been removed per protocol, however, the defendant as pictured in the mugshot is the spitting image of the suspect pictured in the CCTV footage: they are wearing the same black, collared t-shirt; they have the same haircut; they have the same build and tone of the body. Additionally, the defendant is seen wearing the same clothing as in the CCTV image in the bodycam footage provided in the arrest report. ((The note in the arrest report is the RP of footage, noted by the use of asterisk, which have been accepted in previous cases. Proof of RP.)) This footage clearly shows the defendant at the Bay City Avenue property wearing the same clothing as shown in the CCTV footage.
  
  Regarding contradictory evidence
  • There is nothing inconsistent with the numbering in the arrest report. Not only does Commander Oscar Black mention the count of suspects twice, the second time they are even more precise by distinguishing them by gender. Simply using the word "about" does not make the count inaccurate.
  
  Regarding lack of specific probable cause
  • As stated previously, binding precedent has been set by three (3) different judges on allowing the methods of identification used to identify and arrest the defendant in this case.

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Captain Oscar Black
  Regarding contradictory evidence
  • As argued previously, there is no modifier available for attempting a bank robbery, any instance of attempting a bank robbery, successful or not, will be met with the charge in full.
  
  Regarding speculation
  • The defendant is a known member of the criminal organization known as "The Shadows", proven by intelligence gathered through countless arrests and criminal investigations into the organization by law enforcement, as stated in the expert witness statement in Exhibit #5. The same goes for their headquarters on Bay City Avenue.
  
  Regarding relevance
  • The Defense continues to state that no evidence has been provided proving the actions stated in the submitted evidence. However, from the bodycam footage attached to the arrest report in Exhibit #1, it is clear that Oscar Black was given a radio frequency that they listened in on, discovering it as the active frequency used by the members of The Shadows. Additionally, as with the defendant, Zoe Williams is a known member of The Shadows, proven by the same intelligence just mentioned. Like the Defense, the Prosecution retains its previous arguments on the matter of the relevance of Zoe Williams' arrest.
  
  Regarding lack of foundation and specific probable cause
  • The Prosecution retains the same arguments as previously stated for Exhibit #1 on identifying suspects through clothing and tattoos.

• Exhibit #3: Witness Statement - Investigator I April Harlowe
  Regarding hearsay
  • In their statement, Investigator Harlowe states they are recounting events they were present for, specifically stating "we observed", proving they were part of the investigation. Additionally, Investigator Harlowe would have been made aware of the same facts stated in the witness statement by subsequent arrest reports that would invalidate the Defense's hearsay argument, as per the precedent set in #24-CM-0040 State of San Andreas v. Joey Casper.
  
  Regarding lack of foundation
  • The Prosecution retains its arguments for Exhibits #1 and #2 pertaining to the binding precedent for suspect identification. Zoe Williams was found with the same distinguishable tattoo on their right arm, the same necklace, same hair and general body and tone as seen in the CCTV footage, all factors permitted in identifying suspects during investigations.
  
  Regarding relevance and speculation
  • The Prosecution retains its arguments for Exhibits #1 and #2. The relevance between the two arrests is more than proven. Investigator Harlowe would have been made aware of the results of the information obtained by Oscar Black through the subsequent arrest report for the defendant to use for their statement.

• Exhibit #4: Arrest Report - Zoe Williams, 19/FEB/2024
  • The Prosecution has detailed several times now the relationship between the defendant and Zoe Williams, as well as their member status of the criminal organization "The Shadows". It is surprising to see the Defense's continued attempts at disregarding concrete evidence when said evidence has been provided repeatedly. The Prosecution has stated its position on this argument more than enough.

• Exhibit #5: Expert Witness Statement
  • The Prosecution stands firm in the support of its expert witness. Attempting to discredit a longstanding and decorated member of the state's law enforcement is a dishonor to those who serve and protect the state's citizens. Despite their discharge from the Los Santos Sheriff's Department, former Lieutenant Zero Hunter's experience and expertise on the matter should not be doubted. As the ACO of the Sheriff's Department's Gang and Narcotics Division, the witness is bound to have invaluable knowledge on both current (at the time) and previous investigations into various criminal organizations, specifying an ongoing investigation into The Shadows have taken place over several months. There is no mention anywhere that the witness was part of any of the listed arrests of the defendant, making the Defense's argument spent. Furthermore, the witness has continued their career in law enforcement as a detective with the Los Santos Police Department, disproving the claims of being unfit for duty.
    
    The expert witness' testimony is to prove the defendant's ties to The Shadows. Doing so will inevitably include previous arrests. Additionally, nowhere in their testimony does the witness make any comments about the defendant's intent. They are merely stating facts.
    
    The Defense's prejudicial concerns should first consider the probative value of the testimony, which outweighs any potential prejudicial value. The defendant's gang affiliation is proven, and it is that specific affiliation that tied the defendant to the crimes they are being charged with.

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

Aleksandar Pulaski
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 365-8706 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

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

---

Surrebuttal

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A Surrebuttal was filed in the above case on the 24th of September, 2024.

The Defendant, Cortez Rivera, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents a Surrebuttal;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Cortez Rivera, 19/FEB/2024
  Regarding speculation
  • The prosecution speaks on the 6th Executive Order to seize the Bay City property, but this was submitted AFTER the arrest, thus the relevance is questionable. The robbery was in February, and the executive order does not state there was any criminal activity at this property around the time of the bank robbery. The prosecution has failed to show evidence proving that this property was considered the 'Shadows HQ' at the time of the robbery.
    
    The prosecution argues that the radio chatter is what ties my client to the bank robbery. The prosecution has failed to submit concrete evidence that Mr Rivera was on this radio frequency, nor does it prove that Mr Rivera was involved with any planning to meet up at this property. The prosecution is assuming that those who were communicating on the frequency are directly involved with the bank robbery, yet the prosecution has failed to prove Mr Rivera was communicating on the radio at the time of the robbery.
    
    The prosecution argues that the CCTV footage ties Mr Rivera directly to the bank robbery because of his clothing. Using his clothing to connect him to the bank robbery is vague at best. The prosecution wants to use the clothing Mr Rivera was wearing at the time of his arrest to link my client to the robbery, yet the prosecution has failed to show any evidence of him owning the mask. Furthermore, the initiation of the silent alarm does directly indicate a failed bank robbery. There is a possibility of one (1) of the two (2) clerks had accidentally triggered the alarm. The prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence, without more, does not meet the threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt."
    
    The prosecution’s case relies on witness statements, but these statements are based on incomplete observations. The arrest report mentions the suspects talking about a 'failed bank robbery', but the prosecution has failed to show any physical evidence to place Mr Rivera at the bank.
  
  Regarding relevance
  • The prosecution argues that the frequency that was obtained from Zoe Williams shows that Mr Rivera was involved with the bank robbery. Again, the prosecution has failed to show evidence that my client, Mr Rivera, was tuned into this frequency, nor have they proven that my client was communicating with others on the radio. The claim that Zoe Williams’ radio frequency ties my client to the crime remains speculative.
    
    The prosecution argues that Zoe Williams, being a proven member of the 'shadows', 'directly links' my client to Zoe Williams. There has still yet to be any evidence that links my client to the bank robbery that Zoe Williams was charged with. The argument that my client is affiliated with the Shadows does not directly link Mr Rivera to the bank robbery, thus making the relevance of Williams arrest report questionable.
  
  Regarding Contradictory Evidence
  • The prosecution argues that Officer Black using the word 'about' does not make the count inaccurate. Although this is true, using the word 'about' indicates that the officer did not fully understand how many suspects there were at the time of creating this arrest report.
  
  Regarding lack of specific probable cause
  • The defense would argue that the use of clothing in this case is not enough to arrest Mr Rivera. The clothes Mr Rivera chose to wear when he woke up does not indicate that Mr Rivera had attempted a bank robbery. The prosecution has failed to show any evidence that this was the clothing that Mr Rivera was wearing at the time of his arrest.
  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Captain Oscar Black
  Regarding Speculation
  • As stated previously, the defendant being a 'known member' of the criminal organization 'the shadows' does not directly link Mr Rivera to the crime. If this was the case every 'known member' of the shadows would have been arrested, thus making these claims speculative.
  
  Regarding Lack of Evidence
  • The defense retains the same argument from exhibit #1 regarding clothing. The prosecution mentions that they would like to retain their argument on quote 'Clothing and Tattoos', yet Mr Rivera was not identified by any tattoos.
  
  
  
  Exhibit #3: Witness Statement - Investigator I April Harlowe
  Regarding relevance and speculation
  • The Defense retains its arguments for Exhibits #1 and #2. Williams and Rivera being 'affiliated' to the criminal group 'The Shadows' does not directly link Mr Rivera to the bank robbery.
  
  
  Exhibit #4: Arrest Report - Zoe Williams, 19/FEB/2024
  • The Prosecution claims that there is 'concrete evidence' that my client is connected to Zoe Williams and the bank robbery. The defense argues that the evidence show only connects the two to the shadows, but does not connect Mr Rivera to same bank robbery that Zoe Williams was charged for. Both were arrested at different locations at different times. The Prosecution is trying to link the two arrests by the radio frequency that was obtained from Williams, but the frequency has yet to be linked to Mr Rivera. This makes the relevance of the Zoe Williams arrest being linked to Mr Rivera's highly questionable.
  
  
  
  Exhibit #5: Expert Witness Statement
  
  • While the prosecution might claim that questioning a "decorated" former lieutenant is disrespectful to law enforcement, this is an appeal to authority and in no way diminishes the questions of credibility and bias this witness has. The fact that Officer Hunter was dishonorably discharged, regardless of his current employment, raises questions about his conduct and potential bias. The defense wants to ensure that the court receives an unbias testimony.
  
  
  • The prosecution claims that the affiliation to the criminal organization 'The Shadows' is what ties Mr Rivera to the bank robbery. The defense has stated multiple times throughout this case that the alleged affiliation to the Shadows is not enough to connect Mr Rivera to the bank robbery. This exhibit tries to link my client to 'The Shadows', yet does not link my client to the crime. The defense remains concerned about the prejudicial value this exhibit holds.
  
  
  
  Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 313 — [email protected]
  
  
  Junior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 293-8398 — [email protected]

[Terence Williams]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution is formally objecting to the Defense's recent filing. Their surrebuttal comes 12 days after the Prosecution's rebuttal to the Defense's own Motion to Suppress. This is far beyond the court's accepted standard of 72 hours. There has been no change in counsel, no requested continuance, and no extraordinary reason given for this surrebuttal to be filed this far outside the scope of an acceptable timeframe. As such, the Prosecution requests that the Defense's surrebuttal be disregarded and their arguments not taken into consideration while deliberating on the Motion to Suppress.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Daniel Carmello]

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

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Defense would like to begin by apologizing for the late surrebuttal. After a copious amount of time to review the rebuttal, we were able to post a surrebuttal. The defense would like to point out that our surrebuttal includes paramount arguments to the Prosecution's rebuttal that should not be overlooked. The time the surrebuttal was posted should not diminish the important facts stated. We would also like to point out that this court is not on normal timing. Our motion to suppress has taken 16 days, and counting, for a decision to be made. Decisions and scheduling were done in other cases, but not in this case. We understand that the Honorable Judge McFornell may be on vacation and/or busy, but us attorneys have personal lives as well. We ask that the timing of our surrebuttal be excused, as we all have busy lives that lead to mistakes like this.
  
  Very Respectfully,
  
  Public Defender
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 313 — [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

COURT DECISION
Motion to Suppress

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A decision was reached in the above case on the 9th day of October, 2024.

Given the length of the arguments presented, the Court will not summarize the arguments for each suppression requested, but rather, will limit its submission to this docket to deciding on the facts and providing the reasoning behind said decisions.

In regards to Exhibit #1, the Court decides:

1. The Court considers that the statement related to the defendant's criminal affiliations constitutes speculation, given that the prosecution has failed to submit any evidence that could be indicative of that fact. The suppression request is granted.
2. The statements related to the intentions of the defendant and the results of their actions constitute a reasonable assessment by the Prosecution, on the grounds that the situation resulted from a bank alarm. It is not of speculative nature and thus will be denied.
3. The Court can't conclude that the statements highlighted in orange are contradictory and will deny the supression in that regard.
4. Lack of specific probable cause is a matter for evaluation during trial proceedings, not a motion to suppress as that would be prejudicial. This portion of the motion is also denied.
5. The third group of speculative statements, related to the intentions of the officer, are not speculative. They constitute a first-hand recollection of the thought process adopted by the officer who authored the document. One can't speculate about their own intentions and thoughts.
6. The remainder statements highlighted in blue will not be supressed on the grounds that the first of them constitutes first-hand recollection and narrative of the events that unfolded and the reasoning behind the police officers actions, and the second one contains attached evidence.

In regards to Exhibit #2, the Court decides:

1. In regards to the first statement, deciding on the contradictory nature of the evidence presented is a matter for trial or case-in-chief evaluation, and thus, the motion will be denied.
2. As decided in regards to Exhibit #1, the statement about the alleged criminal organization will be suppressed. The same applies to the text regarding the headquarters statement, also highlighted in green.
3. The Court believes that the text highlighted in yellow does not lack relevance, as it made part of an investigation in close relation to the events under evaluation.
4. The text highlighted in green constitutes first-hand recollections and conclusions resulting from an investigation conducted by the deputy who authored the statement. Objections regarding the appropriate -or not- identification of the defendant are not a matter of Motion to Suppress and relate to the case in chief, when presented.

In regards to Exhibit #3, the Court decides:

1. The Court will grant the suppression for the first statement, given that it hints of being first-hand experience of another deputy. However, the second statement -which in practical terms contains a very similar assessment of the first statement- will remain on the docket, as it is clear to the Court that it contains the first-hand experience and conclusions of the deputy as a result of her involvement in the scene and further observation and evaluation of CCTV.
2. To the Court, the statement highlighted in yellow does not lack relevance as it directly relates to the situation at hand that could have led to the defendant's involvement in the alleged acts. However, the Court will partially grant the suppression from the word "Who I believed...", as it is speculative

In regards to Exhibit #4, the Court decides:

1. As previously expressed, the Court has concluded that while in principle no grounds have been provided to establish criminal affiliations for the defendant, it is clear to the Court that both arrest reports stem from the same situation and thus, makes the arrest report contained within the Exhibit of relevance for the State's case. Whether the State argues -or not- affiliation between Zoe Williams and the defendant, is a matter for trial proceedings and not a Motion to Suppress.

In regards to Exhibit #5, the Court decides:

1. The Prosecution has met the argumentative burden in regards to the relevance of Exhibit #5 as an Expert Witness. This statement is considered a valid expert witness statement because it clearly identifies the expert, Lieutenant Zero Hunter, and establishes his relevant qualifications and experience in the Gangs & Narcotics Division. The statement provides specific, factual information regarding the individual, Cortez Rivera, including a timeline of arrests linked to gang activity, which could eventually demonstrate affiliation with a criminal organization. It lists incidents that support his conclusions, along with a methodology utilized in identifying the possible criminal affiliations. In regards to the defense's attempt at impeaching the validity of the Expert Witness Statement, given that it has met the minimum burden to pass, the Court expects said impeachment and/or arguments to be presented during trial proceedings

The suppressed statements will be crossed from the original Motion for Discovery for easier understanding.

So ordered,

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

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 18th of October, 2024.

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 make one more attempt to schedule. Should this second attempt fail, a docket Trial will be ordered to avoid further delays.

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.


So ordered,

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

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A trial date was set on the above case on October 23rd, 2024.

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 08:00 PM on October 27th, 2024 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.


So ordered,

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

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cortez Rivera
#24-CM-0061

A decision was reached in the above case on the 27th day of October, 2024.

The case of #24-CM-0061, State of San Andreas v. Cortez Rivera has been resolved.

On the 19th of February, the defendant allegedly participated in what had been an attempt at robbing a Route 68 bank location, which led to their subsequent arrest at a so-called headquarter where the robbers agreed to meet after the failed robbery. During trial, the prosecution presented a verbal motion to amend, requesting the charge of WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon to be dropped, and the Court proceeded in that regard.

The Court was tasked with deciding whether the prosecution has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant participated in a bank robbery, albeit a failed one. The prosecution argued that the defendant was positively identified as a result of their mugshot, physique, CCTV footage and intelligence efforts made by the Sheriff’s that allowed them to locate the defendant -and their alleged affiliates-

When presenting their arguments, both the defense and the prosecution cited previous cases that amount to binding precedent. In that regard, the most relevant precedent requires a burden to be met beyond a voice, a similar vehicle or even similar clothing. In this particular case, it has been established that exact clothing was found, and also that there was some sort of cooperation that guided the defendant's -and their alleged affiliates- actions or movements rather

Furthermore, the Court when deciding the motion to suppress mentioned that the affiliation and validity of the affiliation provided in exhibit 5 must be impeached. However, the defense did not provide any compelling arguments that would impeach the expert statement, and that would at least cast reasonable doubt on the participation of a group of people, affiliated amongst themselves.

Unfortunately, this is not a matter of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. To the Court, the defendant was found with their affiliates after having fled a scene, and the defense has not casted a reasonable doubt on the defendant's affiliation, identification and generally reasons to be present at the so called meet-up location


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

• On the count of SF07 - Bank Robbery, I find the defendant, Cortez Rivera, guilty.
• On the count of WF01 - Accessory to Assault with a Deadly Weapon, I find the defendant, Cortez Rivera, not guilty.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
San Andreas Judicial Branch