San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
COURT DECISION
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Justice Hawk
#24-CM-0082
A decision was reached in the above case on the 23th day of December, 2024.
The court has reviewed the statements from both parties in regards to the suppression of exhibits 3, 4, and 5.
Exhibit 3:
The court considers simply suppressing the evidence that might be speculative in nature, however at the end of the suppression, the court finds there to be a singular sentence remaining. To that effect, the court rules in accordance with previous precedence set in #24-CM-0018, State of San Andreas v. John Chapel (Pauls). The retired Justice McFornell stated, "due to their vagueness and the contents within them, are unable to provide the court with sufficient elements that would allow it to obtain more or less certainty regarding the case". The court agrees with the defense that the individual was only aware of the situation for a limited amount of time.
The court will rule out of order and move onto exhibit #5.
Exhibit 5:
Exhibit 5 is an arrest report of the driver of the vehicle, during the exact situation that the defendant where the defendant was arrested. If the individual had filed a court case, it is likely these individuals would be considered co-defendants. With the above considerations, the court rules to deny the suppression request of the defense and side with the prosecution to allow the exhibit to remain and be heard at court.
Exhibit 4:
As the court has already ruled to allow exhibit 5 to remain, we will bypass the initial request of the defense to suppress the reference to the arrest report of Perseus Cable. While it might not be explicitly stated that it is the arrest report of the accomplice, the court is able to see the referenced information in exhibit #5.
As for the second statement given by the officer, "clearly these two were misrepresenting themselves and were caught doing so." The court defines misrepresentation as the act of making a false statement of fact, either intentionally, negligently, or innocently, that leads another party to rely on that statement to their detriment. In this case, that would be the officers believing the statement of the individual. The court finds, based off the bodycam evidence in exhibit #2, that the individuals were
attempting to misrepresent themselves. However, he evidence does not fully support the officer’s characterization, and the court therefore rules to suppress the statement completely.
So ordered,
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 —
[email protected]
