Page 2 of 2
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 16 Dec 2024, 21:37
by Bruce Tubby
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. Billy Pappalardo
#24-CM-0080
A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 16th of December, 2024.
The Defendant, Billy Pappalardo, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Primary counsel retired and Defence needs time to get familiar with the case
- Detailed Explanation: Due to the resignation of Clara Lopez, the previous Defence Attorney, the defence requires 48 hours to get familiar with the case. The co-counsel signed on late previously and has had no involvement with this case thus far, due to the previous Councel's inactivity prior to her resignation. The Defence can only apologise for missing the deadline to post Closing Statements due to these exenuating circumstances and hope the court will allow this Continuance.
Junior Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 494-8268 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 18 Dec 2024, 02:15
by Hope Kant
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 18 Dec 2024, 18:59
by Bruce Tubby
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
CLOSING STATEMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
A closing statement was filed in the above case on the 18th of December, 2024.
Your Honour,
As we conclude this trial, it’s important to review the evidence and arguments presented, and to reiterate why Billy Pappalardo cannot be found guilty of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Firstly, the arrest report in Exhibit #1 shows a severe lack of reasonable suspicion based on the fact that no investigation was carried out to find what the defendant was up to; seeing as Mr. Pappalardo was at his apartment, he may have been retrieving a motorcycle as he is standing in close proximity to his garage; unfortunately, due to the officer only shouting demands to remove the mask, which was followed, and no further reasonable suspicion or investigation, we will never know. We can also see that no illegal possessions were found on Mr. Pappalardo which clearly shows there was no ill intent and the defendant, invoking his constitutional right, was well within his perogative to do so.
Looking at the body cam footage in Exhibit #2, we can see that there is no sign of de-escalation, in fact we can see only escalation from the Officer as he can be seen shouting before any contact with the defendant. The defence can only see this escalation as a form of provocation and an improper use of force; based on the force continuum these Officers are to follow to not impose on Civilians rights, an important part of this force continuum is de-escalation which has clearly not been attempted from the beginning, even when the defendant has clearly been compliant with the Officer.
The Defence would still state that Mr. Pappalardo is on his property, whether it to retrieve a vehicle or not; there is no information provided by the Officer at the time that this is not private property, nor any investigation to find out what mr. Pappalardo is up to; only shouting demands, escalating a situation which could have been dealt with very differently. It is also very clear that Mr. Pappalardo does not meet the criteria for GM19 - Face Concealment (b) as stated in the penal code; Mr. Pappalardo has made no attempt to intimidate, threaten, abuse or harass any other person; he has had no intent to cause any person to fear for their personal safety nor engaged in conduct prohibited by law. It also stated that the requirements for GM19 are for a violation of GC04 while committing a crime; we strongly reiterate that Mr. Pappalardo at this time was not committing a crime and therefore the escalation of this charge is further abuse of the defendants constitutional rights.
The prosecution bears the burden of proving Mr. Pappalardo's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence presented does not meet this burden. The fact that there is no reasonable suspicion to even detain the defendant, or any thought for his constitutional rights on his own property and only escalation to provoke the defendant are clear signs that the actions taken by the defendant to exercise his constutional rights in this highly stressful situation, initiated and provoked by the Officer who abused his Use of Force, are justified.
Therefore, we respectfully request that you find Billy Pappalardo not guilty of the charges against him. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Junior Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 494-8268 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 21 Dec 2024, 01:22
by Hope Kant
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 21 Dec 2024, 14:24
by Larin Tai
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
SECOND CLOSING STATEMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
A closing statement was filed in the above case on the 21st of December, 2024.
Honorable Judge Kant,
The San Andreas Fifth Amendment states, "each person within the State of San Andreas shall adhere to the penal code of the state.” The defense has argued that Billy Pappalardo was asserting his rights as a citizen of San Andreas as granted by the Constitution to refuse identification to the requesting officer. There is no place within the Constitution that grants such a right to its citizens to refuse to comply with an Officer's lawful request. Per the San Andreas Penal Code, GC-04 iterates, “an individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas.” Defense states that Mr. Pappalardo was on his private property at the time that the officers requested, however per the video footage, Mr. Pappalardo was outside of his apartment and in the lobby of the building. The defense argues that a common ground, the lobby and outside walkway, are part of the boundaries of the personal residence of Mr. Pappalardo. The boundaries of a personal residence within an apartment complex owned or rented from the San Andreas Government consist of everything inside of the persons registered abode. This does not include the hallways, lobby, garage, front entryway, elevators, or other areas that are not livable and are maintained by the San Andreas Government Housing Bureau.
The defense argues that there was no reasonable suspicion for the officer to request Mr. Pappalardo to remove his mask and identify himself. Mr. Pappalardo does not have a medical reason from a licensed health professional, the mask was not a motorcycle helmet for protection during operation, nor was it a holiday where masks are typically worn. The penal code states that it is illegal for a person to wear a mask in public, which Mr. Pappalardo was wearing, thus prompting the officer to request his identification and the removal of the mask. When Mr. Pappalardo refused to identify, this is when the charge was upgraded from GC-04 to GM-19 as Mr. Pappalardo knowingly violated the San Andreas Penal Code by refusing to comply with the officer's request. There by committing two violations of the penal code, GM-19 and GM-10.
Per 24-CM-0086 State of San Andreas v. Maximiliaan Calliope, the defendant was found guilty of GM-10 after failing to identify to law enforcement. Mr. Calliope was the owner of a vehicle that was visibly unsafe for driving and the officer requested his identification and if he was the owner of the vehicle. Mr. Calliope refused to provide identification stating he was not driving the vehicle so he did not need to provide it. Honorable Judge Fitzgerald III writes in his verdict, “It is well-established through precedent that requesting identification in the course of issuing citations is lawful. Additionally, while full details of probable cause are not required at the time, it is necessary to inform an individual that an investigation is underway.” Similar to the case at hand, where the officer was giving a citation to another person on the property of Alta Apartments for an unrelated issue. He saw that Mr. Pappalardo was wearing a mask and asked that he remove it and identify himself. While Mr. Pappalardo did comply with the first request to remove the mask, he refused to identify multiple times eventually telling the officer, “I don’t have time, fuck off”. In the case of 24-CM-0069 State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo, the defendant was wearing a mask and refused to remove his mask and identify himself to police. He subsequently left the Burgershot building, removing his mask, and again refused to self identify to the officers. This shows a repeated pattern of Mr. Pappalardo’s disregard for our penal code and the officers sworn to uphold it.
Under the penal code, GC-04 states that GM-19 will apply instead of GC-04 for individuals who wear facial concealment in relation to other criminal acts OR individuals who defy a lawful request to remove and/or keep their facial concealment off or fail to identify themselves after removing the face covering are liable for GM-10 and a subsequent upgrade of GC-04 to GM-19. Mr. Pappalardo did in fact remove his face covering at the time of the initial request, but continuously refused to identify himself to Detective Knight. Defense argues that Mr. Pappalardo does not meet the criteria for GM-19, however the criteria is met under GM-19(b) A-3 and B both. The defense attests that the officer escalated the situation and that the officer violated his rights as a citizen. At no time was the defendant threatened physically or verbally. He was asked numerous times to identify and provide identification and refused repeatedly. As such, the prosecution requests that the court finds the defendant guilty of both GM-10 Failure to Comply and GM-19 Face Concealment(b). It is clear in the body cam footage that Mr. Pappalardo willingly and knowingly refused Detective Knight his identification even though he removed his face concealment. The face mask in possession was not that of a motorcycle helmet, nor was it a mask for medical issues.
This was a deliberate act made by the defendant, Billy Pappalardo and we request that the laws of San Andreas continue to be upheld and the defendant found guilty.
Respectfully,
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 — [email protected]
Re: #24-CM-0080, State of San Andreas v. Billy Pappalardo
Posted: 24 Dec 2024, 01:28
by Hope Kant
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. Billy Pappalardo
#24-CM-0080
A decision was reached in the above case on the 24rd day of December, 2024.
The court finds the facts of the case to be clearly shown within the motion for discovery of the prosecution. The defendant was found outside of Alta Street Apartments with a mask on his face. He was asked to remove his mask more than one time prior to actually doing so. Upon removal of his mask he would be seen refusing to provide identification.
The court is here to rule on the application of the law in regards to the known facts of the case. GC - 04 specifically states "Individuals who defy a lawful request to remove and/or keep their facial concealment off or fail to identify themselves after removing the face covering are liable for GM-10 and a subsequent upgrade of GC-04 to GM-19". As the facts clearly show the defendant exiting the building with the face concealment, then proceeding to fail to provide identification after removing said face concealment. The court finds there to be no other way to apply the law than how it was written.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GM19 - Face Concealment (b), I find the defendant, Billy Pappalardo, guilty.
- On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Billy Pappalardo, guilty.
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
