Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: Felix Svensson
Defendant Phone: 4861466
Defendant Address: Not Applicable
(( Defendant Discord: Fel!x#6386))
Requested Attorney: NA

Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department

Time & Date of Incident(s): 16/JUN/2022 - 22:00 ((UTC))
Charge(s): GM 10 Failure to Comply/Identify & GM 19 Face Concealment (b)
Narrative: Myself and my Wife, Haylie Svensson were at Burgershot wearing pug masks just generally fooling around trying to have fun with the 5+ other people that were there, 2 police officers (badge numbers 23050 & 23123) entered the establishment and immediately ordered everybody to remove their mask(s), I opted to instead sit in my vehicle which was parked less than 10 steps away as is my right as per the penal code to wear a mask whilst in my own vehicle if I wish to do so. I didn't hear the officers say anything else as I walked away so I was under the assumption that this was okay. My wife came and sat in the car shortly after with me and we assumed again, all was well. Not 30 seconds after this the officers left the establishment and entered their vehicle at which point they attempted to back out of the parking lot, striking several vehicle in the process including my own. The officer(s) sat behind my vehicle in their cruiser with no lights on and I overheard the male officer say to the female "Are we pulling them over" to which she stated "No" at which point I turned my engine on and drove slowly around the corner. They immediately followed me and put their sirens on, pulling me over to which I turned my engine off and complied fully.

Once their backup arrived they continued with the traffic stop, approaching my vehicle and ordering myself and my wife out of it and to stand on the side-walk, I asked them why I was being dragged out of my vehicle to which they responded by pointing tasers at mine and my wife's face once again ordering us out of the vehicle and to stand on the side walk. We complied with their demands and removed our masks and identified myself but my wife was never asked for any form of identification even though she was also essentially ripped from the vehicle with threats of being tazed.

The female officer explained that she is going to charge me with Failure to Comply and Face concealment (b) because I refused to remove my mask when she asked me to. I then explained that the penal code is very clear on the wording of both citation and misdemeanour which states under GC 04 Face Concealment "Individuals who defy a lawful request to remove and/or keep their facial concealment off them are liable for this general citation, to which they will then be required to present their ID. Failing to comply and/or identify further will fall under GM-10 and subsequently upgrade GC-04 to GM-19." I then continued to explain that if me walking away to a location where I am allowed to wear a mask constitutes as refusing then I am only liable for the citation, I have provided my identification as requested and I have not received said citation within the last 7 days. The officer(s) did not seem to care about the clear wording of the penal code and instead opted for their own interpretation.

I would also like to add that, out of the 7 or 8 people that were present on scene, to my recollection none of them removed their mask(s) yet I was the 1 who was singled out and arrested simply because I chose to sit in my own vehicle. My wife whom was there also didn't remove her mask and she did exactly the same and sat in the vehicle instead alas, she did not get identified, arrested nor even receive a citation along with every other person that was there during the incident. It is painfully clear that the officers conduct was being singled out towards me rather than enforcing the law whether that be a personal vendetta or some other insignificant, unlawful reason.

---

I, [Felix Svensson], 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. ))

---

• Your Honor,
  
  The purpose of this notice is to let you know that as of this time I, Tony McFornell, will be representing Felix Svensson in all the proceedings pertaining to this case. Co-counsel will be determined once activated.
  I will be getting in contact with the defendant.
  
  Best regards,
  
  
  Senior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  I will be the presiding Judge on this case. I will be activating this case with Docket number #22-CM-0031.
  
  It appears the Defendant has adequate representation.
  
  Attorney General @Hugh Allgood, please assign a Prosecutor to this case, so we may move forward to the Discovery Phase.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Darcy Valor
  Court Clerk
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Darcy Valor,
  
  I am Peit Vanniekerk an I will be providing co-counsel to Attorney Tony McFornell at the defense of Mr. Svensson.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Junior Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 485-1978 — [email protected]

---

• Superior Court of San Andreas,
  
  My name is Caroline Johnson and I work as a state prosecutor in the San Andreas Judicial Branch. I have taken it upon myself to collect all relevant evidence in the case of ‘State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson' either to personally take on the case when activated, or to support the prosecuting attorneys of the state should another attorney wish to take on the case. Please note, just like my last three notices on the docket like this, I am not the assigned prosecutor, I am simply here to collect the information to it is not lost to time.
  

  ---

  Best Wishes,
  
  Caroline Johnson
  Attorney-At-Law
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 590-4566 — [email protected]

---

---

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson, #22-CM-0031 is hereby opened and acknowledged by the Court.

The prosecution is hereby ordered to provide all evidence collected from the arresting Law Enforcement Agency and submit it to the Court via Motion for Discovery within seven days. If additional time is needed, the prosecution can file a Motion for Continuance.

Once evidence has been submitted to the official docket the defense can begin filing motions.




Darcy Valor
Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 241-7634 — [email protected]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Darcy Valor,

• We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.

  ---

  State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson
  Assigned Court Case Number: 22-CM-0031
  Requesting Party: THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
  Party Members: Caroline Johnson - Representing the State of San Andreas

  ---

  Exhibit #1: Los Santos Police Department
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  • Arrest Report
  Spoiler

  All Information from the Discovery The official arrest report submitted to the LSPD database by officer @Gina Willow. Please note, Police Cadet Theo Myers is no longer a member of the police department, and has not responded to any emails.

  • 
    

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

    ---

    MUGSHOT

    • SUSPECT DETAILS
      • 
        Full Name: Felix Svensson
        Phone Number: 4861466
        Licenses Suspended: No
        Officers Involved:
        • Police Cadet Gina Willow
        • Police Cadet Theo Myers
        Charges:
        • GM19 - Face Concealment (b)
        • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
      INCIDENT NARRATIVE
      • Explain what happened, no need to provide too much detail, videos could be provided
        • Arrived at burger shot, suspect failed to remove the mask after being asked and attempted to leave in his vehicle. suspect taken to Mission row
      EVIDENCE DETAILS
      • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
        Legal possessions may be grouped and documented as "Legal Possessions". Illegal possessions must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
        • Exhibit A: Baseball bat, GPS, fishing rod, mask, water, water, radio
          
          
          Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

          
    
  Exhibit #2: LSPD - Officer Gina Willow
  Type of Discovery: Witness Statement
  • A witness statement by arresting officer Gina Willow
  Spoiler

  All Information from the Discovery A witness statement submitted by Officer Gina Willow that responds to specific points by the defendant in his opening narrative.

  • 
    

    
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
    Case Information
    • Case Number: #22-CM-0031
      Incident Date: 16/JUN/2022
    Witness Information
    • Name: Gina Willow
      Date of Birth: 16/06/1999
      Phone Number: 531-2187
      Occupation: Police Officer I
    Witness Statement
    • I have bodycam footage of the entire situation so the evidence will speak for itself. With that being said, I will explain the situation from my personal point of view and the reasons behind my actions. I arrived at burger shot with Cadet Myers, upon entering burger shot i noticed two individuals with their mask on. I asked them to remove it, to which they ran to their vehicle, disobeying a direct lawfull order. I attempted to call after them, telling them not to run to their vehicle. I then got into my cruiser, attempting to back up and sit behind their vehicle. Upon leaving the parking lot i was trying to avoid hitting the individuals that were walking all over the road. I accidentally backed up into Mr Svenssons car. I apologised immediately and offered to pay for all and any damages, as it was a mistake on my part. I parked behind them, assuming that they were going to leave, and I was going to allow them to leave, in order for the situation to not escelate. Mr Svensson then decided to exit the vehicle and continue taunting me. I asked him again to take his mask off, to which his response was to run away and get back into his car. I feel as though it goes without saying, but these actions explained thus far, are already ground for a Failure to Comply charge. Mr Svensson got back into his vehicle, attempting to leave the area, at which point I felt it nessecary to pull Mr Svensson over. Upon pulling him over, i ordered him countless time to exit the vehicle, which he was not complying with. At this point in time, it clearly felt to me, that he was trying to hide his identity from me, for one reason or another. I took the necessary action of deploying my tazer, once again ordering him out of the vehicle. After getting him out the vehicle, and discussing the issue with him, along with two of my supervisors Chief Sanchez and Commander Sanchez, I decided to arrest him for Failure to comply and face concealment (b) . The reasons as i explained, was because he was failing to listen to lawfull demands, thus he was charged with Failure to Comply. He was wearing a mask during the situation, so Face Concealment (b) was placed upon him.
      
      Arrest Report: viewtopic.php?p=464240&hilit=Gina+Willow#p464240
      Bodycam footage: *attatched bodycam recording*
      (( https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1508512089 ))
      (( proof of bodycam RP: https://imgur.com/pnt9325 ))
      
      I would also like to note, that upon reading Mr Svenssons personal statement, there are many discrepancies within it. I will try to keep it as short as possible, with quotes taken directly from the docket.
      
      Mr Svensson wrote: "I opted to instead sit in my vehicle which was parked less than 10 steps away as is my right as per the penal code to wear a mask whilst in my own vehicle if I wish to do so." -
      I think it goes without saying, that deciding to disobey a lawfull order by opting to sit in your vehicle will still fall under " Failure to Comply ".
      
      Mr Svensson wrote: " I didn't hear the officers say anything else as I walked away so I was under the assumption that this was okay. "
      As you can see in the bodycam footage, i was relatively close to Mr Svensson so it is unusal for him to have not heard me from that distance.
      
      Mr Svensson also wrote " striking several vehicle in the process including my own. " in regards to me backing up into his vehicle. It is extremely clear in the bodycam that there was not a single other vehicle, besides the vehicle Mr Svensson was in, that was remotely close to my cruiser.
      
      Mr Svensson wrote: " I overheard the male officer say to the female "Are we pulling them over" to which she stated "No" at which point I turned my engine on and drove slowly around the corner. " This is most likely a case of misshearing who was speaking. The bodycam footage shows that it was clearly not me speaking.
      
      Mr Svensson wrote " I turned my engine off and complied fully. " In regards to the traffic stop that initiated. He very clearly did not comply fully, by openly refusing to exit the vehicle after multiple order to exit the vehicle.
      
      There are also a few times in the docket where Mr Svensson quotes the penal code, so for the sole purpose of making it simple, Mr Svensson failed to listen to lawfull orders. Thus, charged with failure to comply. As he was wearing a mask whilst doing this, it upgrades to Face concealmebt (b) .
      
      Mr Svensson wrote " 7 or 8 people that were present on scene, to my recollection none of them removed their mask(s) " As you can see on the bodycam footage, there is not a single other person, besides Mr and Mrs Svensson that were wearing A mask, besides one female individual that is seen on bodycam footage, but was not close to the scene.
    Witness Affirmation
    • I, Gina Willow, 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,
      
      
      Gina Willow
      Police Officer I
      Los Santos Police Department
      
      Date: 13/07/2022
    
  Exhibit #3: LSPD - Officer Gina Willow
  Type of Discovery: Physical Evidence
  • Officer Body Cam Footage
  Spoiler

  All Information from the Discovery A thirty minute bodycam recording from the arresting officer.

  • Bodycam footage: *attatched bodycam recording*
    (( https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1508512089 ))
    (( proof of bodycam RP: https://imgur.com/pnt9325 ))

  ---

Sincerely,

Caroline Johnson
Attorney-At-Law
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 590-4566 — [email protected]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Suppress

Honorable Darcy Valor,

• We the Defense in the case below are requesting that certain evidence be inadmissible in court.

  ---

  State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson
  Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0031
  Requesting Party: Defense
  Party Members: Tony McFornell & Peit Vanniekerk

  ---

  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The word "suspect" from all of exhibit 1.

  ---

  Detailed explanation:
  Felix Svensson was not subject to an investigation, therefore classifying him as a suspect would constitute grounds to declare the existence of possible questioning and other law enforcement procedures.
  Based on the bodycam footage, it is clear that Mr. Svensson was not suspect of any investigation or crimes but rather was involved in a situation that originated from the moment the police asked him to remove his mask.
  
  In other words, classifying the defendant as a suspect is not in accordance with the facts of the situation.
  

  ---

Sincerely,


Tony McFornell
Senior Defense Attorney


Peit Vanniekerk
Junior Defense Attorney

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment

Honorable Darcy Valor,

• We the Defense in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.

  ---

  State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson
  Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0031
  Requesting Party: Defense
  Party Members: Tony McFornell & Peit Vanniekerk

  ---

  Reasoning: It has been proved on this docket that Felix Svensson was not subject to an investigation, and neither was there an investigation on course. With that in mind, according to GM10 Mr. Svensson shouldn't have been charged with Failure to Identify (see "[...] including when he requests you to identify who you are during the course of an investigation.") which would also lead to the inapplicability of GM19. With the bodycam footage, there are no doubts about the facts and as such, summary judgment would be admissible given that it is now a matter of law and not facts.

  ---

  Detailed explanation:
  The Penal Code clearly states that in order for one to be charged with Failure to Identify they must be either investigated or requested to identify in the course of an investigation. It is pretty clear that a police cadet wouldn't be carrying out an investigation in Burgershot, and if they were, the bodycamera footage shows otherwise.
  
  While Mr. Svensson -as he stated on the footage countless of times- was in fact in a position to receive a citation for his behavior, at no time did his actions correlate with the course of fact described in GM10 and subsequently GM19.

  ---

  Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,


Tony McFornell
Senior Defense Attorney


Peit Vanniekerk
Junior Defense Attorney

---

• Parties,
  
  The next step I would like to take in this case is a Motions Hearing. Please use the scheduling tool to note your availability for the upcoming week.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Darcy Valor
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]

---

• Parties,
  
  It would appear that on Tuesday, July 19th 2022, all parties will be available for a Motions Hearing. It will be held at 8 PM at the Courthouse.
  
  To inform everyone, we will be going over the Motion for Discovery presented by the Prosecution, the Motion to Suppress submitted by the Defense, and the Motion for Summary Judgement presented by the Defense.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Darcy Valor
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]

---

• Parties,
  
  I will have to push back the time of the hearing to 12 AM ((UTC)) July 20th due to unforeseen circumstances.
  
  If any parties have any scheduling issues with this please let the docket know as soon as possible.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Darcy Valor
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]

---

---

• The case of 22-CM-0031 - State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson has hereby been resolved.
  
  Based on the evidence submitted on this case there were no disputes of facts, only a decision of law needed to be decided. Therefore I granted the Motion for Summary Judgement submitted by the Defense.
  
  With the Bodycam submitted into evidence, it is clear that Mr. Svensson defied a lawful command. At that time he should have been issued the citation GC04 - Face Concealment.
  
  The definition of GC04 - Face Concealment states that “individuals who defy a lawful request to remove and/or keep their facial concealment off them are liable for this general citation, to which they will then be required to present their ID. Failing to comply and/or identify further will fall under GM-10 and subsequently upgrade GC-04 to GM-19.”
  
  As Mr. Svensson was not asked to Identify himself until after an arrest was made and he was not issued the citation, the charge GM10 - Failure to Comply and the charge GM19 - Face Concealment (b) were wrongfully placed.
  
  Mr. Svensson’s charged will be reduced to GC04 - Face Concealment.
  
  
  This case is now closed.
  
  • CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply [NOT GUILTY]
    • GM19 - Face Concealment (b) NOT GUILTY]
    • GC04 - Face Concealment [GUILTY]
    
    
    
    Darcy Valor
    Superior Court Judge
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 241-7634 — [email protected]