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. Tony Solicetto
#22-CM-0052
A decision was reached in the above case on the 2nd day of December, 2022.
State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto
#22-CM-0052
A decision was reached in the above case on the 2nd day of December, 2022.
The court has determined that prosecution's Motion for Discovery and Addendum to the Motion for Discovery are admissible, and thus, the motion is granted.
The exception to this, however, is the defense's Motion to Suppress, which calls into question the statement "SD saw the vehicle leaving the area of the 911 call" from Exhibit #1 of the motion. The court has determined that this statement is hearsay and is, thus, subject to suppression. The Motion to Suppress is granted.
Finally, we have the Motion to Dismiss based on insufficient evidence. The defense argues that the case should be dismissed on the grounds that there is only a single witness statement and locker logs, but no body camera footage or arrest report, and that there is no probable cause established for the traffic-stop to be warranted. Furthermore, the defense argues that the Gun Shot Residue (GSR) test performed by the Los Santos Police Department and the subsequent search of the vehicle was unlawful due to law enforcement not having had established probable cause to do so.
The defense cites #22-AP-0003, Roxy Teat v. State of San Andreas and #22-CM-0040, State of San Andreas v. Gregory Gregov as previous precedence, arguing that the prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the crimes the defendant was charged with. This case, however, differs from the previously cited cases as, with Teat, the evidence to prove guilt was only a single uncorroborated statement from the defendant herself to prove the purpose of the monetary exchange, and with Gregov, there were only two sentences presented to the court to prove the matter of the case. This case differs as there has been corroborating evidence, in the form of locker logs, to prove the history of the items seized and a somewhat detailed witness statement, which provides a substantial enough allegation to warrant moving forward.
The court will take into consideration the lack of arrest report and body camera footage, in addition to the fact that the case hinges on the testimony of a single officer and evidence locker logs, however, the court has determined that these facts alone do not warrant a dismissal of the case.
To address the issue of the traffic-stop and GSR test, the court has determined that only reasonable suspicion is required for a traffic-stop to occur - law enforcement officers are within their rights to detain individuals based on reasonable suspicion in order to investigate if a crime has been committed. For the GSR test, the court has determined that reasonable suspicion in addition to exigent circumstances are sufficient for law enforcement officers to lawfully order an individual to comply with a GSR test. These exigent circumstances apply in situations where the amount of time it would take to secure a search warrant would lead to the loss of important evidence, gun shot residue in this case, as the defendant would presumably be able to leave the traffic-stop and immediately wash the residue off of their hands and clothing.
With all that said, the court has made the decision to deny the Motion to Dismiss.
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]