#22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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.


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.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

Post by Judith Mason »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Parties,

    This case is now pending trial - please mark your upcoming availability here so the proceeding can be scheduled.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Parties,

    Trial will be scheduled for today at 7:30pm, in approximately 45 minutes. Opportunity for public attendance will be subject to bailiff availability.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Associate Justice
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Judith Mason
Judicial Branch
Posts: 2578
Joined: Fri May 21, 2021 3:11 am
ECRP Forum Name: Judge Judy

SAJB Awards

Re: #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


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. Tony Solicetto
#22-CM-0052

A decision was reached in the above case on the 16th day of December, 2022.


The case of #22-CM-0052, State of San Andreas v. Tony Solicetto has been resolved.

In this case, we have a situation of a 911 call being placed on the 19th of July regarding an alleged shooting. As outlined in Detective Martin’s statement, law enforcement officers had pulled over a Black Kamacho and the detectives, while on their way to the location of the 911 call, assisted in the traffic stop. At this point, the standard of reasonable suspicion had been obtained to investigate whether this vehicle or the occupants were a part of the shooting, due to the description given in the 911 call and the alleged proximity of the vehicle to the location of the call.

During this further investigation, law enforcement officers allegedly were able to conduct Gun Shot Residue, or GSR, tests to determine if certain the individuals tested had gun shot residue on their hands and/or clothing, which may indicate the recent discharge of a firearm.

While one occupant of the vehicle complied with the GSR test, the defendant allegedly refused. Mr. Solicetto was allegedly warned that further refusal would result in a charge of Obstruction of Justice, however, he allegedly continued to refuse.

As stated previously in the court decision on the 2nd day of December, 2022, the court has determined that exigent circumstances apply in situations such as this, where the benefit of the preservation of evidence outweighs the personal privacy of the defendant, considering reasonable suspicion that the defendant was involved in the crime reported in the 911 call was established.

With that previous determination in mind, the defendant’s continued refusal would constitute a delay in the lawful investigation undertaken by law enforcement during the traffic stop.

Following the placement of the Obstruction charge, a search of Mr. Solicetto and the Kamacho was conducted allegedly resulting in the seizure of marijuana plants, processed marijuana, and two firearms. Fingerprints gathered from the firearms results in confirmation that at least one of them was in possession by Mr. Solicetto, therefore, resulting in the possession of illegal firearms/weapons charge.

When it comes to the possession of a controlled substances while armed charge, however, despite having placed 15 marijuana plants and one processed marijuana in the defendant’s evidence locker, the prosecution has been unable to present evidence as to the chain of custody and where this evidence had been retrieved, therefore, the doubt raised by the defense that the marijuana had not been in the defendant’s possession has been determined as reasonable.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
  • On the count of GM14 - Obstruction of Justice, I find the defendant, Tony Solicetto, guilty.
  • On the count of WF03 - Possession of Illegal Firearms/Weapons, I find the defendant, Tony Solicetto, guilty.
  • On the count of DM02 - Possession of a Controlled Substance While Armed, I find the defendant, Tony Solicetto, not guilty.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests