Page 1 of 1
#22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 23 Jul 2022, 12:04
by Frank Raven
Defendant Name: Frank Raven
Defendant Phone: 4138423
Defendant Address: N/A
(( Defendant Discord: White#4633 ))
Requested Attorney: N/A
Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department
Time & Date of Incident(s): 23/JULY/2022
Charge(s):
- GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
Narrative:
I was arrested at burger shot by an Officer (Badge #7007) after he asked me to remove my mask. I complied immediately, removing my mask. I then continued with my order. The same Officer asks me for my ID. I refused, stating that he can not ask me for my ID if I've complied with his request to remove the mask, which I did.
The Officer arrests me initially for ''Face Concealment and Failure to Comply''. However, after he has placed me in cuffs, searched and seized my items and brought me to Mission Row, a supervisor is called. The supervisor (Badge #3933) informs me that they are allowed to ask for my ID, despite not having defied the request to remove mask, since they have to check if I have any prior citations or misdemeanour charges.
I informed them of the penal code on the issue, specifically the section that states '
'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.''
I want to appeal this charge as these Officers had no right to ask me to Identify after I complied immediately with the request to remove the face concealment.
I,
Frank Raven, 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.
))

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 23 Jul 2022, 12:05
by Frank Raven

To whom it may concern,
I will be representing myself in this matter and am ready to proceed as soon as a prosecutor takes the case and the court activates it.
Respectfully,
Frank Raven

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 23 Jul 2022, 14:43
by Caroline Johnson
Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 23 Jul 2022, 14:46
by Aleksandar Pulaski
Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 00:15
by Caroline Johnson

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Superior Court of San Andreas,
I am requesting the immediate activation of this case, and to move straight to summary judgment as the evidence in this case is conclusive, and only a matter of law needs to be decided. Once activated and the order for discovery made, I will present all the evidence in this case and a motions hearing can be had followed shortly by the motion for summary judgment. I feel delaying this case any further would be a disservice not only to the outstanding cases, but to the community has a whole.
I welcome a judge to discuss this with me in person, to understand the rational behind this cases activation ahead of more older cases.
Best Wishes,
Caroline Johnson
Attorney-At-Law
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 590-4566 — [email protected]

Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 03:27
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 03:31
by Judith Mason

San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
#22-CM-0045
Presiding Judge: Judith Mason |
ORDER FOR DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
#22-CM-0045
A court order was entered in the above case on 11 August, 2022.
The case of the State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven, #22-CM-0045 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.

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected] 
Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 04:41
by Caroline Johnson
Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery
Honorable Judith Mason,
- We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0045
Requesting Party: Superior Court of San Andreas
Party Members: Caroline Johnson
Exhibit #1: LSPD - Arrest Report
Type of Discovery: Arrest Report
All Information from the Discovery The arrest report filed by Olatunji Osas in regards to this incident.
Exhibit #2: LSPD - Witness Statement
Type of Discovery: Witness Statement Officer Elise Cavallera
All Information from the Discovery Statement details her interaction after the arrest of the individual.
Elise Cavallera wrote: ↑09 Aug 2022, 22:39
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Case Number: ____
Incident Date: ____
Witness Information
- Name: Elise Cavallera
Date of Birth: 15/MAY/1993
Phone Number: 2873081
Occupation: Los Santos Police Department, Police Detective III
Witness Statement
- I just started my shift at Mission Row when Detective Osas called over the radio that he either wishes to speak to me at Mission Row, or that his suspect wishes to talk to the supervisor. As I was already there, I waited for him. Detective informed me that he had a suspect in custody that Failed to Identify after being asked to remove his masks and that he wishes to verify with me regarding the charge. We went over GC04 - Face Concealment and we both agreed that due to the clause "Individuals who have been cited and/or arrested for facial concealment in the past 7 days are liable for prosecution under GM-10 at the discretion of the handling law enforcement officer.", Detective Osas had a probable cause to identify Mr. Raven to see if he was liable for prosecution under GM-10. I then spoken to Mr. Raven, with whom we didn't come to a middle ground and because I supported my Detective's charges, Mr. Raven was processed for GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify because he failed to identify at the request to see if he breaches GC04 - Face Concealment's, "Individuals who have been cited and/or arrested for facial concealment in the past 7 days are liable for prosecution under GM-10 at the discretion of the handling law enforcement officer." clause.
Witness Affirmation
- I, Elise Cavallera, 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,
Elise Cavallera
Elise Cavallera
Police Detective III
Los Santos Police Department
Date: [10/AUG/2022]
Exhibit #3: BurgershotLS LLC CCTV
Type of Discovery: CCTV of the event at burgetshot LLC provided by the GSB of the San Andreas Executive Branch.
All Information from the Discovery CCTV shows the interaction as it took place, from the initial interaction to them leaving the parking lot.
- ((Important: Anything after 8:48 should not be referenced as it would not be within viewing distance of the cameras. ))
Burgershot CCTV
**BurgershotLS_CCTV.mp4**
((
Bodycam RP - Executive Branch RPly has access (GSB)
RP Proof 1
RP Proof 2
))
Exhibit #4: LSPD - IA Response's
Type of Discovery: Report - IA Response's
All Information from the Discovery The IA response from the LSPD regarding this incident, and the LSPD interpretation of the law.
- -------- Original Message --------
Subject: Internal Affairs Conclusion
Date: Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:09 pm
From: Phillipe Sanchez
To: Frank Raven, Jaxon Nash
Phillipe Sanchez wrote:

Los Santos Police Department
Personal Email
"TO PROTECT AND SERVE" |
- Frank Raven
First and foremost, we would like to thank you for submitting a formal written complaint with the Los Santos Police Department's Internal Affairs Group. Following a preliminary review, we have determined that, at this point in time, the Internal Affairs Group will not be opening an official in-depth investigation into this complaint and occurrence.
While we appreciate your report for malpractice, after thoroughly reviewing the submission along with your charge appeal with the SAJB, we cannot find any misconduct reported. As you state yourself, you complied with the officers initial request which is great, but you also admit to failing to identify following that. A law enforcement officer is required to identify a subject following the removal of the mask so that they can check the prior convictions of the subject to see if escalation per the penal code is appropriate.
Best of luck with the appeal, I will personally make sure they have all the information required.
Kind Regards,

Deputy Chief of Police Phillipe Sanchez
Commanding Officer, Internal Affairs
Los Santos Police Department
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Internal Affairs Conclusion
Date: Sat Jul 23, 2022 6:46 pm
From: Phillipe Sanchez
To: Frank Raven
Phillipe Sanchez wrote:
Mr Raven,
GC-04 - Individuals who have been cited and/or arrested for facial concealment in the past 7 days are liable for prosecution under GM-10 at the discretion of the handling law enforcement officer.
This is what the officer was checking when attempting to identify you - please ensure to thoroughly understand the penal code to prevent further issues.
Kind Regards,
Phillipe Sanchez
Sincerely,
Caroline Johnson
Prosecuting Attorney

Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 04:50
by Caroline Johnson
Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment
Honorable Judith Mason,
- We the prosecution in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Assigned Court Case Number: #22-CM-0045
Requesting Party: State of San Andreas
Party Members: Caroline Johnson
Reasoning: We believe no dispute about the facts exist, and only a matter of law needs to be determined.
Detailed explanation:
As stated by detective Elise Cavallera, the crux of this case relies on the interpretation of "Individuals who have been cited and/or arrested for facial concealment in the past 7 days are liable for prosecution under GM-10 at the discretion of the handling law enforcement officer." While the state understands the position of the defendant, we would prefer to have the superior court set a precedent on this specific wording of the citation. In addition, we wish to note the precedents set by the following cases;
- #22-01-28-AP-027, Jack Okimoto v Police Department
- #22-CM-0031, State of San Andreas v. Felix Svensson
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Caroline Johnson
Prosecuting Attorney

Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 11 Aug 2022, 05:10
by Judith Mason
Re: #22-CM-0045, State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
Posted: 12 Aug 2022, 02:54
by Judith Mason

Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - 22-CM-0045
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Frank Raven
22-CM-0045
CHARGES BEING DISPUTED:
GM10 - Failure to Comply/Identify
A verdict was entered in the above case on the 11th day of August, 2022.
- As has been mutually agreed upon and presented to the court, on the 23rd of July, 2022, at approximately 11:30am, Mr. Frank Raven was waiting in line at the Burgershot on San Andreas Avenue while wearing a facial covering. Mr. Raven was then asked by a law enforcement officer to remove the covering and once Mr. Raven had done so, the law enforcement officer further asked Mr. Raven to present his identification.
Mr. Raven refused to comply with this request to present ID, arguing that as he had removed his facial covering upon request by the law enforcement officer, he was not required to present identification.
The relevant provision in the GC04 - Face Concealment citation states: “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. Raven immediately removed his face concealment upon request, he was not liable to be cited for GC04 - Face Concealment, and in fact, neither that citation nor the misdemeanor Face Concealment charge was placed on his record.
Furthermore, the argument that Mr. Raven would be required to present his identification in order for law enforcement officers to determine if he had been cited and/or arrested for face concealment in the past 7 days hinges on the requirement that Mr. Raven would be liable for, at least, a citation of GC04 - Face Concealment at the time of the incident.
This provision of upgrading the citation face concealment to the misdemeanor face concealment is just that - an upgrade of the charge. Because he was not liable for the citation, he is thus not liable for the misdemeanor.
With all this in mind, Frank Raven was required to remove the face concealment and because he did so immediately upon request, he was not legally obligated to present his identification.
It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:
- On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply/Identify, I find the defendant, Frank Raven, not guilty.

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