#23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Frank Haswell
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:14 am
ECRP Forum Name: Homast

DOC Awards

#23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Frank Haswell »

Image
Image
Defendant Name: Frank Haswell
Defendant Phone: 373-7090
Defendant Address: Eclipse Towers, Apt # 515
(( Defendant Discord: Homast#4919 ))
Requested Attorney: Private Attorney which I shall have notify the courts
Image
Charging Department: Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
Image
Date & Time of Incident(s): 18/JAN/2023 09:47
Charge(s):
  • WM02 - Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm
Narrative:
I was charged and subsequently imprisoned for a crime I did not commit.



I, Frank Haswell, 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. ))
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • To whom it may concern,

    The purpose of this notice is to inform you that as of this moment I, Roderick Marchisio, will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    I will take it upon myself to reach out to the involved parties to collect and review all evidence in relation to the underlying case to ensure a proper and smooth continuation of this process.

Respectfully,


Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [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: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Judith Mason »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF RECEIPT


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on 22 January, 2023.


The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the court system runs on a first-come, first-served basis and will only activate cases out of order for special circumstances.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense, otherwise, a court-appointed attorney will be assigned to the case upon its activation.

The defendant is further encouraged to speak with an authorized individual at Rockford Hills City Hall, Mission Row Police Station, or Paleto Bay Sheriff's Office for official clarification on the specific charges received and their respective date and times, as once the case has been activated, any omitted charges will be considered abandoned and unable to be disputed within this case.


Image
Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Greg Kumerow wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 8:08 pm Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • To whom it may concern,

    I, Junior Prosecuting Attorney Gregory Kumerow, will be co-counseling with Deputy Attorney Roderick Marchisio, and will be representing the State of San Andreas in all the proceedings pertaining to the underlying case.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Junior Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
Frank Haswell
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2021 8:14 am
ECRP Forum Name: Homast

DOC Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Frank Haswell »

Going forward, I, Frank Haswell, kindly request Chief Public Defender Cyrus Raven as my Defense Attorney in this case.
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 10 of March, 2023.


I, Cyrus Raven, Deputy Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Frank Haswell in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Image
Deputy Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 535-6160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Robert Winejudge »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 21st of March, 2023.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell is hereby activated by this Court under #23-CM-0036.

Both the State and Defendant have adequate representation in the case, as such, immediately following this notice, the Presiding Judge will be filing the Order for Discovery.

Image
Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Robert Winejudge »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

ORDER FOR DISCOVERY


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A court order was entered in the above case on 21st of March, 2023.


The case of the State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell, #23-CM-0036 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.



Image
Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]

Image
User avatar
Oscar Sparrowhill
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Oscar Sparrowhill

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Oscar Sparrowhill »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.


I, Oscar Sparrowhill, a Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant Frank Haswell in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.

Respectfully,

Oscar Sparrowhill
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
465-8380 — [email protected]

Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery

Honorable Winejudge,

  • We the Prosecution in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
    State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
    Assigned Court Case Number: #23-CM-0036
    Requesting Party: N/A
    Party Members: Roderick Marchisio, Greg Kumerow
    Exhibit #1:
    Type of Discovery: Warrant report
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The warrant report explains that Mr. Haswell was seen handing over a briefcase which was found to contain an illegal firearm.
    • ► Show Spoiler
    Exhibit #2:
    Type of Discovery: Arrest report
    • Physical evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery The arrest report explains that Mr. Haswell was arrested after placing a 911 call and had nothing on him at the time.
    • ► Show Spoiler

    Exhibit #3:
    Type of Discovery: Witness statement
    • Witness statement
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery In this witness statement, Deputy Sainz explains that he witnessed the briefcase pass-off and that he recovered it with the heavy pistol and casings inside.
    • ► Show Spoiler
    Exhibit #4:
    Type of Discovery:Bodycam footage
    • Digital evidence
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery Bodycam footage from Deputy Sainz shows the full pass-off of the briefcase from Mr. Haswell on the left and his friend on the right.
    Exhibit #5:
    Type of Discovery: Witness statement
    • Witness statement
    Spoiler
    All Information from the Discovery Deputy Smoke describes that he also witnessed the pass-off of the briefcase and that when he returned to the scene after assisting in the capture of the individual who received the briefcase, he was informed that Mr. Haswell had been released.
    • ► Show Spoiler

    Respectfully,


    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO AMEND


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#22-CM-0036

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 26th of March, 2023.


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend, the original charges with the underlined amended charges.


  • Original Charges
    • WM02 - Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm

  • Amended Charges
    • WM02 - Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm
    • GF16 - Tampering with Evidence
    • WF04 - Unlicensed transfer of firearms, ammunition and body armor

  • Detailed Explanation: With reference to the evidence exhibits as previously presented to the court, it becomes clear in the eyes of the prosecution that the Defendant consciously handed his briefcase, containing said unlicensed firearm, to another individual right before his detainment. With these actions, the Defendant concealed evidence with the clear intent to interfere with an investigation by law enforcement. Further, with these actions, the Defendant clearly transferred an unregistered firearm without authorization from the Firearms and Licensing Division of the Los Santos Police Department. As such, the prosecution will be pursuing the additional charges GF16 - Tampering with Evidence and WF04 - Unlicensed transfer of firearms, ammunition and body armor.





Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Winejudge,

    The prosecution would like to formally inform you we have reached out to the Defense with an offer for a plea deal. As of right now, the defense is deliberating this offer and we are awaiting a response.


    Respectfully,


    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Jay Wellberg
Judicial Branch
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2022 6:45 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Chilo

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Jay Wellberg »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 26 of March, 2023.


I, Jay Wellberg, a Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Frank Haswell in the underlying case.

I will be taking the responsibility of Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Image
Junior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 2956979 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image



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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 27th of March, 2023.


The Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: We require more time to analyze the prosecution's motion for discovery.
    • Detailed Explanation: We require more time to analyze the prosecution's motion for discovery as it contains several exhibits.




Cyrus Raven
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Image
User avatar
Oscar Sparrowhill
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2023 8:07 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Oscar Sparrowhill

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Oscar Sparrowhill »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO SUPPRESS


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 28th of March, 2023.


The Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;


  • Exhibit #1, #2, #3, #4, #5:
    Requested Evidence to Suppress:
    All mentions of the briefcase and any of it's alleged contents such as a Firearm and Bullet Casings
    • Detailed Reasoning: The Defense is wanting to suppress any part of the exhibits showing or claiming that a briefcase was recovered and it's alleged content such as any firearm or bullet casings.

      On the 18th of January, 2023, several Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department approached an active road work site and demanded the Defendant remove his mask.

      Exhibit 1:
      We were detaining the suspect over failure to comply while he was working road work for refusing to take off his mask. He was seen in possession of a briefcase and handed it over to his friend.


      Exhibit 3:
      Towards the end of the situation we noticed Deputy Devine asking Frank Haswell to take off his mask multiple times. Mr. Haswell was claiming he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on but Deputy Devine said that they had already cleared the fire and situation so he no longer needed the mask.


      The Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had neither reasonable suspicion to detain and demand the Defendant remove his mask nor probable cause to continue with an arrest after the Defendant refused.

      The penal code for GC04 - Face Concealment states that ''An individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas.'' However, it likewise states ''Exemptions apply when facial concealment is worn during masquerades and other entertainment events that are deemed appropriate by the city (such as Halloween), or where there's reasonable cause e.g. motorcycle protection or medical reasons (with documentation from a registered medical practitioner).''

      Given the Deputies own reasoning for stopping the Defendant was ''over failure to comply while he was working road work for refusing to take off his mask'' and the Defendant's assertion that ''he had it on due to the fumes of the situation they were working on'' it is clear that there was no lawful basis to stop the Defendant.

      Reasonable Suspicion can be established by Law Enforcement when there is specific and articulable facts that when taken together with rational inferences from those facts leads a reasonable person to believe a suspect was involved in a crime.

      It is our assertion that Reasonable Suspicion was not met, let alone Probable Cause, a higher standard for arrests and warrants. The Defendant was actively working in a construction site where fumes were present due to a fire, easily meeting the ''reasonable cause'' standard that outlines an exemption under GC04 - Face Concealment. Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had no reason to suspect that a crime had been committed or an infraction had been committed as it is standard for Road Workers to protect themselves with PPE.

      To draw a comparison for the court, it would likewise be unreasonable to detain and/or arrest someone under GC04 if a firefighter was present at a Public Road putting a fire out or ask a paramedic to remove his PPE mask while he treats a patient.

      To conclude, the Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department had a clear picture of the scene as they approached, as they've claimed themselves under Exhibit #1 and Exhibit #3. They saw road workers working to block the road, clear a fire and otherwise complete their jobs as assigned by the State of San Andreas. Deputies with the Los Santos Sheriff's Department unlawfully detained the Defendant while they were fully compliant with the penal code.

      As such, the Defense believes that any an all evidence gathered due to this unlawful arrest is considered Fruit of the Poisonous Tree and should be excluded from discovery.


    Respectfully,

    Oscar Sparrowhill
    Junior Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    465-8380 — [email protected]

Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
RE: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Winejudge,

    With respect to the motion to suppress, the prosecution would like to rebut as follows;

    The deputy is correct. Wearing a mask in public is an infraction of the law and at minimum is a citation, however as the deputy points out, it can be raised to a misdemeanor via failure to comply, which compels an arrest. To even issue a citation, a deputy must have positive ID, which would entail matching the face of a person with their given ID to ensure it is the same. Obviously positive ID cannot be established otherwise (and was compelled in this case via arrest) and so it is lawful for an officer to request the removal of a mask during their interactions.

    Regarding the defendant's claims of fumes, we do not have access to the specific incident that the road workers were responding to, so let us take context clues into account and determine whether Mr. Haswell had a reasonable cause to wear his mask. There is no immediate danger in the bodycam, so the situation must not have been urgent. Second, aside from himself and his accomplice that received the briefcase, nobody else is wearing a mask. All the officers on scene seem perfectly comfortable without one. Additionally, when we see his fellow road workers at 1:22 in exhibit #4, none of them are wearing masks, either. So clearly, either everyone else is an idiot and doesn't understand there are toxic fumes nearby emanating from some hidden source that Mr. Haswell did not specify, or Mr. Haswell has no legitimate reason to wear his mask and is simply trying to hide his identity.

    Mr. Haswell, as a correctional officer at the time and having submitted no medical documents to the court, can only be assumed to be in reasonably good health, and therefore there is also no medical exemption. The defense here would do well to listen to the deputy as he explains the situation in full;

    These deputies were detaining Mr. Haswell over his failure to comply with a lawful order to remove his mask, at the minimum for the duration of the conversation with the deputies. He was given ample time to do so and continuously protested and refused. See the definition of GM10 - Failure to comply/identity;
    Failure to comply with a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, including when he requests you to identify who you are during the course of an investigation.
    Additionally, see the definition of GC04 - Face Concealment
    An individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas. Exemptions apply when facial concealment is worn during masquerades and other entertainment events that are deemed appropriate by the city (such as Halloween), or where there's reasonable cause e.g. motorcycle protection or medical reasons (with documentation from a registered medical practitioner).
    • Private Property owners have the right to refuse and/or allow attendants who wear facial concealment within the boundaries of their property.
    • 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.
    • GM-19 will apply instead of GC-04 for individuals who wear facial concealment in relation to other criminal acts.
    • 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.
    Even if we grant that the fire they had evidently responded to required some sort of mask, the situation thereafter did not, and no immediate danger was present. No medical exemption has been so much as uttered by the defense. I would guess that billions of people have, at some point in their life, been close to an open flame such as a campfire, bonfire, or even an uncontrolled fire, and suffered no ill effects as a result from being in the mere proximity. This is not to suggest that smoke inhalation is harmless, rather that in such small doses and with proper care, it presents infinitesimally small risks to the individual. Therefore, his decision to wear a mask even after any such fumes had long since passed was unlawful and a request to remove it by law enforcement was both reasonable and lawful.

    As such, the detainment and all pieces of evidence following are lawful and admissible in court.

    Respectfully,

    Image
    Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Robert Winejudge

    To address some of the points made by the prosecution.
    The deputy is correct. Wearing a mask in public is an infraction of the law and at minimum is a citation, however as the deputy points out, it can be raised to a misdemeanor via failure to comply, which compels an arrest. To even issue a citation, a deputy must have positive ID, which would entail matching the face of a person with their given ID to ensure it is the same. Obviously positive ID cannot be established otherwise (and was compelled in this case via arrest) and so it is lawful for an officer to request the removal of a mask during their interactions.
    A lawful stop under GC-04 would require either reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed, will be committed or is being committed. It is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to be aware of the laws they are enforcing and expect the citizens of Los Santos to know. GC-04 is NOT an excuse to stop and identify everyone you see with a mask regardless of context. It is clear that a road worker on an active incident would be an exemption to the GC-04 citation as outlined in the penal code.
    Regarding the defendant's claims of fumes, we do not have access to the specific incident that the road workers were responding to, so let us take context clues into account and determine whether Mr. Haswell had a reasonable cause to wear his mask. There is no immediate danger in the bodycam, so the situation must not have been urgent. Second, aside from himself and his accomplice that received the briefcase, nobody else is wearing a mask. All the officers on scene seem perfectly comfortable without one. Additionally, when we see his fellow road workers at 1:22 in exhibit #4, none of them are wearing masks, either. So clearly, either everyone else is an idiot and doesn't understand there are toxic fumes nearby emanating from some hidden source that Mr. Haswell did not specify, or Mr. Haswell has no legitimate reason to wear his mask and is simply trying to hide his identity.
    We maintain that ''reasonable cause'' as outlined under GC-04 had clearly been established as the Defendant was actively employed in his position as a road worker where it is well known that depending on the incident, hazardous substances might be present. Likewise, these workers move from job to job site very often (more than once per hour), it is their choice whether to keep their facial protective equipment on or off. Likewise, I am unsure how the prosecution can assert ''there is no immediate danger in the bodycam'' when we see one Fire Department Ambulance, one Emergency Medical Services ambulance, the entire road closed with barriers and a firefighter at 3:53 in Exhibit #4 wearing a mask for protection, I guess this is just another person who has no ''legitimate reason to wear his mask'' as the prosecution so eloquently put it.
    Mr. Haswell, as a correctional officer at the time and having submitted no medical documents to the court, can only be assumed to be in reasonably good health, and therefore there is also no medical exemption.
    We are unsure why the prosecution is bringing up medical exemptions. We have only spoken about the ''reasonable cause'' exemption. Likewise, the burden of proof is on the prosecution as the one who has charged the Defendant.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
RE: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable winejudge,

    As a rebuttal to the defense's arguments:
    A lawful stop under GC-04 would require either reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a crime has been committed, will be committed or is being committed. It is the responsibility of Law Enforcement to be aware of the laws they are enforcing and expect the citizens of Los Santos to know.
    This is absolutely correct. As stated in the penal code for GC-04;
    An individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas.


    Wearing a mask in public or on city property is in and of itself a crime under the state penal code. Nowhere does it suggest that another crime needs to be committed in order to issue a citation. Citations, as the court well understands, are punishments for an infraction of the law, also known as a crime. See the legislative branch's interpretation of the law for additional confirmation.
    It is clear that a road worker on an active incident would be an exemption to the GC-04 citation as outlined in the penal code.


    It is clear that this incident does not provide an exemption because, as previously stated, the danger had already passed. There was no valid reason to be wearing a mask at the time when the bodycam footage kicks in and the continued refusal is textbook failure to comply/identify.

    Again the prosecution recalls the bodycam footage. If reasonable is taken to mean what a majority of competent individuals would also do in this scenario, we can see that the majority of individuals in the area do not believe they are under any sort of health risk by failing to wear a mask. If we are to assume that the individuals are of sound mind and have a sense of self-preservation, one can only assume that they believe there is no danger is not wearing a mask, meaning it is unreasonable for Mr. Haswell and his associate to be wearing one.

    Additionally, one should not mistake standard issue firefighting gear as having special significance in this particular case.


    Furthermore, exhibit #3 notes that deputies were responding to a situation at LSC and therefore were expected to be around the perimeter. Although the specifics are not known to us, it is nevertheless reasonable for an officer to investigate the nearby area, and, upon witnessing two individuals masked for seemingly no reason, to garner suspicion and request the removal of their face concealment for the purposes of identification in order to potentially exclude them from the alleged crimes at the nearby area.
    We maintain that ''reasonable cause'' as outlined under GC-04 had clearly been established as the Defendant was actively employed in his position as a road worker where it is well known that depending on the incident, hazardous substances might be present.
    Indeed, in that line of work they might be present, but as previously reiterated, in this particular scenario they were not, and so that justification has no merit.
    Likewise, these workers move from job to job site very often (more than once per hour), it is their choice whether to keep their facial protective equipment on or off. Likewise, I am unsure how the prosecution can assert ''there is no immediate danger in the bodycam'' when we see one Fire Department Ambulance, one Emergency Medical Services ambulance, the entire road closed with barriers and a firefighter at 3:53 in Exhibit #4 wearing a mask for protection
    The prosecution would like to add two things.
    • 1. It is indeed their choice to wear their protective equipment at all times and if they are on foot at a public place they will then be charged accordingly because they are in violation of the law no matter how you slice it, just like walking around with a gun out because you fear for your life after receiving a death threat. There exists in both scenarios a certain expectation of restraint that the defendant clearly has not met.

      2. The prosecution can assert that because as previously mentioned, police were called to LSC for an unrelated call, hence the strong presence of law enforcement in the bodycam and likely the ambulance. Secondly, the prosecution is not contesting that a fire may have occurred in the area prior, merely that by the time Mr. Haswell was asked to remove his mask, the fire was dealt with.
    We are unsure why the prosecution is bringing up medical exemptions. We have only spoken about the ''reasonable cause'' exemption. Likewise, the burden of proof is on the prosecution as the one who has charged the Defendant.
    The prosecution notes that it brings up this argument to further demonstrate that Mr. Haswell had no legitimate reason to be wearing a mask and that his refusal to remove it is illogical.


    Respectfully,

    Image
    Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image

San Andreas Judicial Branch

Personal Email
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  • Honorable Robert Winejudge,

    At this time we no longer require our motion for continuance as we were able to get through the evidence sooner than expected. We are ready to proceed at the court's discretion.

    Respectfully,

    Cyrus Raven
    Chief Public Defender
    San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
    5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Roderick Marchisio
Posts: 6247
Joined: Thu May 14, 2020 1:08 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Roderick

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Roderick Marchisio »

Image


San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

  • Honorable Winejudge,

    Is there an update to the above Motion to Suppress, or are we good to schedule a trial?


    Respectfully,


    Attorney General
    Director of Public Notary
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 372-7719 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Robert Winejudge
Judicial Branch
Posts: 429
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2022 10:37 pm
ECRP Forum Name:

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Robert Winejudge »

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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of April, 2023.


First and foremost, I wanted to thank you all for your patience. The defense is looking to suppress ''any part of the exhibits showing or claiming that a briefcase was recovered and it's alleged content such as any firearm or bullet casings.'' They argue that the LSSD at the time of Mr Haswell's detainment, had neither resonable suspicion to detain him, nor probable cause to continue with the arrest. The Prosecution argues that since wearing a mask in public is a violation of GC04 - Face Concealment, to issue the citation, the deputies needed to confirm positive ID of the individual. Therefore, they state that the officer was within his rights to ''request'' the removal of the mask, during their interactions.

First of all, the mask issue. Because of the harsh conditions of the incident where toxic fumes could have been emitted like heavy smoke, and the burning fuel, the court has determined that Frank Haswell's face concealment was lawful, and an exception at that time. Furthermore, Mr Haswell was not suspected of committing a specific crime, he could not be compelled to remove his face concealment without a valid reason.

To conclude, Mr. Haswell was under no legal obligation to comply with a seemingly separate investigation that law enforcement was conducting. The court believes that due to this, his arrest was unlawful. Therefore, I will be partially granting the Motion to Supress submitted by the defense. The contents of the briefcase in question will be suppressed as the court has determined that law enforcement officers did not establish probable cause that a crime had been committed and therefore, Mr. Haswell's arrest was unlawful and the evidence found as a result of the search of the briefcase is subject to suppression. However, as the briefcase itself was in plain view throughout the situation, it is not subject to suppression. Regarding the Motion to Amend by the prosecution, the amend for GF16 - Tampering with Evidence will be allowed, however without evidence for the WF04 - Unlicensed transfer of firearms, ammunition and body armor charge, the charge cannot be pursued.


Image
Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 372-4223 — [email protected]
Image
Image
User avatar
Cyrus Raven
Posts: 1982
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:14 pm
ECRP Forum Name: Cyrus Raven

LSPD Awards for Service

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Cyrus Raven »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO DISMISS


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Motion to Dismiss was filed in the above case on the 14th of April, 2023.


The Defendant, Frank Haswell, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Dismiss, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: Failure to meet burden of proof.
    • Detailed Explanation: Given the recent ruling by the court, we request the dismissal of the charges against the Defendant with prejudice. The prosecution is unable to meet their burden of proof as the contents of the briefcase have been ruled as fruits of the poisonous tree given the unlawful arrest carried out by Law Enforcement.




Cyrus Raven
Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch - Command
5356160 — [email protected]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image



San Andreas Judicial Branch

Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL


IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Motion to Stay Pending Appeal was filed in the above case on the 15th of April, 2023


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Stay Pending Appeal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: The Prosecution in this case has initiated an appeal within the San Andreas Court of Appeals following the latest Court Decision.




Image
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 219-6537 — [email protected][/list]
Image
User avatar
Greg Kumerow
Posts: 330
Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2023 8:44 am
ECRP Forum Name: Doctor_Diddler

SAJB Awards

Re: #23-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Frank Haswell

Post by Greg Kumerow »

Image



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. Frank Haswell
#23-CM-0036

A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 10th of May, 2023


The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;


  • Reasoning: LOA
    • Detailed Explanation: I will be on LOA starting the 12th through the 19th.



Image
Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 219-6537 — [email protected]
Image
Locked

Return to “SAJB - Archived Criminal Cases”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests