Eclipse Government

• Physical evidence

• Physical evidence

• Witness statement

• Digital evidence

• Witness statement

• WM02 - Possession of an Unlicensed Firearm

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

An individual may not be present on foot and wear facial concealment in public or on the property of San Andreas.

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.

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

• 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.

• 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.

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