#23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Honorable Hugh Allgood and all other parties,

Your Honor,

We await the result of the prosecution's attempt to inquire about the names of the officers involved in the backup request.

Respectfully,



Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
#23-CM-0086, Sate of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties,
  
  Upon reaching out to the Los Santos Police Department, the prosecution was again informed that Officer Andollini is no longer employed by the department. The Los Santos Police Department also made mention that this incident occurred an extended period of time ago, and as such, they are unable to request a statement from him in order to acquire the names of other officers potentially present whom would have responded to Andollini's backup request.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Junior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 9th of September, 2024

The Defendant, Bongo Haze, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Bongo Haze, Witness Statement
  Spoiler

  I had just woke up and was on my way to LSC to repair my car. I had pulled out of del perro on the way to LSC admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH and had gotten pulled over. At that point i immediately pulled over and showed the officer my license. The officer went back to his vehicle and started waiting for backup which ended up being about 4 other police vehicles. Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster. I asked if i was arrested and he stated "Not if there is anything in the vehicle" i became scared and asked "If i don't let you search my vehicle you're going to taze me?!" to which he responded "yes, if you don't exit the vehicle". At that moment i fled in my vehicle and had gotten away. I then went to some of my family member's and spoke to them about the situation at which point they had told me to turn myself in and so they gave me a ride to Mission row. Dale Ashcroft met us there with me on my knees, hands on my head willingly turning myself in.
  

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jacob Schmidtt, affirm that the above statement was presented to me by the defendant and 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,
    
    
    Defense Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]
  
  
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 10th of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #: Exhibit #1: Bongo Haze, Witness Statement, Motion for Discovery
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  I had just woke up and was on my way to LSC to repair my car. I had pulled out of del perro on the way to LSC admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH and had gotten pulled over. At that point i immediately pulled over and showed the officer my license. The officer went back to his vehicle and started waiting for backup which ended up being about 4 other police vehicles. Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster. I asked if i was arrested and he stated "Not if there is anything in the vehicle" i became scared and asked "If i don't let you search my vehicle you're going to taze me?!" to which he responded "yes, if you don't exit the vehicle". At that moment i fled in my vehicle and had gotten away. I then went to some of my family member's and spoke to them about the situation at which point they had told me to turn myself in and so they gave me a ride to Mission row. Dale Ashcroft met us there with me on my knees, hands on my head willingly turning myself in.

  • Detailed Reasoning: The prosecution is requesting to suppress the entirety of the witness statement as testimonies or witness statements must use the correct format with the witness affirmation to be admissible in court. Per Judge Daniels in #22-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Hailee Joyce, Exhibit 3: Witness Statement - Luca Andollini (in this previous case) "will not be allowed as it uses the incorrect witness statement without the witness affirmation at the bottom. This ruling will set precedent that any testimony or witness statement must have the affirmation to be admissible in court".

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9981 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Apologies to the Prosecution and to the courts. The witness affirmation should have been provided when the witness statement was provided. It has been fixed and included with the statement.


Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  I will be granting the prosecution's motion to suppress on two grounds;
  
  First, the initial submission from the defense contains a purported statement, which was not completed using the accepted witness statement form. This is at the heart of the prosecution's motion, and this Court will take notice of judicial precedence as cited by the prosecution in #22-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Hailee Joyce wherein the Presiding Judge established, "any testimony or witness statement must have the affirmation to be admissible in court"
  
  Secondly, the amended submission by the defense is still not on the correct witness statement form, and contains an affirmation by defense counsel that the statement was received by the defendant. The witness statement AND affirmation must be completed by the person making the statement, in this case the defendant, as it's this affirmation and the penalties of perjury that come with it that make a statement acceptable in court. In its current face, defense counsel presenting a statement told to him by the defendant is a clear case of hearsay.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch #23-CM-0086, State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  And the Court believes the prosecution has made a good-faith effort to fulfil the Defense's request for discoverable evidence. The Court will now move to schedule this matter for a docket trial, as previously announced.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

I will have the defendant fill out the affirmation immediately and resubmit the statement if it pleases the court.


Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 12th of September, 2024

Honorable Judge Allgood,

• We the Defense in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.

  ---

  State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
  Assigned Court Case Number: 23-CM-0086
  Party Members: Bongo Haze

  ---

  Exhibit #3: Defendant
  Type of Discovery: Witness Statement
  Spoiler

  All Information from the Discovery Witness statement by the defendant in regards to the events in question]

  • 
    Witness Statement

    

    

    
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    Official Witness Statement
    "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

    Case Information

    • Case Number: [23-CM-00086]
      Incident Date: [22/JUN/2023]

    Witness Information

    • Name: Bongo Haze
      Date of Birth: [05/Sep/1998]
      Phone Number: [587-8283]
      Occupation: [Unemployed]

    Witness Statement

    • [I had just woke up and was on my way to LSC to repair my car. I had pulled out of del perro on the way to LSC admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH and had gotten pulled over. At that point i immediately pulled over and showed the officer my license to the officer. The officer went back to his vehicle and started waiting for backup which ended up being about 4 other police vehicles. Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster. I asked if i was arrested and he stated "Not if there isn't anything in the vehicle" i became scared and asked "If i don't let you search my vehicle you're going to taze me?!" to which he responded "yes, if you don't exit the vehicle". At that moment i fled in my vehicle and had gotten away. I then went to some of my family member's and spoke to them about the situation at which point they had told me to turn myself in and so they gave me a ride to Mission row. Dale Ashcroft met us there with me on my knees, hands on my head willingly turning myself in.]

    Witness Affirmation

    • I, [Bongo Haze], 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 coersion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))
      
      Signed,
      
      
      Bongo Haze
      Date: [12/Sep/2023]

    
    
    ]
  
  
  
  

  ---

Sincerely,


Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

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. Defendant
#23-CM-0086

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 16th of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Suppress, and requests to following be suppressed from evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Defendant Witness Statement
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster. I asked if i was arrested and he stated "Not if there is anything in the vehicle" i became scared and asked "If i don't let you search my vehicle you're going to taze me?!" to which he responded "yes, if you don't exit the vehicle"

  • Detailed Reasoning: Relevance
    It has already been confirmed in both the arrest report and officer witness statement that the defendant was clocked going at speeds over two times the legal limit (218 km/hr in an 80km/hr zone), this speed would be considered entirely reckless, and therefore result in an arrest. Whether an officer chooses to be lenient or not in a situation is up to the officers discretion in the moment, and has zero baring in the court. I believe this portion of the statement should be suppressed in regards to it's relevance, because the officers consideration of lenience in the moment does not dismiss that the defendant was driving at reckless speeds, and as such this information within the witness statement is being used as a distraction that does not pertain to the legal matter and charges at hand.
    
    
    
    
    
    Junior Prosecuting Attorney
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    (909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

Honorable Judge Allgood,

The prosecution argues that this statement should be suppressed on the grounds of relevance, claiming that the officer's discretion in the moment is not pertinent to the charges at hand. I respectfully submit that this statement should not be suppressed.

The defendant's statement is highly relevant as it sheds light on the officer's conduct during the traffic stop and the circumstances leading up to the defendant's decision to flee the scene. The officer's actions, as described by the defendant, include a threat of physical force, specifically the use of a taser, to compel compliance. This information goes to the heart of the defendant's defense and raises concerns about the lawfulness of the officer's conduct during the traffic stop.

The defendant's account of the officer's statements and actions during the traffic stop is essential to show that the officer's conduct was unlawful and his orders should be viewed as such. It shows that the officer's conduct constituted coercion and intimidation, which influenced the defendant's decision to flee the scene. This information directly pertains to the legality of the officer's actions and the charges against the defendant.

The defendant's statement highlights an important legal principle: the interaction between law enforcement and citizens during traffic stops. Even if the defendant was driving at excessive speeds, the officer's use of force and threats to obtain compliance show that the officer was not acting lawfully, and allowed the defendant to ignore said orders. This is a fundamental legal issue that is highly relevant to the case.

In summary, the defendant's statement is not a distraction and a critical piece of evidence. It provides context for the defendant's decision to flee the scene and raises concerns about the lawfulness of the officer's conduct. As such, we request that the court reject the prosecution's argument to suppress this statement.

Respectfully,

---

Sincerely,


Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0086 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  The Court will be denying the prosecution's motion to suppress on two grounds.
  
  First, the relevance of the defendant's own statement cannot be understated. The defendant is telling their narrative of events about the situation for which they have been charged, and the defendant is making a very important waiver of their Fifth Amendment right to do so. More importantly, the defendant is speaking about the specific situation for which these charges arose, and therefore it is relevant. The argument for relevance is better suited for evidence about something entirely unrelated to a situation. Secondly, the defense through this discovery is presenting evidence that is evidently going to be vital to their defense, which the Court will not be limiting their ability to do.
  
  This decision should not, however, be construed as the Court accepting the statement one way or the other. The Court is merely making a decision on the admissibility of the evidence, and not the weight of the evidence. The prosecution is invited to further examine this evidence during the prosecution's case in chief.
  
  Although it was previously announced this case would be conducted via docket trial, this Court reminds both parties that a change of venue can be considered if parties would rather have this case conducted in-person. Barring any such motion, this case will now move into the trial phase, and a notice of docket trial will follow this posting.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A docket trial for the above case has commenced on the 18th of September, 2023.

In accordance with Docket Trial procedure established by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this trial has hereby commenced and any subsequent submissions must adhere to previously established procedure.

The prosecution now has 48 hours to present opening arguments for review by the court, and once received, the defense has 48 hours to present opening arguments of their own. Each subsequent post of this trial has a deadline of 48 hours since the previous submission unless reasonable circumstances require the use of a Motion for Continuance.



Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Opening Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The prosecution's opening argument was filed in the above case on the 18th of September, 2023.

Honorable Judge Allgood and pertaining parties; I Kendall Groyce, on behalf of the State of San Andreas thank you for handling these court proceedings. On the 21st of July 2023, the defendant, Bongo Haze, was clocked going the reckless speed of 218 kilometers per hour, a speed at which one could not safely control their vehicle, in an 80 kilometers per hour zone. The defendant even admits to driving at exceedingly high and dangerous speeds, estimating that he was going at least double over the legal speed limit before getting pulled over. Mister Haze then made the conscious and purposeful choice, to not comply with the officers demands to exit the vehicle, and fled the scene in his vehicle.

The prosecution has provided the arrest report and officer witness statement to prove the charges of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, and VF01 - Evading an Officer, in addition to the Defense provided witness statement in which the defendant admits his guilt to driving reckless speeds and evading the officers during their attempt to arrest him. This is an exceptionally straight forward case, and we ask that the court look at the facts of this case when considering a verdict- that the defendant was driving reckless speeds, and he disobeyed lawful orders and evaded, proving his guilt of the charges placed by the officer on this arrest.




Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Opening Statement

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The defense's opening argument was filed in the above case on the 19th of September, 2023.

Honorable Judge Allgood and members of the court,

We, the defense, acknowledge the seriousness of the charges brought against the defendant, Bongo Haze. In our justice system, every individual is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of the circumstances. It is our duty to ensure that this happens.

As the prosecution stated in their opening statement Mr. Haze was driving at an excessive speed. We do not deny this. The defendant himself admitted this, but that is not why we are here. We are here because of the absurd and excessive use of force by the officer in question. The intimidation Mr. Haze experience during this traffic stop and the illegality of the demands made by the officer.

We contest the characterization of this case as "exceptionally straightforward." Our justice system is built on the principle of "innocent until proven guilty," and it is the prosecution's burden to prove Mr. Haze's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

We will explore circumstances surrounding the traffic stop in detail, including the officer's actions and the events that led up to Mr. Haze's decision to leave the scene. We will show the the officer was not acting in accordance with the law, and that Mr. Haze, which his actions may have been reckless, acted in fear of his life.

Lastly, we will address the defense-provided witness statement in which Mr. Haze allegedly admits his guilt. We will provide context and seek to clarify the circumstances surrounding any such statement, as well as the defendant's state of mind at the time.



Thank you.

---

Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0086 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  Thank you to both sides for presenting their opening statements in a timely manner. The Court will now invite the prosecution to present their case-in-chief. As soon as this is published, the defense may cross-examine the case within 48 hours.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

PROSECUTION CASE-IN-CHIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this case-in-chief, and presents the following arguments and evidence analysis;

---

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report Bongo Haze, Los Santos Police Department
  
  Bongo Haze Arrest Report - 21/JUN/2023

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department WARRANT REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Bongo Haze
      Phone Number: 5878283
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer III+1 Luca Andollini
      Charges:
      • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
      • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • The individual was pulled over on Boulevard Del Perro after being clocked speeding at 218 km/h.
        They were identified and asked to step out of the vehicle which they ignored, turned the engine off and drove off. The pursuit was called in but the suspect was lost.
      Method of Identification
      • LICENSE
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Illegal evidence must be documented individually, examples of documented illegal evidence are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Body camera footage/pictures may be attached as an evidence exhibit.
      
      Where possible the serial number of each firearm seized as evidence should be noted.
      • Illegal Evidence:
        
        
        Photograph of possessions in evidence locker (if applicable)

  

  Exhibit #1 - The arrest report of the defendant as provided by Police Officer III+1 Luca Andollini of the Los Santos Police Department. This document outlines the charges placed on the defendant by the aforementioned officer and also includes the rationale for doing so. The report details a speed of 218 kilometers/hour, clocked on officer Andollini's speed radar, prompting the traffic stop and issuance of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. Following identification of the defendant, they were asked to exit the vehicle, a demand that was subsequently ignored and the defendant proceeded to evade the scene to attempt to avoid arrest.
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #2: Witness State of Luca Andollini, Los Santos Police Department
  Police Officer III+1 Luca Andollini Witness Statement

  

  

  
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  Official Witness Statement
  "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 22/JUN/2023

  Witness Information

  • Name: Luca Andollini
    Date of Birth: 06/JUN/1995
    Phone Number: 530 8359
    Occupation: Police Officer III+1, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • As I was patrolling the city, I was driving on South Boulevard Del Perro and was about to merge on Boulevard Del Perro from the west side of the Lifeinvader building. As per usual, my mini MDC with speed camera was up and running and suddenly, a purple jugular sped past me at said speed written in the warrant report. I immediately turned on my sirens and went after them when they stopped after the intersection with Dorset Drive.
    I called for additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest due to high speeds.
    I approached the driver and asked them to remove their mask and show me the license, which they did. I asked them to step out of the vehicle at least two times after which they turned on the engine of the vehicle and evaded.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Luca Andollini, 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,
    
    
    Luca Andollini
    Police Officer III+1
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 13/JUL/2023

  

  Exhibit #2 - The Witness Statement made by Police Officer III+1 Luca Andollini is the officer's detailed first-person account of the traffic stop. Officer Andollini outlines clocking the defendant speeding past and the initiation of a traffic stop due to the high speeds provided in the arrest report. Officer Andollini then states "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest due to high speeds", this statement displays the officers intent to arrest the defendant for the crime that had been committed (VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle) prior to the initiation of any conversation with the defendant and any subsequent charges being considered. The witness statement continues to explain the initial compliance of the defendant during the traffic stop; the defendant provided identification when asked to do so, but when asked to exit the vehicle numerous times the defendant failed to comply with the officers demands and instead evaded the scene.
  
  
  Sincerely,
  
  Junior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 21th of September, 2023.

The Defendant, Bongo Haze, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests the following be stricken from the record;

• Phrase being objected to:

  Following identification of the defendant, they were asked to exit the vehicle, a demand that was subsequently ignored and the defendant proceeded to evade the scene to attempt to avoid arrest.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Testifying. The prosecution is not presenting the facts of the case and is drawing conclusions based on the witness statement. The prosecution is making assumptions to the defendant's intent in this matter and attributing guilt where there is none.

• Phrase being objected to:

  Officer Andollini then states "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest due to high speeds", this statement displays the officers intent to arrest the defendant for the crime that had been committed (VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle) prior to the initiation of any conversation with the defendant and any subsequent charges being considered.

  
  
  • Detailed Reasoning: Testifying. Again the prosecution is drawing conclusions that are not provided in the witness report. The report might state that he called an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest, but the lack of bodycam footage and corroborating witnesses from the multiple units that responded to the call bring this into question. At this point all we can say for sure is that the witness called for backup units and was considering a misdemeanor arrest, not that he intended to do so.

Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

San Andreas Judicial Branch 23-CM-0086 "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Counselors
  
  The Court has received the objection from the defense. The Court will now give the prosecution time (within 48 hours) to respond to the defense objection.

---

Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

PROSECUTION RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

With regards to the first phrase being objected to, the prosecution wishes to clarify the phrase:

Following identification of the defendant, they were asked to exit the vehicle, a demand that was subsequently ignored and the defendant proceeded to evade the scene to attempt to avoid arrest.

The prosecution would like to add that we are not testifying or drawing assumptions, but instead reiterating what the narrative of the arrest report states. After being pulled over, the defendant was identified and asked to exit their vehicle per the incident narrative of the arrest report, this is not assumed or proposed by the prosecution, but a restatement of the evidence accepted by the jury, as it was never suppressed during the posting of initial discovery.


With regards to the second phrase being objected to:

Officer Andollini then states "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest due to high speeds", this statement displays the officers intent to arrest the defendant for the crime that had been committed (VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle) prior to the initiation of any conversation with the defendant and any subsequent charges being considered.

The prosecution does not agree with the objection, in both the witness statement provided by the defendant, and the officer's witness statement, the officer calling for backup has been mentioned. While the statement may not necessarily say "intent", the officer clarifies in his witness statement as quoted above, "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest". Again, the prosecution is not testifying on behalf of anyone, or making assumptions about the officer's actions in the moment, but instead reiterating what he confirmed in the witness statement. Once more, the officer did not state, "I was thinking about arresting him" or, "I was considering arresting him" but Officer Andollini states in his witness statement, "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest." The defense is actively mischaracterizing the evidence presented by the prosecution by stating, "At this point all we can say for sure is that the witness called for backup units and was considering a misdemeanor arrest, not that he intended to do so."

While the defense references a lack of bodycam and corroborating witness statements, the prosecution would like to note that it is not standard procedure for the units responding to this backup call to also exit their vehicles and approach the traffic stop. Any witness statements provided from an additional unit would not be able to verify anything said during this stop, but instead, these witness statements would elaborate on the parting from the scene when the evasion began. Lastly, regarding the defense's statement on the lack of body camera footage and absence of additional statements, regardless of any additional officer actions during this traffic stop, no one other than the officer that initiated this stop, Officer Andollini, whose statement we have above, could confirm the intent of the officer who began this traffic stop. Lastly, regarding the defense's statement on the lack of body camera footage and absence of additional statements, regardless of any additional officer actions during this traffic stop, no one other than the officer that initiated this stop, Officer Andollini, whose statement we have above, could confirm the intent of the officer who began this traffic stop.

Sincerely,

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of September, 2023.

The Court has reviewed the defense objection to the prosecution's case-in-chief, and issues this decision in response.

Objection #1: The defense objects to the statement, "Following identification of the defendant, they were asked to exit the vehicle, a demand that was subsequently ignored and the defendant proceeded to evade the scene to attempt to avoid arrest." as the defense claims the prosecution is drawing their own opinions based upon the witness statement and making assumptions based on the intent of the defendant.

The Court will be sustaining the objection in part, as it pertains to the specific statement, "to attempt to avoid arrest", which the prosecution already proactively clarified their statement in-line with this decision. The Court agrees that at this stage of the trial, the prosecution may not use speculation, and must adhere to the evidence as they are laid out. The rest of this statement can remain, as this information is contained within the exhibit itself.

Objection #2: The defense objects to the statement, "Officer Andollini then states "I called for an additional unit for a misdemeanor arrest due to high speeds", this statement displays the officers intent to arrest the defendant for the crime that had been committed (VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle) prior to the initiation of any conversation with the defendant and any subsequent charges being considered." as the defense claims the prosecution to be drawing an inference about the intent of the Officer mentioned in the statement, but does so without a direct relation to the exhibit.

The Court will be overruling the objection. The statement regarding Officer Andollini's intent on effecting a misdemeanor arrest is directly mentioned in the witness statement, therefore, the prosecution has not erred in mentioning this to be the intent of the Officer. Therefore, the proper foundation was laid. The absence of body camera footage is a matter that the defense can argue or rebut either during their closing argument or their own case-in-chief.

The defense may now present their case-in-chief within 48 hours.


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 235-6076 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

Defense CASE-IN-CHIEF

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this case-in-chief, and presents the following arguments and evidence analysis;

---

Exhibit #3

Witness Statement

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

Case Information

• Case Number: [23-CM-00086]
  Incident Date: [22/JUN/2023]

Witness Information

• Name: Bongo Haze
  Date of Birth: [05/Sep/1998]
  Phone Number: [587-8283]
  Occupation: [Unemployed]

Witness Statement

• [I had just woke up and was on my way to LSC to repair my car. I had pulled out of del perro on the way to LSC admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH and had gotten pulled over. At that point i immediately pulled over and showed the officer my license to the officer. The officer went back to his vehicle and started waiting for backup which ended up being about 4 other police vehicles. Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster. I asked if i was arrested and he stated "Not if there isn't anything in the vehicle" i became scared and asked "If i don't let you search my vehicle you're going to taze me?!" to which he responded "yes, if you don't exit the vehicle". At that moment i fled in my vehicle and had gotten away. I then went to some of my family member's and spoke to them about the situation at which point they had told me to turn myself in and so they gave me a ride to Mission row. Dale Ashcroft met us there with me on my knees, hands on my head willingly turning myself in.

Witness Affirmation

• I, [Bongo Haze], 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 coersion. ((I affirm that all information submitted has been obtained via In-Character means.))

We are here to examine the events of that day in question when my client, Bongo Haze, found himself in a high-speed traffic stop that escalated into a situation where he felt compelled to flee in fear for his safety.

On that day, Mr. Haze had just woken up and was on his way to Los Santos Customs to repair his vehicle.. He admits that he was driving at an excessive speed, and he takes responsibility for that action. When he was pulled over by Officer Andollini, he complied with the officer's request to show his license, demonstrating a willingness to cooperate. A willingness that would have continued if not for the actions of that very officer.

Officer Andollini made an offer that raises many concerns about coercion and the lawfulness of his statement. He proposed that Mr. Haze could avoid additional charges by consenting to a search of his vehicle. It's crucial to remember that my client's refusal to consent to a search is well within his rights as a citizen.

What follows is a critical point in this case. Officer Andollini, while making this offer, drew his Taser, a use of force that escalated the situation dramatically and goes counter to the policies of the LSPD and their use of force continuum. When Mr. Haze asked if he was under arrest, he was told that he would not be arrested if there was nothing in the vehicle. But this created a deeply distressing scenario – my client felt he had no choice but to comply with the officer's request, under the implicit threat of Taser deployment.

Faced with this alarming situation, Mr. Haze made a difficult decision to flee, fearing for his safety. It was only after seeking counsel from his family that he voluntarily turned himself in, demonstrating his commitment to facing the consequences of his initial speeding violation.

The prosecution must rely on the statement of one officer out of the multiples on the scene. An officer that was unable or unwilling to provide body camera footage and who had no corroborating witnesses.

Added to all of this as well, we raise the question of charge stacking. Mr Haze was charged with three crimes: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
VF01 - Evading an Officer
VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

We the defense will state that Evading an officer carries the charge of both misdemeanors, and that adding them to the charges was entirely pointless, we therefore would seek that a judge clarify this matter for both the prosecution, and the law enforcement offices.

Respectfully,


Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

OBJECTION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

An Objection was filed in the above case on the 26th of September, 2023.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection, and requests to following be stricken from the record;

• Statement being objected to:

  It's crucial to remember that my client's refusal to consent to a search is well within his rights as a citizen.

  • Detailed Reasoning: The prosecution has more than proved at this point that the traffic stop was initiated for reckless driving. The defendant even admits in his official witness statement to "admittedly going pretty fast about 160 MPH". Both parties agree that the defendant was, at this point, liable for the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle. This means that the officer had every right to search the vehicle and the driver, as it was used in a crime.
  
  Statement being objected to:

  Officer Andollini, while making this offer, drew his Taser, a use of force that escalated the situation dramatically and goes counter to the policies of the LSPD and their use of force continuum.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Facts not in evidence. The Defense is misquoting and misrepresenting their own evidence. To quote "Once all of the backup officers arrived, the officer came back and had told me that i would just be getting a speeding ticket IF i let him search the vehicle, at this point i told the officer that if a speeding ticket is all that i was getting he did not have the right to search my vehicle. After i stated this to him he said "This can go one of two ways, I can either give you a speeding ticket and search the vehicle or i can give you reckless and we search the vehicle anyway" While pulling his taser out of his holster.". The prosecution would also like to bring into question the Defense's expertise in the protocols and policies of the LSPD, including their policies on "the force continuum".
  
  Statement being objected to:

  But this created a deeply distressing scenario – my client felt he had no choice but to comply with the officer's request, under the implicit threat of Taser deployment.

  • Detailed Reasoning: Facts not in evidence. The defendant did not comply, in fact, all the facts that have been provided in evidence, prove that he ran from the taser. Additionally, we would like to note that a taser is not a deadly weapon. Typically one could hear police officers stating "switching to non-lethal" prior to deploying their taser, This means the defendants life was not at stake.
  
  Statement being objected to:

  The prosecution must rely on the statement of one officer out of the multiples on the scene. An officer that was unable or unwilling to provide body camera footage and who had no corroborating witnesses.
  
  Added to all of this as well, we raise the question of charge stacking. Mr Haze was charged with three crimes: GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
  VF01 - Evading an Officer
  VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
  
  We the defense will state that Evading an officer carries the charge of both misdemeanors, and that adding them to the charges was entirely pointless, we therefore would seek that a judge clarify this matter for both the prosecution, and the law enforcement offices.

  • Detailed Reasoning: A case-in-chief is to review evidence, not to argue your point to the court. This statement should be saved for opening and closing statements. Furthermore, the prosecution would like to note that something the defense has heavily leaned on throughout this case is that there is no body camera footage within the evidence. All of these statements that the defense is claiming the officer made, were written from a witness statement signed on the 12th of September for a case that started on the 22nd of June. In this witness statement, the defendant claims to remember specific quotes from an officer.

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]

[Jacob Schmidtt]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

DEFENSE RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

In regards to the first objection, we maintain that while the traffic stop was initiated due to reckless driving, the act of speeding alone does not grant an officer the automatic right to search a vehicle. The Fourth Amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The prosecution's argument fails to acknowledge that consent is a fundamental principle in search and seizure law. Even if Mr. Haze was liable for reckless driving, it does not automatically authorize a vehicle search without proper consent or other lawful justification, which the defense argues he did not have.

In regards to the second: The defense contends that the use of a Taser by Officer Andollini in this situation is a key point of contention. While it's true that a Taser is generally considered non-lethal force, the context in which it was used matters. Drawing a Taser during a routine traffic stop, particularly when making a search request, can be seen as an escalation of force that is contrary to law enforcement protocols. The defense does not dispute the description of events provided in the statement and does not claim that a Taser is lethal but rather highlights that its use was perceived as an attempt to coerce compliance by the defendant

With regards to the following phrase being objected to, the defense will clarify the statement.
Statement being objected to:

But this created a deeply distressing scenario – my client felt that had no choice but to comply with the officer's request, under the implicit threat of Taser deployment. he had no choice but to comply with the officers request or he would be tazed.

In regards to the third objection: The defense acknowledges that Mr. Haze did flee the scene but argues that this action was taken out of fear and a sense of having no choice, rather than a willingness to evade justice. It is essential to consider the defendant's perspective in the situation. When faced with an officer who had drawn a Taser and presented two undesirable choices, Mr. Haze made a difficult decision to flee to protect his well-being. This does not imply guilt or intent to evade arrest.

In regards to the fourth and last objection: The defense brings up the absence of body camera footage as a relevant point regarding the reliability of Officer Andollini's account. The defense is well within its rights to raise questions about the credibility of the officer's statement in the absence of corroborating evidence. The prosecution further states that my witness is unable to remember threats that the officer uttered due to the length of time. However, though the witness statement was signed and presented into evidence on that date, the statement itself was provided much earlier and has not changed since that time.



Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 309-8976 — [email protected]

[Kendall Groyce]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

PROSECUTION RESPONSE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bongo Haze
#23-CM-0086

Your honor, the Prosecution does not understand why we are here arguing this point today. The Defense in their first sentence admits that the defendant was stopped because of his reckless driving. If ANY officer applies the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, they are required to take that person into custody. When they take someone into custody, they search not only their person but also the vehicle used in the crime. None of these things are new information for either the defense or their client. These are also all lawful procedures in accordance with our constitution, the Defense should be aware of this as it is covered in our training for the Judicial Branch, the BAR examination, our SAJB handbook, etc. Specifically in reference to moments where a search warrant is NOT required to search a person and/or their vehicle. Once again, the charge of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle comes with a 20-month sentencing to be served in prison or jail pending other applied charges.

The Defense states that the officer was threatening the defendant with the use of a non-lethal object. This sentence alone begs the question as to how this argument can even be acknowledged in a court of law, allowing this to be a valid argument would set a precedent, meaning that every accused person moving forward can run from a taser claiming they felt "threatened" by non-lethal force. The Defense states that this escalation would be unwarranted for a "routine" stop, but in fact, this was a traffic stop initiated for reckless operation, an arrestable offense, and the defendant evaded from a completely legal stop after failing to comply with an officer's orders to leave the vehicle. The defense may put whatever spin on it they would like, but those are the facts of the case.

The prosecution one-hundred percent agrees with the statement, "my client felt that he had no choice but to comply with the officer's request or he would be tazed". That is correct, as when you are being pulled over for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle you are required to serve time in jail. Meaning you must comply with officers as they detain, search, and imprison you. If you fail to comply with these lawful orders, then you will be met with some force.

The defense cannot use statements such as "It is essential to consider the defendant's perspective in the situation." as this is breaking the Golden Rule. This statement asks the Judge to detract from the position of non-bias, letting personal feelings play a part in their ruling as opposed to the facts and evidence presented, and put themselves in the shoes of the defendant. We have not asked the Judge to put themselves in the shoes of the Prosecution. We would ask that the defense behave accordingly.

In regards to the final statement made by the Defense, it would appear as if they did not take the time to read and comprehend what the Prosecution had posted; as the Prosecution did not claim they could not make these arguments, but that the case-in-chief is not the place to make them. As stated in our handbook and reviewed in training; the case-in-chief is to be reserved for an overview of the evidence. The evidence presented by the defense had nothing to do with the lack of bodycam provided by the Prosecution, and continuously arguing this point within the case-in-chief is inappropriate.

It is also inappropriate to bring up previous evidence that was ruled inadmissible by a Judge. When the defense states "However, though the witness statement was signed and presented into evidence on that date, the statement itself was provided much earlier and has not changed since that time." They are completely ignoring a previous ruling by the Judge when the initial witness statement was ruled inadmissible, and the Defendant provided an updated statement for the court.

Sincerely,

Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 489-9881 — [email protected]