#24-CM-0024, State of San Andreas v. Stelio Bathsheba

[David Vespucci]

Defendant Name: Stelio Bathsheba
Defendant Phone: 525-5342
Defendant Address: 67 and 68 Route 68
(( Defendant Discord: wootbeerfloat ))
Requested Attorney: N/A

Charging Department: LSSD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 09/01/2024 19:39
Charge(s):

• GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property
• VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

Narrative:
As a government appointed attorney by the State of San Andreas, I, David Coast. Am filing this on behalf on my client Stelio Bathsheba who cannot write so I will be scribing for him

"I was driving through the hills in the mountains on senora and I hit a little hill and I ended up on the incorrect lane on the highway and as soon as I tried to correct myself A deputy had passed and lighted me up, I pulled over on the correct lane and he got my license and I turned off my motorbike and he arrested me for Reckless Driving and Failure to pay fines and when they searched me they found some money and I didn't understand cause I got given it from a reward from someone I helped when his car was getting stolen he told me to buy some strawberries dunkeroos and chocolate milk and then the police officer said it was stolen property. The deputy wouldn't listen to me and was being rude, he was being a boofa."

---

I, David Coast, 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. ))

[Robert Winejudge]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 10th of January, 2024.

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.



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

[Mary Burrows]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 9th of January, 2023.

I, Mary Burrows, Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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


Public Defense Attorney
Notary Clerk
Training and Hiring Staff
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 339-5979 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 10/JAN/2024.

I, Hope Kant, Attorney General of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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


Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

[David Vespucci]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 25/JAN/2024

I, David Coast, a Junior Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing The Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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


Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 593-1338— [email protected]

[Shaun Harper]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 11 of April, 2024.

I, Shaun Harper, Chief Public Defender with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba in the underlying case.

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


Chief Public Defender
Director of Training & Hiring
Notary Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 308-7889 — [email protected]

[Bret Hyland]

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. Stelio Bathsheba
#24-CM-0024

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 21st day of May, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Defendant is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0024.


Both the State and Defendant in this case are still awaiting adequate representation. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned for the Defendant and a State Prosecutor has been assigned to the case and both parties inform the court they are ready to proceed.


In accordance with guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court of San Andreas, this case shall require an in-person trial. Once all pretrial matters have been resolved, a Notice of Scheduling will be issued to arrange an appropriate time for trial.



Superior Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 225-3056 — [email protected]

[Al Triton]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 21st of May, 2024.

I, Al Triton, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Stelio Bathsheba, in the underlying case.

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


Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on 22/MAY/2024.

I, Hope Kant, Attorney General of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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


Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Terry Williams]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 22nd of May, 2024.

I, Terence Williams, a Prosecuting Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the State of San Andreas in the underlying case.

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



Terence Williams
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terry Williams]

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. Stelio Bathsheba

#24-CM-0024

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 22nd of May, 2024.

The State of San Andreas by and through the undersigned attorney(s), filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stelio Bathsheba 09/JAN/24

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Stelio Bathsheba
    Telephone Number: 5255342
    Licenses Revoked: No
    Charges:
    • GM05 - Receiving Stolen Property
    • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    • GM16 - Failure to Pay a Fine
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: Pink Manchez R/O Stelio Bathsheba

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Lester Conway
    Badge Number: 20984
    Callsign: 11-R-28

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-01-09
    Deputies Involved: N/A
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Suspect was seen driving incorrect side of highway and was stopped. after he was arrested marked money was found on his person and in his vehicle

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
    Exhibit A:
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  
  Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Sheriff I Lester Conway

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [N/A]
    Incident Date: [09/JAN/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Lester Conway]
    Date of Birth: [08/APR/1998]
    Phone Number: [205-1111]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff I]

  Witness Statement

  • [I witnessed the suspect driving on the incorrect side of the highway on Senora Fwy, Because of this I made a U-turn safely and conducted a 10-55 when he was safely on the correct side of the highway, because of his vehicle I requested 1x additional 10-70 with an offroad vehicle as if he evaded I would not have been able to follow in my crown victoria. While waiting for the additional unit to arrive I ran his plate on the MDC and saw that the R/O of the vehicle had several overdue and unpaid tickets. When the additional unit arrived on the scene I exited my vehicle and spoke to the driver requesting he remove his face mask and show me his ID. After I confirmed that the driver was the R/O of the bike I asked him to step off the bike and follow me to his cruiser which he did after some persuading. After doing so I attempted to cuff the individual and read him his rights which seemed to cause stress and panic in the suspect which is when the second deputy stepped out of his cruiser and came over to assist me in calming him down. Eventually, the suspect calmed down and I was able to cuff the man and read him his rights. After doing this I searched his person and found a stack of clearly marked bills. Whilst I was doing this the other deputy searched his bike and found 2 more stacks of the same marked bills which in total accounted for several thousand dollars worth of marked bills. I then continued my search placed him in my cruiser and placed the required charges. I then transported the 10-15 to DOC where he was then processed, whilst the other deputy handled his vehicle. ]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Lester Conway], affirm that the above statement is true to the best ofmy 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,
    
    
    [Lester Conway]
    [Deputy Sheriff I]
    [Los Santos Sheriffs Department]
    
    Date: [15/JAN/2024]

  
  Exhibit #3: Physical evidence - Marked money

  

SPACER

Attorney General
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

Terence Williams
Junior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Terry Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Hyland and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution does not need additional time to disclose any further discovery.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Junior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Al Triton]

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. Stelio Bathsheba
#24-CM-0022

A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 24th of May, 2024

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

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement - Deputy Sheriff I Lester Conway
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Prior Inconsistent Statements:
    Deputy Conway charged Mr. Bathsheba with Reckless Driving but did not respond initially with lights or sirens when seeing Mr. Bathsheba's improper manuever of driving on the wrong side of the highway. Instead Deputy Conway elected to engage his lights after Mr. Bathsheba corrected his improper maneuver thus displaying Deputy Conway's hesitation to stop someone who allegedly had intentional disregard for life and/or property through the operation of a road or marine vehicle. Deputy Conway even stated he was conducting a 10-55 and not a 10-66. A 10-55 traffic stop is intended for citations or warnings where 10-66 involves a traffic stop with an arrest. VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle carries jail sentencing thus would result in an arrest and would be correctly distinguished as a 10-66.
    
    Deputy Conway outlined in the initial arrest report, Exhibit #1, that no other Deputies were involved via the section designated for Deputies Involved. Yet in Deputy Conway's Witness Statement, an unnamed deputy was mentioned and even collected evidence listed in the arrest report and shown in Exhibit #3. Additionally, the unnamed deputy was responsible for Mr. Bathsheba's vehicle yet no impound report is accompanying the arrest report. These inconsistencies directly hinder the chain of custody involving evidence by a mystery individual who can not be challenged for testimony via a Motion to Compel thus hindering Mr. Bathsheba's right to be confronted with the witnesses against them as outlined in the 6th Amendment.
    
    Suppressing the witness statement is the sensible course due to the numerous inconsistencies found throughout it thus impeaching the witness's credibility.

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stelio Bathsheba 09/JAN/24
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-01-09
    Deputies Involved: N/A
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • Suspect was seen driving incorrect side of highway and was stopped. after he was arrested marked money was found on his person and in his vehicle

  • Detailed Reasoning: Prior Inconsistent Statements; Failure to Maintain the Evidence's Chain of Custody:
    Outlined in Deputy Conway's Witness Statement, the evidence's chain of custody was compromised by an unknown deputy not listed at all in the Arrest Report but only mentioned Witness Statement. By having evidence collected and submitted against Mr. Bathsheba without the custody of evidence being thoroughly documented, the evidence must be challenged for validation as it can not be guaranteed to be free from tampering.

• Exhibit #1: Arrest Report - Stelio Bathsheba 09/JAN/24
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Department of Corrections
    Exhibit A:
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  • Detailed Reasoning: Failure to Maintain the Evidence's Chain of Custody:
    Outlined in Deputy Conway's Witness Statement, the chain of custody was compromised by an unknown deputy not listed at all in the Arrest Report but only mentioned Witness Statement. By having evidence collected and submitted against Mr. Bathsheba without the custody of evidence being thoroughly documented, the evidence must be challenged for validation as it can not be guaranteed to be free from tampering.

• Exhibit #3: Physical evidence - Marked money
  Requested Evidence to Suppress:

  Entire Exhibit

  • Detailed Reasoning: Failure to Maintain the Evidence's Chain of Custody:
    Outlined in Deputy Conway's Witness Statement, the chain of custody was compromised by an unknown deputy not listed at all in the Arrest Report but only mentioned Witness Statement. By having evidence collected and submitted against Mr. Bathsheba without the custody of evidence being thoroughly documented, the evidence must be challenged for validation as it can not be guaranteed to be free from tampering.

Al Triton
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 318-8168 — [email protected][

[Terry Williams]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Hyland and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to present our rebuttal to the Defense's Motion to Suppress.
  
  Exhibit #2: The Defense claims that Deputy Conway did not immediately engage their lights and sirens, instead hesitating to pull a driver over for an alleged offence. However, there is no mention of that in either the arrest report or witness statement. The Defense is speculating and making up facts. In this instance, Deputy Conway witnessed a traffic violation happening and followed the defendant until they were on the right side of the road again to initiate the traffic stop.

  I witnessed the suspect driving on the incorrect side of the highway on Senora Fwy, Because of this I made a U-turn safely and conducted a 10-55 when he was safely on the correct side of the highway.

  This not only allowed Deputy Conway time to figure out their approach and call for backup but also gave the deputy and the defendant better safety measures by being on the correct side of the highway rather than near oncoming traffic. Furthermore, the Defense's distinction between a 10-55 and 10-66 is simply incorrect. A 10-55, commonly known as a 'traffic stop', is a procedure for stopping vehicles with the intent of issuing warnings or citations for traffic violations, as well as for stopping drivers committing vehicle misdemeanours. A 10-66, commonly known as a 'felony stop', is used against vehicles whose registered owners are actively committing or believed to be committing various felonies, or have active felonies on their record. Being arrested for a traffic violation does NOT require the stop to be a 10-66. While there is usually always an arrest involved with a 10-66, it is not generally used for misdemeanours. A 10-55 is.
  
  The Defense's point of the LSSD's failure to maintain the chain of custody for evidence is also moot. Deputy Conway mentions in the arrest report that packs of marked money were found on BOTH the defendant and in their vehicle, not just one or the other.

  After doing this I searched his person and found a stack of clearly marked bills. Whilst I was doing this the other deputy searched his bike and found 2 more stacks of the same marked bills which in total accounted for several thousand dollars worth of marked bills.

  Whether or not additional packs of marked money were found in the defendant's vehicle is irrelevant, as the one (1) pack found on their person is enough to charge the defendant for its possession. Suppressing the entire exhibit would be a severe overreach based on invalid arguments. Additionally, the court neither can nor will allow the Defense to ask the court to compel law enforcement officers to provide witness statements or witness testimony, as per #22-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Chad Rapkov. The Defense is trying to base its argument on the defendant's 6th Amendment rights being hindered by the inability to compel testimony from an unnamed witness when that kind of system simply does not exist in this court.
  
  
  Exhibit #1: The Prosecution is adamant in the fact that the chain of custody relating to the evidence was maintained. The physical evidence is directly documented in the arrest report provided by the state, in conjunction with a supporting witness statement that does not deviate from the arrest report in explaining how said evidence was discovered. The Defense is building their argument on the fact that the arrest report does not mention the other deputy, while the witness statement does. At times there can be 10+ officers involved in any situation, and it only be relevant to include a few of those in an arrest report. Simply not marking down other deputies in the arrest report does not mean they were not present. In this case, the unnamed deputy was present in a minimally supportive capacity, only searching the vehicle and finding additional evidence on top of the evidence already found by Deputy Conway, and as such, did not contribute further to the arrest. There is nothing in the arrest report or witness statement that indicates anyone had access to the defendant's vehicle but the two deputies, and nothing that indicates the unnamed deputy handled the evidence in any way other than informing Deputy Conway of it. The evidence was discovered and documented properly per the deputies' department protocols, and there is nothing to indicate that any form of tampering was done to the evidence.
  
  
  Exhibit #3: As Exhibit #3 is an excerpt from Exhibit #1, the same argument applies here.
  
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Junior Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

[Al Triton]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Hyland and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense only wishes to annotate that the case mentioned by the Prosecution, #22-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Chad Rapkov, predates the signing of the current Constitution of San Andreas. A court case set before the signing of the State of San Andreas constitution should not be used as precedence to infringe upon a citizen's rights.
  

  #22-CM-0005, State of San Andreas v. Chad Rapkov
  Post by Colt Daniels » Sat Mar 26, 2022 10:35 pm

  Constitution of San Andreas

  DATE OF SIGNING: 26th Of November, 2022 @ 9:13:07PM

  This is especially prevalent when the same presiding judge, Chief Justice Colt Daniels at that time, had signed the constitution as well as Chief Justice Colt Daniels which reinforced the 6th Amendment:
  

  6th Amendment
  In all criminal trials brought forth by or too the San Andreas Judicial Branch, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial Judge of the State wherein the crime shall have been committed, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against them; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for their defense.

  Allowing on-duty uniformed law enforcement officials who are actively handling evidence and impounding vehicles during an arrest to remain anonymous completely removes any accountability in a court of law which directly infringes the 6th Amendment.
  
  Very Respectfully,
  
  Al Triton
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 318-8168 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

San Andreas Judicial Branch Docket Notice "HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"

---

• Honorable Judge Hyland and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense is mistaken in their qualification as an officer who was not a witness to the crime being identified as a witness. The defense references the defendants right to confront witnesses to the crime. The unnamed individual in question has not...
  1. Provided testimony to the courts without proper identification
  2. Operated as a witness to the crime
  The individual in question played a supporting role to the arresting deputy who witnessed the crime. The defendant is more than privy to that account as well as the name of the deputy. The argument currently being provided by the defense is baseless and perverts the writing of our constitution.
  
  If the courts were to side with the defense and allow for the dismissal of evidence solely because an officer, who played a supporting and not direct role in the arrest, did not provide a testimony or was unnamed, then moving forward the bulk of the prosecutions cases will need to be thrown out as typically not all officers present are listed in the arrest report nor provide testimony. The protocol for both the LSPD and LSSD is to include all officers that played a significant role in the arrest or determining the charges. If the individual did neither, then their name is not included as they would not be a relevant witness to the crime.
  
  Let us also delve into the definition of witness in a criminal trial. A witness in a criminal trial is an individual who provides testimony under oath or affirmation regarding facts relevant to the case. The unnamed individual has not provided a testimony under oath, accused the defendant of a crime, nor have they committed any other actions that would qualify them to be considered a witness and therefore in violation of their right "to be confronted with the witnesses against them".
  
  If the individual at any point in time had come forward accusing the defendant of further crimes, new evidence, or evidence that was not already found by the arresting deputy, this would be a different story. However, the unnamed individual provided a supporting role for the arresting deputy. In these instances an officer or deputy may ask another individual to help with the search and impound of the vehicle used in a crime in order to make the defendants processing time move quicker.
  
  The defense is suggesting that in the future either only the arresting Law Enforcement Officer (or LEO) handle the individual, vehicle, and investigation or every single LEO be named that played even a minimal part in the arrest. Either make the defendant wait longer to be processed because it's a singular LEO or make the defendant wait longer to be processed because the LEO will be standing by gathering every single name of every involved officer on or near the scene. Both of these strategies only serve to hurt criminals and defendants and cause an already arduous process to become more painstaking for all involved.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]