Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: Ramon Cerbach
Defendant Phone: 3514270
Defendant Address: 5 Propserity Street
(( Defendant Discord: aiasn ))
Requested Attorney: Shaun Harper

Charging Department: Los Santos Police Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 4/FEB/2024 14:42
Charge(s):

• GF16 - Tampering with Evidence
• GM13 - Criminal Threats

Narrative:
I feel like the charges were unwarranted and that this is something that should be looked at. The LSPD conducted their investigation to which I had only responded with my side of the story. I don't see how they came to that conclusion and that a tone of voice that is perceived by other officers as threatening shouldn't warrant some law abiding citizens life.
(there was an edit in time section as I had put down the time when the investigation had started on me and not when I was charged.)

---

I, Ramon Cerbach, 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. ))

---

• Honorable Judge and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to unfortunately note that the case appears to be outside of the 7 day time that we allow for appeals. Apologies, but I have to inform all parties involved of the likelihood that the case will not see the light of day in court. Once again sorry, and thank you.
  
  Edit: Apologies, I've been informed this is not the case! Thank you to the alerting parties!
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Attorney General
  Director of Public Notary
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 321-2132 — [email protected]

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  The Prosecution Division has begun collecting evidence pertaining to this case. This is to serve as a notice of such and should not be taken as a notification of counsel.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  John Texas
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 348-8450 — [email protected]

  ---

---

---

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.



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

---

---

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]

---

---

I, Izaak Scott, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Ramon Cerbach in the underlying case.

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


Senior Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

---

---

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Ramon Cerbach is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0049.

At this time the Defendant has adequate representation, however, a State Prosecutor has not been assigned to this case. At this time the court will delay the Order for Discovery until adequate representation has been assigned and they 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.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

---

I, Terence Williams, Acting 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.


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

---

---

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.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

---

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

• Exhibit #1: Witness Statement - Police Captain III Jaxon Nash

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 04/FEB/2024

  Witness Information

  • Name: Jaxon Nash
    Date of Birth: 31/08/1989
    Phone Number: Redacted
    Occupation: Police Captain, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • There was an IA investigation into alleged misconduct of Officer Cerbach centering around actions supposedly committed at Legion Square. The investigation began due to Officer Cerbach allegedly allowing criminals to partake in the use of illicit drugs within the backseat of his car while off-duty.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Jaxon Nash, 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,
    
    
    Police Captain III Jaxon Nash
    Los Santos Police Department
    Date: 16/FEB/2024

  

• Exhibit #2: LSPD Internal Affairs Division inquiry - Ramon Cerbach's response

  

  

  Los Santos Police Department THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  ---

  • We would like that you answer the following question(s) in full detail:
    • --REDACTED--
    • On the 27th at DOC were you wearing a bodycam throughout this incident, in accordance with departmental policy? (( Please provide RP proof if possible. ))
      - Yes ((https://imgur.com/a/JPVxwtC))
    • Please hand over any and all bodycam footage relating to the incident. (( Please provide timestamped proof of RP if providing any footage. ))
      - It was admitted to Luca Andolini as this was already adressed and I've received Official Reprimand from him as the Supervisor on shift.
    • During your interaction with the inmate on the 27th at DOC what was said?
      - He said that he has some sort of dirt on me and that I should give him 10.000$ dollars and he will give me 50.000$ back when he gets out.
    • At any point did you threaten the inmate during the interaction? If so why
      - I did as a joke the bodycam captured it and then the inmate said that you have that on bodycam and I just turned it off for a second said the same thing and turned the body cam on
    • Is there anything else that you would like to add that we should know?
      - The incident on the 27th has already been adressed by the Supervisor of the shift

  ---

  • Sincerely,
    
    Police Officer II Ramon Cerbach
    Los Santos Police Department

  

• Exhibit #3:Bodycam footage - Ramon Cerbach, 27/JAN/2024

  **CLICK**

  ((RP Proof))

  

• Exhibit #4: Bodycam footage - Captain Gina Willow, 27/JAN/2024

  **CLICK**

  ((RP Proof))

  

• Exhibit #5: Warrant report - Ramon Cerbach, 04/FEB/2024

  

  

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

  ---

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • Full Name: Ramon Cerbach
      Phone Number: 3514270
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Detective III Samuel Martin
      • Police Captain I Alex Schill
      • Police Captain III Jaxon Nash
      • Chief of Police Elena Flores
      Charges:
      • GF16 - Tampering with Evidence
      • GM13 - Criminal Threats
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to validate the justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • It was found while investigating IA case 160700, that Officer Cerbach had made some threatening remarks towards an inmate at the DOC while there on duty processing a suspect. During this interaction Officer Cerbach turned off his body cam and continued to make threats.
      Method of Identification
      • Visual Identification
    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 #6: Arrest report - Ramon Cerbach, 04/FEB/2024

  

  

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

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Ramon Cerbach
      Phone Number: 3514270
      Licenses Suspended: No
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Cadet Charles Williams
      • Police Lieutenant II Elise Cavallera
      Charges:
      • GM13 - Criminal Threats
      • GF16 - Tampering with Evidence
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 04/FEB/2024
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • Cadet Charles Williams and Police Lieutenant II Elis Cavallera arrived at the Casino after receiving intel that Mr Cerbach would be in the premesis. Once the suspect was located, the Cadet and Lieutenant II approached them and asked them to come outside. The suspect was fully compliant and showed no resistance throughout the process. Before taking them to the Department of Corrections, we searched the vehicle of the suspect.
        
        Details of the charges can be found in this WARRANT REPORT
    EVIDENCE DETAILS
    • Document the possessions confiscated from the arrested suspect.
      Possessions are to be documented individually, examples of documented illegal possessions are "Pistol .50" or "12 grams of Cocaine". Legal possessions that can be categorized may be grouped, eg. "Clothing" to describe all clothing items. 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 Possessions:
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: Radio
        Exhibit B: GPS
        Exhibit C: White Cowboy Hat
        Exhibit D: White Gloves
        Exhibit E: Cream Sports Coat
        Exhibit F: Jacket
        Exhibit G: Silver Tucked Shirt
        Exhibit H: Gray Vest
        Exhibit I: Laptop
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  

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

---

---

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

• Exhibit #4: Bodycam footage - Captain Gina Willow, 27/JAN/2024
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: The entire bodycam footage.
  • Detailed Reasoning: More Prejudicial than Probative,
    
    The bodycam footage is incomplete, as it captures only a portion of the interaction between the officer and the prisoner. The recording begins in the middle of the conversation and ends before the interaction is fully documented, leaving out critical context that may explain or mitigate the defendants statement. Presenting this footage to the Judge would create a distorted view of the events, leading to an unfairly prejudicial interpretation of the defendants intent and conduct.
    
    Evidence should be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The incomplete nature of this footage presents a significant risk that the judge will draw incorrect or speculative conclusions about the defendant's behavior, particularly in light of the fact that the officer's subsequent actions and statements were not recorded. The footage, therefore, should be suppressed to prevent this undue prejudice.

• Exhibit #2: LSPD Internal Affairs Division inquiry - Ramon Cerbach's response
  Requested Evidence to Suppress: Sections highlighted in yellow for hearsay.
  • Exhibit #2: LSPD Internal Affairs Division inquiry - Ramon Cerbach's response

    

    

    Los Santos Police Department THIS EMAIL CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

    ---

    • We would like that you answer the following question(s) in full detail:
      • --REDACTED--
      • On the 27th at DOC were you wearing a bodycam throughout this incident, in accordance with departmental policy? (( Please provide RP proof if possible. ))
        - Yes ((https://imgur.com/a/JPVxwtC))
      • Please hand over any and all bodycam footage relating to the incident. (( Please provide timestamped proof of RP if providing any footage. ))
        - It was admitted to Luca Andolini as this was already adressed and I've received Official Reprimand from him as the Supervisor on shift.
      • During your interaction with the inmate on the 27th at DOC what was said?
        - He said that he has some sort of dirt on me and that I should give him 10.000$ dollars and he will give me 50.000$ back when he gets out.
      • At any point did you threaten the inmate during the interaction? If so why
        -I did as a joke the bodycam captured it and then the inmate said that you have that on bodycam and I just turned it off for a second said the same thing and turned the body cam on
      • Is there anything else that you would like to add that we should know?
        - The incident on the 27th has already been adressed by the Supervisor of the shift

    ---

    • Sincerely,
      
      Police Officer II Ramon Cerbach
      Los Santos Police Department

    

Acting Chief Public Defender
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

---

---

I, Daniel Carmello, a Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the defendant, Ramon Cerbach, in the underlying case.

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



Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 323-9782 — [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McFornell and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to present our rebuttal to the Defense's recent Motion to Suppress.
  
  Exhibit #4: The Defense wishes to have the entire recording suppressed due to it being more prejudicial than probative, on the grounds that it "begins in the middle of the conversation and ends before the interaction is fully documented, leaving out critical context that may explain or mitigate the defendant's statement."
  
  It is clear from the footage that a substantial part of the conversation was recorded, with multiple references to an association between the defendant and the inmate(s). While the exhibit alone is incomplete, it, together with the other exhibits, portrays a context in which the defendant has proven themselves to associate with known criminals, the defendant going so far as to admit their risky behavior being a source of uncertainty for their employment, "I'll lose my job if I keep coming to you guys". The Prosecution does not believe the prejudicial effect is of enough significance to warrant the exhibit's suppression, due to its reliability and inference of the defendant's guilt in conjunction with the other exhibits
  
  
  Exhibit #2: The Defense argues that the highlighted sections, i.e. the entire exhibit, should be classed as hearsay. The Prosecution will argue that it should not be classed as such due to the information being provided directly by the defendant in official correspondence with their former employer's Internal Affairs Division and thus should fall under the same binding precedent of information provided in the scope of duty not being subject to arguments of hearsay.
  
  Regards,
  
  Terence Williams
  Acting Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 234-9321 — [email protected]

---

---

The defense has requested the suppression of Exhibit #2 arguing that it constitutes Hearsay. To the suppression, the Prosecution responded arguing that the information constitutes first-hand statements presented by the defendant to the Internal Affairs division of their former employer. The Court sides with the Prosecution, affirming that the official statement presented by the defendant portrays their representation of the events revolving the exhibit, and thus, will allow it to remain on the docket.

Afterwards, the Defense requested the suppression of Exhibit #4, arguing that due to the short duration of the footage, it could create a distorted view of the events. The Court believes the arguments backing the suppression are not of Pre-Trial nature, and thus, must and should be expressed during Trial proceedings for the presiding judge to take them into account.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

---

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case.

In the event all parties have overlapping availability the Presiding Judge will determine the best date and time to have a trial take place and post a Notice of Trial informing all of the upcoming proceeding.

In the event some or all parties do not have overlapping availability, the Presiding Judge will make one more attempt to schedule. Should this second attempt fail, a docket Trial will be ordered to avoid further delays.

If either party has the intentions of calling a witness to the stand during the proceeding they must inform the court by filing a Witness List at the time of filing their availability. If no Witness List is filed before the Notice of Trial is filed you will be unable to call a witness during the proceeding.


So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by both parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 08:00 PM on August 10th, 2024 at Rockford Hills City Hall, Carcer Way, Metro Los Santos, SA.

Both parties are ordered to be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements. If complications occur that must result in a delay or cancelation of the trial, you are ordered to inform the court no later than 12 hours prior to the above listed date.


So ordered,

Superior Court Judge
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]

---

---

The case of State of San Andreas v. Ramon Cerbach involves alleged conducts that led to the arrest of the defendant for the crimes of GM13 - Criminal Threats & GF16 - Tampering with Evidence.

On the 4th of February, 2024, the defendant Ramon Cerbach was arrested due to events that were raised to the attention of the Los Santos Police Department during an Internal Affairs Investigation. Particularly, the defendant was under investigation for an unrelated disciplinary offense within the Department, when through the recollection of Bodycamera evidence the Internal Affairs Division obtained the footage that was presented during the Discovery Phase of this proceeding.

The prosecution asserted that the defendant, while at Bollingbroke Penitentiary, intentionally turned off their body camera and issued threats against an inmate named Tommy Bean. Specifically, it was argued that the defendant, knowingly and willingly threatening the life of or bodily harm onto the inmate. These threats were conducted while the bodycamera was deactivated, and they were presumably prompted by blackmail attempts made by the inmate who he was heard and seen speaking with.

The defense countered that the Internal Affairs investigation, which led to the current charges, was administrative and did not establish criminal conduct. They emphasized that routine administrative reviews within law enforcement agencies do not imply guilt and argued that the deactivation of the body camera was not done with malicious intent. The defense contended that violations of departmental policies should not be equated with criminal activity, particularly in regard to GF16 - Tampering with Evidence, which requires an act of altering, concealing, falsifying, or destroying evidence with the intent to interfere with an investigation by law enforcement or regulatory authorities.

The Court has determined that the defendant did, in fact, make threats against inmate Tommy Bean. This was supported by recordings where the defendant said, “I got my shotgun license, I'm coming for you guys,” and “I will be coming for you, I swear to god.” These statements, made during the time when the body camera was off, align with GM13 - Criminal Threats, which involves knowingly and willingly threatening the life of or bodily harm onto another person. The Court was able to conclude, as well, that the context of alleged extortion by the inmate may have influenced the defendant's statements.

In regards to the tampering allegations, the Court sides with the defense in regards to their position, which argued that violations of internal policies do not necessarily indicate criminal intent. The evidence did not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant's actions were intended to alter, conceal, falsify, or destroy evidence with the intent to interfere with the ongoing internal affairs investigation. It wouldn't have appeared reasonable either to determine that the defendant had turned off their bodycamera in order to alter an investigation of criminal nature, specially considering that one had not been initiated at the moment.

It is with the above considerations that I issue the following verdict:

• On the count of GM13 - Criminal Threats, I find the defendant, Ramon Cerbach, guilty.
• On the count of GF16 - Tampering with Evidence , I find the defendant, Ramon Cerbach, not guilty.

So ordered,

Superior Court Justice
Director of the San Andreas Bar Association
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]