#24-CM-0070, State of San Andreas v. Bogdan Fernandez

[Bogdan Vitez]

Defendant Name: Bogdan Fernandez
Defendant Phone: 326-2684
Defendant Address: Eclipse towers, appartment 755
(( Defendant Discord: ElVillainisto ))
Requested Attorney: Al Triton

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 27/MAY/2024 18:12
Charge(s):

• WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon

Narrative:
On the 27th of May 2024 around 18:00 I parked my vehicle out of the city parking and when I unlocked it, masked individual came to my vehicle and started searching my truck. I saw that he took out my bag and some stuff that I have in the trunck. After individual stole my possesions of the vehicle he ran away, so I sat in my vehicle and started searching for him around the area. When I didn't find him, I asked taxi driver which was parked across the street if she saw the person which was around taxi and my vehicle when we were speaking. She told me that he sat in the taxi and drove away. I asked her where is that taxi driver taking thet individual, when she replied that he is taking that individual to the LSB (Los Santos Bank) and told her to tell taxi driver to hold him for a bit beacuse he stole my stuff out of my trunck.

I drove up to the LS Bank, when I saw same individual in diffrent chlotes stepping out of the taxi, and running towards the bank, before I started running after the individual I told taxi driver to call the cops and ran after the individual. At first I didn't withdrawn my firearm at first when I was running after him, I was just telling him to drop the bag, and beacuse he didn't listen to my demands I withdrawn my firearm at the individual when he finaly stopped and droped the bag. At around 18:40 I got detained by officer Rune and his partner which were first responders to 911 call. After discussion with other officers I was arrested for Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon (WM-01) and taken to the MRPD. When I got released and waiting for my stuff to return, same individual came to MRPD and accused me that I robbed him, while punching me few times - witnesses of this situations was off duty officer Rune, and same officer which arrested me earlier at the bank. That individual was then arrested and taken to the custody.

---

I, Bogdan Fernandez, 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. ))

[Judith Mason]

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. Bogdan Fernandez

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 29th day of May, 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.



Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 257-9183 — [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. Bogdan Fernandez

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 29th of May, 2024.

I, Al Triton, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, Bogdan Fernandez, 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]

[Michael Blaise]

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. Bogdan Fernandez

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 16th of September, 2024.

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

• Exhibit #1: LSPD Arrest Report - Bogdan Fernandez (27/MAY/2024)

  

  

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

  
  

  ---

  MUGSHOT

  • SUSPECT DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: Bogdan Fernandez
      Phone Number: 3262684
      Licenses Suspended: Yes
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer III Max Thompson
      • Police Officer II Ezekiel Rune
      • Police Officer I Engjell Trey
      Charges:
      • WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon
    INCIDENT NARRATIVE
    • Incident Date: 27/MAY/2024
      
      Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
      • Officers Engjell Trey and Ezekiel Rune responded to a call of a man pulling a firearm against another man. Upon Officers responding, they had seen a man who matched the description perfectly. The man was also known as Bogdan Fernandez. After further reviewal, officers retrieved the story from Mr. Fernandez. He stated that he had withdrew his firearm and aimed it at the caller for taking the bag from his trunk. Bogdan Fernandez claimed that the man stole his bag. Upon reviewing the situation, it was seen that Fernandez took matters into his own hands. He did not call 911, and aimed the firearm at the individual while he posed no iminent threat. After further reviewal and supervisors being called, officers had came to the agreement of charging Mr. Fernandez with WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon.
    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:
        Exhibit A: 1x Pistol MKII (171678041134)
        
        
        Legal Possessions:
        Exhibit A: 1x Armor (Obtained legally)
        Exhibit B: 1x Cigarette Pack
        Exhibit C: 1x Glasses
        Exhibit D: 1x Gloves
        Exhibit E: 1x GPS
        Exhibit F: 1x Bag
        Exhibit G: 1x Radio
        Exhibit H: 2x Soda
        
        
        Photograph of Possessions (MANDATORY)

        

  
  Exhibit #2: CCTV from Legion Square and Los Santos Bank - (27/MAY/2024)

  CCTV.mp4
  
  ((

  ► Show Spoiler

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ))

---

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bogdan Fernandez


A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in the above case on the 30th Day of September, 2024.

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

• Reasoning: The State moves for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact in this case, and that the only remaining issue is the proper application of the law to the defendant’s conduct as outlined in the San Andreas Penal Code.
  
  
  • Detailed Explanation:
    
    The arrest report, coupled with the defendant’s own admissions, establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Fernandez drew a firearm and aimed it at an individual, stating that the individual had stolen his bag.
    
    CCTV footage from both Legion Square parking and The Los Santos Bank clearly corroborates the defendant’s actions. It depicts Mr. Fernandez pursuing the individual, who had their back turned and was unarmed, and subsequently brandishing a firearm, which created an imminent and unlawful threat to the individual’s safety.
    
    Given the overwhelming and undisputed nature of the evidence, the State submits that the only remaining question for the Court is the application of legal standards to the defendant’s actions.

Senior Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

• Counsel,
  
  Thank you for your motion. The courts await the assignment of a defense attorney in order to rule on the motion. We require a response from the defense on whether or not they affirm or deny the proposed motion by the defense. Then the courts will proceed with our ruling.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 505-9925 — [email protected]

[Bogdan Vitez]

Heya,

I would like to change my attorney to any other public defence attorneys.

Respectfully
Bogdan Fernandez

[Izaak Scott]

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. Bogdan Fernandez

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 09/OCT/2024.

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

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


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

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• To whom it may concern,
  
  The defense has no objections to the motion for Summary Judgement.
  
  However, we would like to question the court on how Summary Judgements work in a bench trial context? Bench trials themselves are more closer to a Summary Judgement compared to traditional criminal trials.
  
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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. Bogdan Fernandez
#24-CM-0070

A court order was issued in the above case on the 10th day of October, 2024.

The courts will be granting the Motion for Summary Judgement filed by the prosecution. As both parties have agreed to the motion, the case will now proceed as a normal bench trial would.

The court will now allow the prosecution seventy-two hours to present their initial arguments to the court. The defense will then be given the same opportunity to give a response. At that point the prosecution will then be given another seventy-two hours for any counter-arguments to be made. Once both sides have been given their opportunity to make their stance on the case known, I then render my decision and issue a verdict.


Superior Court Judge
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution, in this case, has presented evidence that demonstrates that Mr. Bogdan Fernandez’s actions on the 27th of May, 2024, were unlawful and meet the threshold for a conviction under the San Andreas Penal Code, specifically for WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon. There is no genuine dispute as to the facts of this case, as the evidence clearly shows that Mr. Fernandez, in a moment of unjustified self-action, brandished a firearm and aimed it at another individual, despite the lack of any imminent threat to his own life or safety. It should be noted that the defendant never called for Law Enforcement assistance.
  
  The Prosecution presents clear and indisputable evidence, including the arrest report, CCTV footage, and the defendant's own admissions (as noted by the arrest report.) These points, when considered together, confirm that Mr. Fernandez escalated the situation by introducing a firearm, aimed directly at another individual, despite a lack of imminent danger.
  
  The arrest report contains a detailed account of the events that led to the defendant being charged with WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon. According to the report, Mr. Fernandez openly admitted that he drew his firearm and aimed it at the individual because he believed the man had stolen a bag from his vehicle. This statement confirms that Mr. Fernandez escalated the situation with the introduction of a firearm. He did not first attempt to call law enforcement or de-escalate the situation in any legal or reasonable manner.
  
  The CCTV footage shows an individual, identified as Mr. Fernandez, confronting a man who is seen taking a bag from the trunk of Mr. Fernandez’s vehicle. Regardless of the truth of the claim that the defendant's bag was stolen, the footage does not show any act of violence or immediate threat from the individual that would have justified the use of a firearm, which should only be aimed at that which you wish to destroy. The prosecution asks the court: Is a simple bag reason enough to take a life, or at the very least, threaten to do so?
  
  In conclusion, the prosecution has provided overwhelming evidence that supports the charge against Mr. Fernandez. The defendant’s own admissions, and the corroborating CCTV footage point to the same indisputable fact: Mr. Fernandez unlawfully aimed his firearm at an individual who was presenting no immediate danger to his, the defendant's, life or safety. The defendant never made an attempt to contact proper authorities.
  
  The prosecution respectfully asks that the court renders a verdict that exhibits the State's commitment to the safety of all citizens, and deters those who may wish to take the law into their own hands from doing so.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  Before presenting the defense’s arguments, we will first clarify points raised by the prosecution:
  
  The prosecution emphasizes that there was "no imminent threat to his own life or safety." However, the citizens arrest information presented by the LSPD does not require an immediate threat to personal safety to justify an arrest or detention. It permits citizens to act when a felony occurs in their presence, which Fernandez witnessed directly when the individual took his bag from the trunk. The prosecution’s emphasis on “imminent danger” shifts focus away from the valid legal grounds Fernandez had to intervene based on witnessing a crime in progress. The citizens arrest information stated is legally binding based on EXECUTIVE ORDER #3 .
  
  Further, the prosecution’s assertion that Mr. Fernandez “never called for Law Enforcement assistance” suggests that contacting authorities is a required element for a lawful citizen’s arrest. Yet, under the citizens arrest information, notifying law enforcement is advised, not mandatory. The guidelines suggest prioritizing safety and notifying emergency services, but neither are prerequisites for legal intervention.
  
  Mr. Fernandez made reasonable efforts to involve law enforcement, instructing the taxi driver to call 911, and then acting out of immediate necessity to recover his stolen property. His response is fully aligned with the spirit of the guidelines, designed to protect citizens and their property.
  
  The prosecution’s focus on Mr. Fernandez’s alleged failure to call the police, therefore, lacks weight as a factor for unlawful brandishing. His efforts to seek law enforcement assistance were reasonable and aimed at preventing further criminal activity.
  
  While the prosecution claims Mr. Fernandez “escalated the situation by introducing a firearm,” this interpretation ignores that it was the theft that initiated the incident. Mr. Fernandez’s actions followed the crime against him. After the thief ignored his multiple verbal commands, he displayed his firearm only as a minimal show of force to recover his stolen property.
  
  Mr. Fernandez sought a resolution through verbal commands, displaying his firearm only after these failed, and solely to deter further flight. Fernandez’s decision to display his firearm in a controlled, non-threatening manner is consistent with a lawful response to ongoing criminal activity, especially in a situation without law enforcement support.
  
  The prosecution’s question, “Is a simple bag reason enough to take a life, or at the very least, threaten to do so?” is clearly intended to cast Mr. Fernandez as reckless. However, this question is irrelevant to WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm, as there is no evidence Fernandez intended harm. His actions were within citizens’ arrest guidelines, permitting limited force to prevent a suspect from fleeing with stolen property.
  
  Mr. Fernandez’s intent was solely to deter the suspect from fleeing. He acted to recover his property within the bounds of the law, and the prosecution’s focus on intent to “take a life” mischaracterizes the case facts.
  
  Now we're going to move onto our arguments,
  
  The defense asserts that Mr. Bogdan Fernandez acted lawfully on May 27, 2024, when he exhibited a firearm to recover his stolen property. His actions were legally justified, measured, and aimed solely at deterring a fleeing suspect without any intent to harm. Bogdan was conducting a citizens arrest and as stated in the Police Departments Firearms Licensing Desk section "[Information] Self-Defense & Citizens Arrests" it states "If you decide to arrest somebody you make sure that at least one of the following applies before committing to the arrest: The person you're arresting has committed or attempted to commit a felony in your presence."
  
  San Andreas law permits citizens to arrest or detain another individual when a felony occurs in their presence. These guidelines do not require an imminent personal threat for intervention. Mr. Fernandez witnessed his property being taken directly from his vehicle, establishing a legal basis for his response. The defense would also like to present "State of San Andreas v. Colt Daniels" which is a very similar case, where the Police Department decided to drop the charges.
  
  Fernandez’s response was proportionate. Upon finding the suspect near Los Santos Bank, he initially relied on verbal commands, asking for the return of his stolen bag. Only when the suspect ignored these commands did he exhibit his firearm as a minimal deterrent to prevent further criminal activity.
  
  Mr. Fernandez neither fired his weapon nor made threats, demonstrating his intent to recover his belongings without harm. This restraint underscores his clear intent to de-escalate rather than escalate, consistent with citizen’s arrest guidelines.
  
  The guidelines suggest but do not require contacting law enforcement. Mr. Fernandez instructed his driver to call 911, a reasonable effort under the circumstances, as losing sight of the suspect was not an option. His approach aligns with legal requirements, showing a good faith effort to involve law enforcement while maintaining control of the situation.
  
  In light of these points, the defense respectfully asks the court to find Mr. Fernandez not guilty of WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm. His actions were reasonable, legally justified, and within the citizens’ arrest law, as he sought to protect his property within the bounds of San Andreas law. If the defendant is found guilty not only are we undermining PD's authority given to them by the board of governors, we are also undermining every citizens right to perform a citizens arrest.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense’s arguments heavily rely on the LSPD guidelines regarding citizen's arrests. However, the prosecution contends that the defense has presented a selective interpretation of these guidelines. To clarify, the prosecution would like to draw the court’s attention to the full guidelines, which state:
  
  "WHEN YOU CAN ARREST SOMEONE
  Determining when you can arrest someone is not as easy at it may first appear, but before considering arresting someone you should first do the following:
  Call 911 and inform the emergency services that you believe a crime is being committed.
  Consider the safety of yourself, and others before considering arresting someone.
  Run or hide, and only engage in violence and attempt to arrest somebody if you believe doing so will prevent either yourself or anybody else from getting hurt.
  
  If you decide to arrest somebody you make sure that at least one of the following applies before committing to the arrest:
  The person you're arresting has committed or attempted to commit a felony in your presence.
  The person you're arresting has committed a felony, but not in your presence.
  A felony has been committed and you have a reasonable belief that the person you're arresting has committed a felony."
  
  The way the guidelines read, there are two separate categories of guidelines. 1 of 3 in each category must be met. The defendant did meet 1 guideline under the second category, but failed to adhere to any guideline from the first category of said guidelines.
  
  While the defense correctly points out that witnessing a felony is a necessary condition for a citizen's arrest, their assertion that an immediate threat to the safety of one's self or another individual is not required is incorrect. The guidelines explicitly state that the safety of oneself and others must be considered, and violence or arrest should only be attempted if it prevents harm. The defendant, Mr. Fernandez, did witness a crime, but he failed to meet the other crucial conditions outlined in the guidelines, particularly the failure to contact 911 and the lack of any imminent danger to himself or others.
  
  The defense further argues that contacting law enforcement is not a mandatory element of a citizen’s arrest. Yet, as per the LSPD guidelines—which the defense acknowledges as legally binding under Executive Order #3—contacting 911 is listed as a required step before attempting an arrest.
  
  The defense claims that Mr. Fernandez made reasonable efforts to contact law enforcement by instructing a taxi driver to call 911. However, there is no evidence supporting this claim. The only 911 call made during this incident reported Mr. Fernandez’s actions, not the alleged theft, as stated in the arrest report. Suggesting that Mr. Fernandez asked the taxi driver to call 911 is purely speculative and unsupported by any factual evidence.
  
  The defense also characterizes Mr. Fernandez’s display of his firearm as being done in a “controlled, non-threatening manner.” However, the prosecution finds it implausible to consider a firearm being pointed directly at an individual as “non-threatening.”
  
  Finally, the defense challenges the prosecution’s question, “Is a simple bag reason enough to take a life, or at the very least, threaten to do so?” by arguing that the question is irrelevant to the charge of WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm. However, the prosecution asserts that this question is central to the matter. The penal code defines WM01 as: “Drawing, exhibiting, brandishing or using a firearm or weapon without a lawful reason.” There is no requirement of intent to harm to meet the threshold for unlawful brandishing; the mere act of exhibiting the firearm without lawful reason suffices. Given that the theft of a bag is not lawful justification for brandishing a firearm, particularly when 911 was never contacted and in the absence of any imminent danger, as established by the guidelines set forth by the LSPD, Mr. Fernandez’s actions clearly violate WM01.
  
  In conclusion, the prosecution respectfully submits that the defense's argument fails to acknowledge key requirements of both the LSPD citizen’s arrest guidelines and the San Andreas penal code. We will, once again, respectfully ask that the court renders a verdict that exhibits the State's commitment to the safety of all citizens, and deters those who may wish to take the law into their own hands from doing so.
  
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense issues a final response to the prosecutions latest rebuttal. To clear up things the prosecution has stated.
  
  The prosecution states that "The way the guidelines read, there are two separate categories of guidelines. 1 of 3 in each category must be met. The defendant did meet 1 guideline under the second category, but failed to adhere to any guideline from the first category of said guidelines." This is plain incorrect, to take away from the guidelines in its whole this is the section which requires 1 of the 3 to be met.
  
  If you decide to arrest somebody you make sure that at least one of the following applies before committing to the arrest:
  • The person you're arresting has committed or attempted to commit a felony in your presence.
  • The person you're arresting has committed a felony, but not in your presence.
  • A felony has been committed and you have a reasonable belief that the person you're arresting has committed a felony.
  What the prosecution has got incorrect is stating that the other part of the guidelines is mandatory, to take exactly from the guidelines again,
  
  Determining when you can arrest someone is not as easy at it may first appear, but before considering arresting someone you should first do the following:
  • Call 911 and inform the emergency services that you believe a crime is being committed.
  • Consider the safety of yourself, and others before considering arresting someone.
  • Run or hide, and only engage in violence and attempt to arrest somebody if you believe doing so will prevent either yourself or anybody else from getting hurt.
  Lets focus on one key word from that guideline, the word should does not indicate something is mandatory, other wise the word would be "must". The section where it is indicated to be mandatory the category is met. The thief was actively running away if Fernandez was to stop dial 911 and give them a idea of the situation the thief would be gone.
  
  The prosecution later asserts that "While the defense correctly points out that witnessing a felony is a necessary condition for a citizen's arrest, their assertion that an immediate threat to the safety of one's self or another individual is not required is incorrect." The defenses assertion was correct while an immediate threat to the safety of one's self or another individual is required when exercising your right to self-defense it is not needed when performing a citizens arrest.
  
  The prosecution also asserts that "Yet, as per the LSPD guidelines—which the defense acknowledges as legally binding under Executive Order #3—contacting 911 is listed as a required step before attempting an arrest." Which we have stated is incorrect in our first section.
  
  The prosecution also asserts that "The defense claims that Mr. Fernandez made reasonable efforts to contact law enforcement by instructing a taxi driver to call 911. However, there is no evidence supporting this claim. The only 911 call made during this incident reported Mr. Fernandez’s actions, not the alleged theft, as stated in the arrest report. Suggesting that Mr. Fernandez asked the taxi driver to call 911 is purely speculative and unsupported by any factual evidence." The prosecution again stands incorrect in the cases narrative made by Fernandez (which is a signed court document) states "I told taxi driver to call the cops and ran after the individual" The prosecution has nothing that would indicate he would be lying so this would be treated as valuable as any other witness statement, This is why the defenses orignal assertion is not speculative and is supported by evidence.
  
  The prosecution finally asserts that "The defense also characterizes Mr. Fernandez’s display of his firearm as being done in a “controlled, non-threatening manner.” However, the prosecution finds it implausible to consider a firearm being pointed directly at an individual as “non-threatening.”" We would like to focus on many things, in this sentence not only is the prosecution speculating on the mind of the defendant they are disregarding multiple facts such as he exhibited the firearm only after multiple verbal commands were ignored, with his intent solely to deter the suspect from fleeing, not to cause harm or create fear.
  
  The defense is done, and will not respond to the remaining incorrect assertions made by the prosecution as we see it as repetitive and irrelevant.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution respectfully submits the following response to the defense’s latest claims.
  
  The defense argues that the Prosecution's interpretation of the LSPD citizen's arrest guidelines is flawed. However, the Prosecution stands by its position that the guidelines must be read in their entirety. The guidelines are divided into two distinct categories: one addressing the conditions under which a citizen’s arrest is permissible, and another addressing the procedural steps to take before initiating the arrest. There is no indication that one is more pertinent than the other, and as such, we must assume that they are equally critical.
  
  The defense are, respectfully, “moving the goalposts,” so to speak. The defense counsel themselves invoked the legally binding nature of the LSPD’s guidelines in regards to citizen’s arrests, but chooses to acknowledge half of it rather than the entirety of the guidelines.
  
  Contrary to the defense’s assertion, the distinction between “should” and “must” does not render the procedural steps optional in practice. Semantics simply have no place within a legal proceeding. The LSPD guidelines begin by outlining that, before considering arresting someone, specific actions should be taken—such as contacting 911 and assessing safety concerns. While the defense focuses on the word “should,” it is important to recognize that the guidelines use this language to emphasize what is strongly expected of individuals making such arrests. The rationale is clear: calling emergency services and ensuring the safety of oneself and others are critical measures designed to protect both the public and those attempting an arrest. Are we to believe that the defendant was to hold this individual at gunpoint, cuff him, mirandize him, and transport him to Mission Row himself? Of course not. The concept of a citizen’s arrest, as reinforced by the guidelines themselves, expect and require that the individual conducting the citizen’s arrest seek law enforcement assistance, and the prosecution continues to assert that this critical step was not taken.
  
  The defendant failed to contact 911, a significant omission that undermines the legality of the attempted arrest. The defense claims that the thief would have escaped if Mr. Fernandez had stopped to call 911. However, this is speculative and does not excuse the defendant from following the guidelines that clearly prioritize law enforcement intervention. The guidelines do not suggest bypassing legal requirements for expediency, and citizens are encouraged to avoid taking matters into their own hands unless the safety of the public is compromised.
  
  The Prosecution also maintains that contacting law enforcement is a required step, not a discretionary one. Executive Order #3, which the defense acknowledges, makes the LSPD guidelines legally binding. By omitting to call 911, the defendant failed to meet a fundamental condition for conducting a lawful citizen’s arrest.
  
  The defense asserts that Mr. Fernandez instructed a taxi driver to call the police, but no evidence exists to corroborate this claim. The only verifiable 911 call reported Mr. Fernandez's actions, not the alleged theft. This claim remains unsupported by external evidence and cannot be treated as definitive without further corroboration. The defense has presented no factual evidence to support this claim, and the defense’s reliance on it amounts to speculation. It is just as easy for the prosecution to invoke the arrest report, which states that the only 911 call that did materialize was regarding the defendant’s actions, not the person who allegedly stole the bag. The arrest report does, by nature, nullify the defense's claim that an effort was made to contact authorities by the defendant, as it states that the only 911 call that materialized, once again, was one reporting the defendant's actions rather than the individual who allegedly stole the defendant's bag.
  
  Regarding the display of the firearm, the Prosecution reiterates that pointing a firearm at another person constitutes an inherently threatening act. The defendant’s intention is irrelevant in the context of WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm, which focuses on the act itself rather than the defendant’s subjective reasoning. The penal code does not require that the brandishing be accompanied by an intent to cause harm; the act of exhibiting a firearm without lawful justification is sufficient to meet the threshold. The prosecution are not speculating as to the defendant’s intention, but rather asserting that this intention is completely irrelevant when weighed against the action of aiming a deadly weapon at another individual.
  
  In summary, the Prosecution contends that the defense’s arguments misinterpret the citizen's arrest guidelines and fail to adequately address the defendant’s deviations from those guidelines. The defendant’s actions—pursuing an individual, failing to contact law enforcement, and unlawfully brandishing a firearm—are clear violations of the LSPD guidelines and San Andreas penal code. The Prosecution respectfully requests that the court consider these violations and reject the defense’s attempt to justify unlawful conduct under the guise of a citizen’s arrest.
  
  The prosecution requests that the court issue an order refusing further rebuttals at this time. It is fairly accepted that the prosecution is provided the opportunity of the final statement due to the burden of proof, and the defense has already ignored a clear order from the court by issuing this very rebuttal, attempting to circumvent this.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  We the defense require no more further replies as we believe the prosecution is just repeating itself and wasting the courts time. We are ready for a verdict on this summary judgement.
  
  Thank you, your honor.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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. Bogdan Fernandez
#24-CM-0070

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 12 of October, 2024.

Defendant, Bogdan Fernandez, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #1: Bodycam Footage - Stefanie Huth (May 27 2024)
  Spoiler

  BodycameraFootage.MP4
  

  ((RP Proof))

  

Respectfully,

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

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense has been recently presented with bodycamera footage by a taxi driver near the scene, we believe this evidence is fundamental to the case because not only can we see another individual call the police and state "Bogdan Fernandez requests Police Assistance" We can also see that Bogdan made no threatening remarks to the individual just stating for him to "Drop the bag" and didn't even shoot when the individual refused to do so (showing that he had no intent to kill or harm the individual only to perform a citizens arrest after receiving his stolen property)
  
  The defense understands the bad timing of presenting the evidence - however we believe it is fundamental to proving the defendants innocence and clears up multiple facts about this case that were unknown beforehand and the defense was only given this evidence less then 3 hours ago.
  
  We ask the Judge to allow this evidence into the court as it directly proves the defendants actions were lawful.
  
  Thank you, your honor.
  
  ((We understand how this situation can be seen as OOCly messy however the situation was not voided by staff. We hope you can also understand why he had his firearm present more then usual due to the individual not following commands under gunpoint. Thanks))
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution respectfully submits that the introduction of this evidence at this late stage of the proceedings is untimely and should not be admitted into discovery. Had the Prosecution introduced new evidence at this point, it is likely the defense would have argued such an action as unconstitutional. Given that we are approaching the rendering of a verdict under a motion for summary judgment, the defense's attempt to present new evidence at this late hour is inappropriate. Accordingly, the Prosecution respectfully requests that the court deem this evidence inadmissible at this juncture.
  
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and pertaining parties,
  
  While the defense understands the prosecutions frustration, as the defense would be equally frustrated. However, the Defense was only provided with this footage on (Sat Oct 12, 2024 3:12 pm) It was physically impossible for us to provide it any earlier and the Defendant should not be punished for that.
  
  The prosecution is right that we would have argued this to be unconstitutional if the roles were reversed. however, the Defendant has a right to a fair trial, and withholding critical evidence simply due to the timing of its disclosure would undermine that fundamental right.
  
  Finally, The defense could sit here and quote numerous cases where the prosecution was allowed to present evidence out of the discovery period for example;
  
  #22-CM-0036, State of San Andreas v. Hailee Joyce

  "Continuance allows an additional 7 days in which the prosecution can submit further discovery to the court without the court attempting the schedule any proceedings, however it does not limit discovery from being submitted past that point."

  #22-CM-0010, State of San Andreas v. Gaven Montasser

  "I will be allowing this evidence to be used at trial. I understand it is within the 48 hour limit specified but it took time for the warrant to be signed and believe this is crucial evidence to the case."

  #24-AP-0001, State of San Andreas v. Melody Frey et al.

  "The court recognizes that the late disclosure of relevant evidence is not ideal and should not become a regular occurrence, however, the court must balance this against the ultimate goal of ensuring a fair and unbiased trial. The fact of the matter is that some situations will present unintentional delays in the disclosure of evidence and this court seeks to provide clarity for determining a just outcome."

  This is only a few examples; we see not reason to provide any more.
  
  Not only do we believe this precedence can apply to the defense, we actually believe the defense should have more leeway when presenting evidence past any allotted time especially when that evidence shows the defendants innocence. If the defense has the ability to appeal a case under the grounds that new evidence has come to light showing the defendants innocence we believe it makes perfect sense to allow that evidence now.
  
  We also understand that since we are the one presenting this motion for discovery we deserve the last say on it, as the prosecution requested - which we obliged. So we respectfully request that prosecution does not make any other say on this motion for discovery without requesting the court first and the court approving said request.
  
  Unless the court approves another response from the prosecution we require no more say on this discovery and wait for the court to respond.
  
  Thank you, your honor.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 411-2330 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Kant and Pertaining Parties,
  
  The Prosecution acknowledges and respects the defense's request for the final word. In light of this, the Prosecution will choose to rest at this time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Senior Prosecutor
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 552-8150 — [email protected]

[Hope Kant]

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

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Bogdan Fernandez
#24-CM-0070

A decision was reached in the above case on the 14th day of October, 2024.

In the case of the State of San Andreas v. Bogdan Fernandez, the defendant was seen first at Legion Square parking, where a bag appeared to be stolen out of the back of his vehicle. The scene then moved to the Los Santos Bank, where a taxi driver was heard saying "I don't know Bogdan asked me to call the police, so I called it." We then see the defendant attempting to put the individual under citizens arrest.

The law of WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon states, "Drawing, exhibiting, brandishing or using a firearm or weapon without a lawful reason." The next part of the review will focus on whether the actions of the defendant were committed in a lawful manner.

The defense correctly referenced the executive order #3, which allocated "firearm licensing and regulations" to the LSPD. The LSPD has regulated that multiple elements are required for a citizens arrest, which is the matter at hand. To begin a citizens arrest should begin with the following:

1. Call 911 and inform the emergency services that you believe a crime is being committed.
2. Consider the safety of yourself, and others before considering arresting someone.
3. Run or hide, and only engage in violence and attempt to arrest somebody if you believe doing so will prevent either yourself or anybody else from getting hurt.

The word should implies guidelines to be followed. In this specific case, the defendant requested the taxi driver call 9-1-1, which he did as shown in the footage. Numbers 2 and 3 are in their nature, suggestions, as they contain the words "consider" and "if", suggesting they are situational based.

The next part of the regulations for citizens arrest are in regards to when it is considered lawful to put another individual under citizens arrest. The LSPD specifically states that one of the following must be in place:

1. The person you're arresting has committed or attempted to commit a felony in your presence.
2. The person you're arresting has committed a felony, but not in your presence.
3. A felony has been committed and you have a reasonable belief that the person you're arresting has committed a felony.

The defendant in this case had a bag and other unnamed items stolen from his trunk. The act of entering into an individuals property with the intent to commit a crime is considered GF15 - Burglary. At that point the defendant met the designated statue of the LSPD in regards to citizens arrest.

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

• On the count of WM01 - Unlawful Brandishing of a Firearm or Weapon, I find the defendant, Bogdan Fernandez, not guilty.

Superior Court Judge
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]