#24-CM-0055, State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven

[Cyrus Raven]

Defendant Name: Cyrus Raven
Defendant Phone: 535-6160
Defendant Address: N/A
(( Defendant Discord: mrwhiteraven ))
Requested Attorney: Representing Myself

Charging Department: Los Santos Sheriffs Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 29/07/2024 23:00
Charge(s):

• GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify

Narrative:

I was driving down Los Santos Freeway when I came across a checkpoint set up by LSSD. I approached and was asked to provide an ID by Deputy 6374. I asked him why and was told because it was a checkpoint. When asked if he suspected me of a crime, in other words if he had reasonable suspicion, he was unable to answer, simply stating he had the right to ID me. I was then informed if I did not ID, I would be charged with GM-10.

A supervisor was requested and 9423 was called on scene. When asked why I was being forced to ID myself he stated that Police can ID anyone on the public road. He then proceeded to compare the checkpoint to a traffic stop, seemingly unaware a traffic stop necessitates reasonable suspicion and he can not go around pulling anyone and everyone over to simply ID people. When this was pointed out, he shrugged it off.

I continued to refuse the unlawful command and was arrested under GM-10.

6374 and 9423 were explicitly requested to keep their body-cam footage saved for this appeal.

Deputies on scene (Badges: 6374, 9423, 8190, 9976, 18042).

---

I, Cyrus Raven, 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. Cyrus Raven

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 3rd day of August, 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.



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

[Antonio McFornell]

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

---

NOTICE OF ACTIVATION, DISCOVERY & TRIAL SCHEDULING
MISDEMEANOR BENCH TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0055

A Notice of Activation was entered in the above case on 14th of August, 2024.

The case of the State of San Andreas v. Cyrus Raven is hereby activated by this Court under #24-CM-0055.

Pursuant to the Defendant's request for a Bench Trial schedule, this case is hereby activated.

At this time, the Prosecution is ordered to provide the Arrest Report and/or any supporting documents to be utilized by the Court during the Bench Trial, and conduct the necessary efforts to ensure the presence of a State Representative (Legal Affairs Delegate, Arresting Officer, Prosecutor).

Furthermore, the Defendant is advised -but not required- to reach out to a Defense Attorney in order to prepare their defense during the proceedings that will be taking place on the scheduled date.

The Bench Trial will be conducted on August 17th, 8:30 PM.

So ordered,

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

[Terence 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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0055

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 15th of August, 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: Arrest Report - Cyrus Raven, 28/JUL/2024

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Cyrus Raven
    Telephone Number: 5356160
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: James Valor
    Badge Number: 6374
    Callsign: 3-W-22

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2024-07-28
    Deputies Involved: James Valor, Tyrone Balakay, Noah Carlile, Jett Jones, Arnold Rimmer, Alester Carter
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • While operating a Highway Enforcement Division Checkpoint, Cyrus Raven pulled up to the second gate, and refused to present Identification, we gave him many chances and he refused to do so, he eventually asked for a Supervisor, which ultimately resulted in his arrest for Failure to Comply.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

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

[Cyrus Raven]

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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0055

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

The Defence, by self-representation, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #2:Witness Statement - Assistant Sheriff Tyrone Balakay

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [178107]
    Incident Date: [29/JUL/2024]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Tyrone Balakay]
    Date of Birth: [11/JAN/1990]
    Phone Number: [403-2092]
    Occupation: Assistant Sheriff, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department[Job]

  Witness Statement

  • [I was not on scene for the beginning, so I do not have any information on the beginning of the situation. I arrived when a supervisor was requested, alongside Commander Carlile and Sergeant Jones. Mr. Raven was in his vehicle, refusing to follow any deputies' instructions, just to provide his driver's license. I am a bit puzzled on the legality of the situation, as I personally am not in charge of HED nor do I know within what law that allows the checkpoints. As far as I am aware, HED checkpoints are fully within the LSSD's capability, and I am really unsure as to how that could've changed without our knowledge. I will say, Raven knew exactly what he was doing, and I am unsure of how this will move forward. In this situation last night, I informed Mr. Raven that we have the ability to check his license in this case to ensure that he is valid, and then he would be free on his way. When he continued to refuse, the original deputy who called us in went in for an arrest.]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Tyrone Balakay], 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,
    
    
    [Tyrone Balakay]
    [Assistant Sheriff, Office of the Sheriff]
    [Los Santos County Sheriff's Department]
    
    Date: [29/JUL/2024]

  
  

Cyrus Raven
Cyrus Raven
5356160 - [email protected]

[Antonio McFornell]

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. Cyrus Raven
#24-CM-0055

A decision was reached in the above case on the 17th of August, 2024.

The case in question pertained to a traffic stop that allegedly took place on the 29th of July, 2024, initiated due to the defendant being required to pull into a police checkpoint ordained by the Los Santos Sheriff's Department. The defendant was required to present their ID, which resulted in them refusing to do so under the argument that the deputy who was requesting identification did not make a lawful order, as he was not under investigation and the minimum standard -reasonable suspicion- was not met or otherwise configured.

The Prosecution argued that the orders of the deputies were lawful, resulting from the establishing of a DUI/HED checkpoint. This led to the defendant's incompliance, leading to an arrest albeit being given ample opportunity to comply with the deputy's orders. The Prosecution insisted that, even if checkpoints might be considered a nuisance or inconvenience, they are created for the safety or benefit of the citizens of San Andreas. The Prosecution argued that even if the 4th amendment protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizure, the safety and greater good of the people should constitute enough grounds for an exception to the rights afforded on the 4th amendment.

The defense argued that the matter brought to the court came down to the principles or standards required to request ID from someone, and whether the order to identify during a traffic checkpoint is valid or lawful. The defense argued that no law or state allow for the checkpoints, and neither does a statute or law allow for forceful legal identification. The defendant argued that San Andreas is not a stop and identify State. The defendant stated that he asked multiple times if he was under investigation and if there were reasons for requesting him to identify, and the police allegedly stated that they were not investigating him and, as a result of the checkpoint, he had to identify. The defense also pointed out that Tyrone Balakay, who provided a Witness Statement from the LSSD, recognized not being aware of the validity of DUI/HED checkpoints due to him not making part of the division that handles them.

The Court was tasked with determining whether the defendant's arrest was conducted within the bounds of the law, which required multiple points to be addressed:

In regards to the nature of DUI, Highway Patrol or routinary checkpoints
The Court considers that examining the substance or otherwise protocols of Government Agencies was not a subject or matter of relevance to the case in question. Particularly, the Court believes that checkpoints of these nature serve purposes that are well within constitutional and legal bounds. The Court, in that regard, had no reason to believe the ordained checkpoint lacked legality. However, the Court recognized the the matter at hand was not whether the Checkpoint was illegal, but rather if the order issued to the defendant was lawful or not.

The presumption of legality of orders and/or operations conducted by law enforcement agencies
Particularly, the Court believes that the orders given by police officers within the context of Checkpoints are naturally presumed lawful or of a legal nature. It would be unreasonable to not provide at least a basic presumption of legality or lawfulness to the orders or indications provided by police officers. This consideration is tied with the argument presented by the defense regarding Sheriff Balakay's ignorance of the law. The Court has to affirm that, under the general presumption of legality of law enforcement actions, a specific police officer or deputy is not required to specifically know or cite the legal basis of their operation. In other words, just because a person ignores the legal statute that justifies or allows their actions, does not make said action or operation illegal. Those who act within the bounds of the law, even while unaware, will be protected by the law itself so long as they act within its bounds and do not exceed the limits imposed by the law.

However, the nature of the case did not revolve around the knowledge -or not- of the law, but rather if the order or command given to the defendant was lawful or not. The Court was not able to recollect, through any of the statements or discovery presented, that Cyrus Raven was placed under investigation or of any details that might've prompted the initiation of one. The standard that has been set by the State Judiciary is that reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed or having been committed must exist in order to initiate an investigation, which would allow officers of the law to prompt suspects for their identification. In the particular case, the Court was not able to conclude that any specific circumstance allowed the deputies to initiate an investigation, and the Court also noted that there are numerous circumstances that can easily allow the initiation of an investigation: Slurred words, a missing or deactivated headlights, eye coloring, vehicle plates being tied to previous crimes or traffic violations, reckless driving, excessive speeds, illegal vehicle modifications, failing to yield into the checkpoint, among many others.

Whether the deputies met the minimum burden required to request identification
In the case, the Prosecution only proved that Cyrus Raven entered a checkpoint and was immediately required to identify. At no point, no circumstances allowed the initiation of an investigation -or at least, no mention of such circumstance was brought up-. The Court believes that DUI checkpoints can provide ample opportunity and circumstances for law enforcement agencies to justify an investigation, however, that was not the case on the situation at hand. These circumstances, thus, removed any hint of lawfulness supporting the deputy's command to the defendant.

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

• On the count of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, I find the defendant, Cyrus Raven, not guilty.

So ordered,

Associate Justice
Supreme Court of San Andreas
(909) 553-8869 — [email protected]