Page 1 of 2
#25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 18 Jan 2025, 13:00
by Rashood Jafaari
Defendant Name: Rashood Jafaari
Defendant Phone: 4376271
(( Defendant Timezone: CST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender
Charging Department: LSPD
Date & Time of Incident(s): 18/JAN/2025 02:30
Charge(s):
- Failure to Comply/Identify
- Criminal Threats
Narrative:
I have been falsely charged by a racist cop and wish to dispute the charges. thank you
I,
Rashood Jafaari, 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.
))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 20 Jan 2025, 04:22
by Hope Kant
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 20 Jan 2025, 04:23
by Hope Kant
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
NOTICE OF ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 20th day of January, 2025.
The case of State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari is hereby activated and opened by this Court.
Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. The prosecution and defense are hereby ordered to provide their evidence to the Court via Motion for Discovery within the next 7 days.
If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes to dispute more than just misdemeanor charges or desires a more in-depth examination of the case, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.
Superior Court Justice
Branch Administrator
San Andreas Judicial Branch
505-9925 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 26 Jan 2025, 15:59
by Larin Tai
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. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 26th of January, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
Los Santos Police Department
ARREST REPORT
"TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"
|
MUGSHOT
- SUSPECT DETAILS
-
Full Name: Rashood Jafaari
Phone Number: 4376271
Licenses Suspended: Yes
Officers Involved:
- Police Officer III Ace Butoslav
Charges:
- GM13 - Criminal Threats
- GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
INCIDENT NARRATIVE
- Incident Date: 18/JAN/2025
Explain what happened, sufficient detail must be given to justify the placed charges, videos could be provided.
- Rashood Jafaari was sitting in his taxi vehicle in front of Mission Row. He yelled for help and I came to him while off duty. He told me that people with baseball bats had attacked him at Burgershot. We had no units available so I suggested he make a crime report. Rashood Jafaari was visibly upset. He then said "I'll just shoot them then", and he immediately drove off quickly. This, to me, seemed like a call for vigilantism instead of self-defense. While on duty I witnessed Rashood Jafaari at Mission Row who I identified by having the same face and voice as the aforementioned person in the taxi. Rashood Jafaari was asked about what happened earlier. I wanted to investigate the criminal threats so I asked him to identify. He refused to identify. At that point I informed him that he needs to identify as it's a lawful order. He refused to identify again and I informed him that he was under arrest for Criminal Threats (for the original situation) and Failure to Comply. He did not have fingerprints on his record, so his prints were taken.
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: Pistol Mk II (1737156539188)
Exhibit B: Radio
Exhibit C: GPS
Exhibit D: Gold chain
Exhibit E: Glasses
Exhibit F: Watch
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 —
[email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 11 Feb 2025, 23:05
by Jaz Owens
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR INVOLUNTARY DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion for Involuntary Dismissal was filed in the above case on the 11th of February, 2025.
The Defendant, Rashood Jafaari, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning:The prosecution has failed to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Detailed Explanation:
The prosecution in this case have failed to meet their burden of proof. Thus, taking this to a trial would be inefficient.
The prosecution have not provided proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual that Officer Butoslav interacted with was Mr Jafaari. In exhibit #1, Police Officer Ace Butoslav states, "While on duty I witnessed Rashood Jafaari at Mission Row who I identified by having the same face and voice as the aforementioned person in the taxi." Officer Butoslav's only basis for the identification of Mr Jafaari was a subjective recognition of the "same face and voice", which is uncorroborated by any other evidence and highly fallible.
Furthermore, even if Police Officer Ace Butoslav were to have positively identified Mr Jafaari, the statement of "I'll just shoot them then" is vague and lacks any sort of clear, immediate intent. This is a mere expression of frustration at the situation, without a direct and immediate threat. In addition to this, the context of the statement suggests that the unidentified individual, alleged to be Mr Jafaari, was referencing self-defense rather than an unlawful act of violence. The prosecutions case rests on a single, six word statement without any sort of supporting evidence of intent.
If the honorable judge is to grant this motion, the defendant respectfully requests the return of all items confiscated on the 18th of January, as well as his firearms license being reactivated.
In conclusion, given the lack of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the weak and uncorroborated identification of Mr Jafaari, and insufficient proof of criminal intent, proceeding to a trial would be a waste of the courts resources. The defense respectfully requests that this case be involuntarily dismissed with prejudice and that Mr Jafaari be acquitted of "GM13 - Criminal Threats" and "GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify".
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
📞429-1517 — 📧 [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 18:21
by Larin Tai
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
OBJECTION TO DISMISSAL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
An Objection was filed in the above case on the 16th of February, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this objection to the Defense's Motion for Involuntary Dismissal, and requests to following;
- Statement being objected to: The Prosecution has failed to meet their burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
- Detailed Reasoning:
The prosecution disagrees with the defenses stance that we have been unable to meet the burden of proof given the evidence provided. When Rashood Jafaari arrived to Mission Row Police Department, he was met by Officer Butoslav and was asked what needed assistance with. After Mr. Jafaari explained the situation and why he was there, Officer Butoslav informed him that there were no officers available and informed him to make a crime report. Mr. Jafaari was unhappy about the answer given by the Officer and very clearly stated "I'll just shoot them then," directly to Officer Butoslav. The officer was clearly able to see and hear Mr. Jafaari and that he was clearly upset by the events. Once Officer Butoslav was on duty, he again saw Mr. Jafaari at Mission Row Police Department. Officer Butoslav approached him and asked Mr. Jafaari about what had occurred earlier when they had first spoken. An officer can make a positive identification of a persons based on their clothing, physical description, tattoos or other visible identification markers, and their voice. Officer Butoslav was able to make a clear identification based off the defendants voice and physical appearance that it was the same man he had spoken to earlier in the day which is a valid form of identifying an individual.
Rashood Jafaari repeatedly denied and refused to identify himself and provide his license after being requested by Officer Butoslav rising for the Officer to charge him with GM10 - Failure to Comply. The defendant had the means in which to inflict serious bodily harm on another individual as he had on him a Pistol Mk II that was confiscated during the arrest. Officer Butoslav was concerned by the statement Mr. Jafaari made earlier and was charged with GM13 - Criminal Threats in regards to the earlier situation.
The Prosecution would request the the court deny the defenses Motion for Involuntary Dismissal and allow for the trial to proceed.
Larin Tai
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
244-5389 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 19:19
by Jaz Owens
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Rebuttal
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 16th of February, 2025.
The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this rebuttal:
This will be the defenses last comment on the motion.
The prosecution states "An officer can make a positive identification of a persons based on their clothing, physical description, tattoos or other visible identification markers, and their voice. Officer Butoslav was able to make a clear identification based off the defendants voice and physical appearance that it was the same man he had spoken to earlier in the day which is a valid form of identifying an individual."
This is a correct assessment into methods of identification. However, it is the position of the defense that the prosecution have failed to establish probable cause and have solely identified Mr Jafaari by his voice and face, both of which are highly fallible and weak identifiers, unless the officer has used facial recognition, which he has not. If the prosecution provided evidence that Mr Jafaari was driving the same vehicle as the original man, or was wearing the same clothes, then the defense would agree that the officer had probable cause. As this was not the case, the defense motions for Dismissal.
Ultimately, the prosecution have provided one police report that provides a very weak foundation of probable cause for the original arrest, as well as a stretch in the application of the law.
The defense submits this Motion in good faith to avoid wasting the precious time of this Court.
Very Respectfully,
Junior Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
☎️429-1517 — ✉️ [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 21:49
by 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. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 16th of February, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Official Witness Statement
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU"
Case Information
- Incident Date: 18/JAN/2025
Witness Information
- Name: Ace Hawkins
Date of Birth: 07/OCT/1998
Phone Number: 3049773
Occupation: Police Detective I, Los Santos Police Department
Witness Statement
- The narrative of the arrest report explains everything about this arrest in detail, so I will only briefly explain it.
A taxi driver was parked in one of the emergency spots out front and he yelled for help. I was off duty at the moment, but I went outside to see if someone was in distress. He explained to me that his vehicle or himself (I'm unsure) was attacked by people with baseball bats. I informed Captain Mike Luigi in the station about the individual and he told me that they don't have enough units and that I should refer him to the crime reports, which I did. He answered me with something along the lines of "What the fuck am I supposed to do with a crime report" and then said, "I'll just shoot them then." He immediately drove off.
Later on, I found him at Mission Row and I wanted to question him about what he said earlier. He refused to comply and refused to identify.
The reason I charged him with Criminal Threats is because what he said did not indicate any intent of self-defense and indicated direct threats to shoot someone. He didn't say that he would shoot them if they attacked him again; He said "I'll just shoot them".
I was wearing the bodycam while I was on duty, the incident that caused me to charge him for criminal threats occurred while I was off duty, during which time I had no bodycam on, unfortunately. Nevertheless, considering I'm a duly sworn officer, I had a right to charge him regardless as I believed he violated GM13 - Criminal Threats.
Rashood Jafaari was loud and visibly upset throughout the whole investigation.
* Bodycam footage would be attached to the email. It would be seen that Ace Butoslav is attempting to talk to him about the previous situation at Mission Row. It would be seen that he is failing to identify upon request. He would be loud and he would often barely let Ace talk.
((Bodycam RP Proof))
Witness Affirmation
- I, Ace Hawkins, 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,
Ace Hawkins
Police Detective I
Los Santos Police Department
Date: 26/JAN/2025
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 16 Feb 2025, 22:38
by Jaz Owens
((Is there any chance that you could provide some bodycam RP description of Jafaari as he made the threats and when he was found? Does the bodycam show the same clothes? Same car? Etc. This will help the RP from the defense.))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 21:23
by Terence Williams
((I am working on getting in touch with the involved parties to agree on RP for the incident at burgershot))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 18 Feb 2025, 23:22
by Terence Williams
((I read something wrong within the statements provided, and we're not adding additional RP for footage. We have received footage from the defendant which will be posted though. There is not other footage available, RPly or otherwise.))
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 19 Feb 2025, 21:14
by 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. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 19th of February, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 26 Feb 2025, 02:39
by Hope Kant
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 03 Mar 2025, 21:35
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION TO AMEND
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 3rd of March, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to Amend, the original charges with the underlined amended charges.
- Original Charges
- GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
- GM13 - Criminal Threats
- Amended Charges
- GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
- GC03 - Disorderly Conduct
- Detailed Explanation: Per recent precedent, set in case #25-CM-0008, State of San Andreas v. Dario Ortega, the Prosecution will be pursuing a citation against the defendant for conducting themselves in a disorderly manner, rather than the full charge for threatening criminal action. The Prosecution will still pursue the charge of GM10 due to the belief that there was legal basis to question the defendant, and they refused to obey a lawful order given by a law enforcement officer.
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 03 Mar 2025, 22:26
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion for Summary Judgment was filed in the above case on the 3rd of March, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgment, and the reasoning for the request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Irrefutable evidence
- Detailed Explanation: It is clear from the evidence that the arresting officer had an interaction with the defendant in front of Mission Row, during which the defendant made a threatening statement, "I'll just shoot them then", as the arresting officer wasn't able to help the defendant at the time. During a second encounter between the defendant and the arresting officer, at which point the officer was now on-duty, the arresting officer decided to investigate the defendant further as they recognized them from making the threatening statement mere minutes before, and issued the defendant an instruction to identify themselves. As the officer was conducting a legal investigation, the defendant's refusal to adhere to the officer's instruction constitutes a failure to comply with a lawful order.
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 06 Mar 2025, 04:14
by Hope Kant
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 06 Mar 2025, 15:12
by Rashood Jafaari
I have been attempting to communicate with my attorney about my case for over two weeks at this point, with no response. I wish to have some time to seek out new representation, before anything more is said on the docket, other than my opposition to the summary judgement.
the Defendant, Rashood Jafaari, hereby files this Opposition to the Prosecution’s Motion for Summary Judgment. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion for Summary Judgment, as there are genuine disputes of material fact that must be resolved at trial.
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 14 Mar 2025, 14:21
by QuentinDeLaVentura
- - - - -
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Motion to Substitute Counsel was filed in the above case on the 14th day of March, 2025.
COMES NOW, the Defendant, Rashood Jafaari, by and through undersigned counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court for an order substituting current defense counsel with new counsel, Quentin Delaventura, Esq., in the above-captioned case.
In support of this Motion, Defendant states as follows:
1. Lack of Effective Representation by Current Counsel
The current Public Defender assigned to this case, Jaz Owens, Esq., has been unresponsive to Mr. Jafaari's multiple attempts at communication. Furthermore, no response has been submitted on behalf of the defense since mid-February 2025. The failure to maintain adequate communication and case management may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, as established in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984).
2. The Defendant’s Right to Effective Counsel
The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a defendant the right to effective assistance of counsel. Due to the lack of engagement from current counsel, the Defendant believes he has been deprived of meaningful legal representation, potentially affecting the fairness of these proceedings.
3. New Counsel's Availability and Readiness to Proceed
The undersigned attorney, Quentin Delaventura, Esq., of Assured Law, has entered into a formal agreement with Mr. Jafaari for representation in this case. New counsel stands ready to immediately take over all defense responsibilities and ensure that the Defendant receives diligent, competent, and zealous representation. This substitution will not cause any undue delays or prejudice to the proceedings but will instead allow for the case to progress efficiently and justly.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court:
A. Grant this Motion to Substitute Counsel, permitting Quentin Delaventura, Esq. to enter as defense counsel of record;
B. Relieve prior counsel, Jaz Owens, Esq., of further responsibility in this matter; and
C. Grant any such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Thank you,
- Best regards,
Quentin Delaventura Esq.
"Your Voice, My Win"
(702) 395-6394
[email protected]
Assured Services
Attorney at Law, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 14 Apr 2025, 05:09
by Sayaka Yukimura
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 20 Apr 2025, 21:20
by QuentinDeLaVentura
- - - - -
NOTIFICATION OF COUNSEL
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 20th day of April, 2025.
I, Quentin Delaventura Esq., a Defense Attorney with the Private Law Firm, Assured Law, will be representing the Defendant, Mr. Rashood Jafaari, in the underlying case.
I will be taking the responsibility of Primary Counsel, and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.
- Best regards,
Quentin Delaventura Esq.
"Your Voice, My Win"
(702) 395-6394
[email protected]
Assured Services
Attorney at Law, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Re: State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 20 Apr 2025, 21:21
by QuentinDeLaVentura
- - - - -
- Esteemed Court and the Prosecuting Party,
From the Defendant's side, there are no objections to the Motion to Amend, at this time.
There is however an objection to the Motion for Summary Judgment. This objection is two-fold;
First, and perhaps most importantly: the Defense does not agree with the implied statement that all facts are agreed upon wrt. the case of the State of San Andreas vs. Rashood Jafaari. Multiple parts will be contested, as will be stated in the Court. For this, the Defense requests a time for a bench trial when convenient to the Court. The Defense will comply; as for the Defense' preference with regards to a time for the trial, an evening slot would be much appreciated.
Second: this is a bench trial. The purpose herein lies in steering clear of arguments between the prosecution and defense, as well as the docket being used in this manner. The Defense humbly requests this to be honored.
Thank you in advance for your time,
- Best regards,
Quentin Delaventura Esq.
"Your Voice, My Win"
(702) 395-6394
[email protected]
Assured Services
Attorney at Law, Assured Law
Bluff Tower, 72 Bay City Avenue
- - - - -
Re: #25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 08 May 2025, 03:28
by Sayaka Yukimura
Re: #25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 30 May 2025, 03:32
by Sayaka Yukimura
Re: #25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 31 May 2025, 20:55
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
#25-BT-0019
A Motion for Continuance was filed in the above case on the 31st of May, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;
- Reasoning: Scheduling conflicts
- Detailed Explanation: From today Saturday and until next Saturday, Prosecution counsel will be unavailable to make any progress on finalizing the initial arguments for the approved summary judgment due to commitment issues.
((I've got 13h-shifts Sunday through Wednesday, 12h Thursday, and 11h Friday at work, and if I want to function at the bare minimum, I'll need to use whatever time I have left to rest. If I do get unexpected extra time at some point during the period, I'll still work on it to keep the process going.))
As such, the Prosecution is requesting an additional seven (7) days be added to the deadline for submitting initial arguments, such as to be due Monday, May 9th, at 0332 hours.
Regards,
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
Re: #25-BT-0019 State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
Posted: 08 Jun 2025, 22:59
by Terence Williams
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Superior Court of San Andreas
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"
Initial Arguments
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
State of San Andreas v. Rashood Jafaari
#25-BT-0019
Initial arguments were filed in the above case on the 8th of June, 2025.
The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, presents its initial arguments for the Summary Judgment;
- The evidence against the defendant provided on the docket by the Prosecution paints a clear picture. Eye-witness testimony from Detective Ace Hawkins recounts how Detective Hawkins encountered the defendant in their taxi at the Mission Row police station, seemingly unhappy they were unable to get any help after allegedly having been attacked by a group of individuals with bats. The defendant is heard by Detective Hawkins stating "I'll just shoot them" before driving away from the station. Later, while on duty, Detective Hawkins recognizes the defendant from earlier and proceeds to investigate the situation, as the defendant had driven off earlier before any further investigation could have been initiated. The detective strikes up a conversation with the defendant regarding a potential misdemeanor arrest, then requesting to see the defendant's ID. The defendant, as shown in the bodycam footage from Exhibit #3, states "No thank you", amongst other things before requesting a supervisor. The detective then proceeds to put the defendant in cuffs and read them their Miranda Rights, placing the defendant under arrest.
The question is not whether or not the statement made by the defendant rises to the level of GM13 - Criminal Threats, as the Prosecution, in collaboration with the Los Santos Police Department, have amended the misdemeanor charge to a citation. The question is if the defendant failed to identify themselves at the lawful request of a law enforcement officer. And the answer to that question is yes. Detective Hawkins had encountered a situation where threatening statements were made and chose to investigate the situation further when encountering the defendant again at Mission Row. First requesting the defendant to ID themselves, then reaffirming the request as a lawful order, the defendant fails to identify to the detective both times, thereby failing to comply with the detective's lawful request to identify as part of the investigation. This is in direct violation of the penal code and is a textbook example of GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify, defined in the penal code as Failure to comply with a lawful command by a law enforcement officer, including when he requests you to identify who you are during the course of an investigation. Detective Hawkins was conducting a lawful investigation into the threatening and disruptive behavior of the defendant, who refused to identify to the detective when requested to as part of the detective's investigation.
Terence Williams
Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
234-9321 — [email protected]
