#25-BT-0133 State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight

[Omar Knight]

Defendant Name: Omar Knight
Defendant Phone: 527-1758
(( Defendant Discord: _bakry ))
(( Defendant Timezone: GMC +2 ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSSD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 08/12/2025 11:50
Charge(s):

• Bank Robbery

Narrative:
i was driving my draugur after i found it in random street found one of my brothers injured on the floor with alot of deputies around him tried to check his pockets if he has anything inside got tazed then i went up to my draugur and evaded for some time then i completley stopped my car and turned my engine off and surendered and went on my knees when i got to doc i found myself got charged of evading and bank robbery which i didn't do the deputy who putted the charge on me his badge number is (27191)

---

I, Omar Knight, 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. ))

[Clara Lopez]

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. Omar Knight

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 9th day of December, 2025.

The Superior Court of San Andreas has received your filing and the case is now pending activation. Be advised that the bench trial court system operates off a time-slot scheduling system. Please look out for notifications from either the courts or your attorney in regards to scheduling your bench trial.

During this time, the defendant is encouraged to reach out to a licensed defense attorney in order to prepare a proper defense. 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.

Respectfully

Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 495-1265 — [email protected]

[Clara Lopez]

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. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 9th day of December, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight 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 30 days or file a Motion for Continuance.

If at any point in time the defendant or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue.

Respectfully

Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 495-1265 — [email protected]

[Michael Blaise]

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. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 26th of December, 2025.

I, Michael Blaise, a Private Defense Attorney, will be representing the Defendant, Omar Knight, in the underlying case.

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



Private Defense Attorney
552-8150 — [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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. Omar Knight
25-BT-#0133

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 11th day of January, 2026.

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 Omar Knight

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Omar Knight
    Telephone Number: 5271758
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    
    Charges:
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: James Sharpe
    Badge Number: 28048
    Callsign: 227A

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-12-08
    Deputies Involved: Rebecca Edwards
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • The suspect was seen at a bank robbery on East Joshua Road near Grapeseed. He fled from the bank along with around 6 other vehicles. A pursuit then went into the city where we then found the suspect again and arrested him.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: N/A

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  J.Sharpe
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness Statement Martin Haswell

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Martin Haswell]
    Date of Birth: [09/JAN/1996]
    Phone Number: [5689567]
    Occupation: [Lieutenant @ Los Santos County Sheriff's Department]

  Witness Statement

  • On the date of the incident in question, Empire were called out as having a large gathering of individuals near Fleeca Bank branches in the county. Whilst I was patrolling one of these branches, I noticed a Elegy Retro Custom registered to Sammy Kane sat behind the Joshua Road branch.
    
    As I spotted him, he made a call out, though it's indecipherable as to what specifically it was, All I heard was noise coming from his call, and seconds later, Multiple individuals arrive, with a Hostage in tow. I conducted negotiations with these individuals for safe release of the hostage in exchange for free passage, where who I believe to be the appellant left the bank and entered a Draugur which was imminently used to evade from the bank.
    Additionally, this individual came to clean out the pockets of his friend who had, for all intents and purposes, been caught already, but was not being paid attention to by ground units. (I was in the helicopter at this point using the helicam and the individual who was being helped by the appellant was injured).
    
    Coupled with the facts that 1) the appellant was sporting the same attire and 2) the appellant was driving the same vehicle, which had left the bank robbery to begin with, and was tampering with evidence from an individual who was confirmed to have come from the bank robbery, these lead me to believe that the person at the bank robbery, and the person who was arrested after these events are the same person.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Martin Haswell], 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,
    
    
    Martin Haswell
    Lieutenant
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 18/DEC/2025

  

• Exhibit #3 Witness Statement Rebecca Edwards

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [08/DEC/2025]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Rebecca Edwards]
    Date of Birth: [02/DEC/1997]
    Phone Number: [254-8815]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff (Bonus I)]

  Witness Statement

  • [Deputy Sharpe and myself had clocked on and partnered up as a bank robbery was happening on Joshua Road. We arrived just before the suspects fled and positioned down the street in preparation for the pursuit, we engaged in a couple of different pursuits up until some of the suspects were caught. Deputy Sharpe had detained and brought Omar Knight to our cruiser at the scene and asked me to place the charges on his behalf as he drove to DOC, and explained that he was instructed to apply the Bank Robbery charge.
    
    Tom Brown later informed both of us that Omar Knight planned to contest the charge. We both explained that we were instructed to apply that charge. Deputy Sharpe may be able to recall the name of who had originally told him to place the charge. I believe Martin Haswell then mentioned he may have bodycam footage and/or could confirm Omar Knight was at the bank.]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [REBECCA EDWARDS], 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,
    
    
    [Rebecca Edwards]
    [Deputy Sheriff (Bonus I)]
    [LSSD]
    
    Date: [13/DEC/2025]

  

• Exhibit #4 Witness Statement James Sharpe

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [N/A]
    Incident Date: [08/DEC/2025]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [James Sharpe]
    Date of Birth: [10/OCT/1998]
    Phone Number: [4981558]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sherriff]

  Witness Statement

  • [Members of Empire were seen robbing a bank, a chase then ensued into the city. Omar Knight was then seen and chased, he eventually gave himself up mid pursuit. I then cuffed him and asked what charges should be placed, I believe it was Arnold Rimmer that told me to place bank robbery on the person, and at a later date Martin Haswell stated that he also saw him at the bank and said he would also testify to that. There was no immediate evidence of him being at the bank robbery, I just placed the charges I was told to place. God bless.]

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [James Sharpe], 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,
    
    
    [James Sharpe]
    [Deputy Sherriff]
    [LSSD]
    
    Date: [11/DEC/2025]

  

• Exhibit #5 Incident Report

  

  1. DETAILS

  • Date & Time: 08/Dec/2025 (( UTC ))
    Location: Joshua Bank
    
    Investigator(s) & Deputie(s) Involved:
    • Harry Payne
    • Arnold Rimmer
    • Jay Alva
    • James Sharpe
    • Charlie Ross
    • Rebecca Edwards
    • Will Grigg
    • Martin Haswell
    • Theo Ashman
    Suspects/Individuals Involved:
    • Romeo Knight
    • Elijah Vice
    • Matei Knight
    • Omar Knight
    • Myles Knight
    • Eddy Connors
    Charges:
    • Romeo Knight
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • SF09 - False Imprisonment of a Hostage
      • WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
      • GM04 - Resisting Arrest
    • Elijah Vice
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • Matei Knight
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
    • Omar Knight
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • Myles Knight
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • Eddy Connors
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer
      • GM14 - Obstruction of Justice
      • SF07 - Bank Robbery

  2. NARRATIVE

  • Responding units were dispatched to a backup call for an active bank robbery. Upon arrival, deputies observed an individual known as Empire holding a hostage inside the bank. SEB responded, assumed negotiations, and secured the safe release of the hostage in exchange for granting the suspects free passage. After releasing the hostage, the suspects entered multiple vehicles and fled the scene. Lieutenant Arnold Rimmer deployed spike strips near Sandy Station, successfully spiking several fleeing vehicles. A tan Monstrociti registered to Matei Knight became disabled and the driver was detained by Deputy Alva. Units continued their pursuit of a purple La Coureuse registered to Romeo Knight, which stalled in the city. Romeo Knight attempted to flee on foot but was tased and taken into custody. The second occupant of the La Coureuse was picked up by another Empire affiliate driving a purple Mule truck. Deputies pursued the Mule and executed a successful PIT maneuver, resulting in both occupants, identified as Elijah Vice and Omar Knight, being taken into custody. Shortly after, Lieutenant Rimmer located another vehicle that had been seen at the bank, registered to Myles Knight and occupied by two individuals who had earlier evaded from units. These suspects attempted a vehicle drop on the DOC bridge, trying to enter a black Terminus registered to Matty Barr. All individuals involved were tased before they could enter the vehicle drop and were subsequently transported to DOC.

  3. ATTACHMENTS

  • Matei Knight - Arrest Report

    https://gov.eclipse-rp.net/viewtopic.php?p=1094852&hilit=Matei+Knight#p1094852
    Omar Knight - Arrest Report

    https://gov.eclipse-rp.net/viewtopic.php?p=1094863&hilit=Omar+Knight#p1094863

• Exhibit #6 Body Camera Arnold Rimmer

  Lt Arnold Rimmer's Bodycam:
  
  Please provide any footage that you may have. Specifically, we require any body camera footage of the incident, from the initiation of the traffic stop to the conclusion of the arrests. ((Audio video artefacts or /do statements. It is mandatory to include proof of Recording))
  ** Arnold Rimmer is seen arriving at the bank.
  ** Martin Haswell begins negotiations with the robbers.
  ** Arnold Rimmer places spikes West of the bank on East Joshua Road.
  ** Vehicles fleeing the scene are spiked
  ** Arnold Rimmer clocks off.

• Exhibit #7 Body Camera Martin Haswell

  Shortly after beginning shift, You would see Lieutenant Haswell patrolling around the county, specifically around the banks in the county.
  After he clears the YouTool Bank, he would see several vehicles in the area and call them out.
  He would continue to patrol, coming back to the Joshua road bank, where he would check the back entrance
  There he would find a vehicle registered to Sammy Kane.
  Lieutenant Haswell would reverse away from Sammy Kane's Elegy Retro Custom and out into the intersection, where he would see multiple vehicles all coming to the bank in quick succession, One of them beign Omar Knight's Draugur.
  Lieutenant Haswell would see many individuals enter the bank, including one individual wearing the same clothing as Omar Knight. He would continue to have visual contact whilst the individual was inside of the bank.
  The bank robbers would all exit the bank, with two individuals getting into the Dragur. The one dressed as Mr. Omar Knight was, and another unknown Empire affiliate.
  The Draugur would not be chased, but instead two sports cars would be chased. however it would have hit the spikes all the same.
  Later, Instead of opting to get a repair, the Draugur arrives on scene where an injured bank robber is being taken into custody pending LSEMS response. This individual begins to go through the injured bank robbers pockets whilst wearing the exact same clothing that was observed in the bank robbery earlier.
  This Draugur begins to evade with no tires, and eventually comes to a stop at the 5-way intersection at Dorset / Las Lagunas / Abe Milton / San Vitus, where they then surrender.

• Exhibit #8 Matei Knight Arrest Report

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    Full Name: Matei Knight
    Telephone Number: 4651214
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    • Trucker
    Charges:
    • VF01 - Evading an Officer
    • SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • WM02 - Possession of a Class 1 Firearm
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :
    White monstrociti 1 times occupied

  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  • Vehicle A: MonstroCiti , GG1Q2W9A , 41AGEECAEPKLUA000 Matei Knight

  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Jay Alva
    Badge Number: 21927
    Callsign: 11-R-31

  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-12-08
    Deputies Involved: Arnold Rimmer
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • A bank robery was taking place on East Joshua road, 5 vehicles were waiting outside of the bank with a hostage demanding clear passage.
      Our units set up spikes eastbound of the road a White Monstrociti got hit by them and crashed immediately, we managed to box him and i took the arrest.

  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: Packed cash and .50
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  dw
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

Rowin Lawson
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
25-BT-#0133

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 11th day of January, 2026.

I, Rowin Lawson, a Prosecutor 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.


Rowin Lawson
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected]

[Mic Ross]

- - - - -

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 12th of January, 2026.
  I, Mic Ross, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant, Omar Knight, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Primary Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge.

---

• 
  Mic Ross. - Junior Attorney
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 224-2401
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 12th of January, 2026.
  
  I, Izaak Scott, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant, Omar Knight, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Co-Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[herina]

Good to see everything documented clearly for the case timeline✨🤗

[Mic Ross]

- - - - -

• A Motion to Suppress was filed in the above case on the 13 of January, 2026.
  
  Defendant, Omar Knight, by and through counsel of record, submits this Motion to Suppress and respectfully moves this Court to suppress the following evidence. We may file another depending on prosecution response to evidentiary review ((Just waiting for proof of RP!!))
  
  The portions highlighted in yellow should be suppressed. Witnesses may testify to what they observed — not to who they believe committed the crime. Identity is the central issue before this Court and cannot be resolved through an officer’s personal belief. Rather than providing factual observations from which the Court could independently draw a conclusion, the witness simply states that he believes the individual involved was the appellant. Speculation does not become admissible merely because it is offered by law enforcement.
  
  The light blue highlighted statements should be suppressed as speculative and lacking probative value. The witness concedes that the alleged “call out” was indecipherable and that he does not know what was said. Inviting the Court to infer coordination or criminal intent from an unknown conversation is pure speculation. Evidence that cannot be articulated cannot meaningfully assist the Court and should be disregarded.
  
  The statements highlighted in light green rely on information not personally observed by the witness. Phrases such as “were called out as” and “confirmed to have come from the bank robbery” indicate reliance on third-party reporting without foundation. This Court cannot assess the reliability of unnamed sources, and such hearsay assertions should not be considered as evidence.
  
  The Light sea green highlighted portions should be suppressed because they consist of legal conclusions rather than factual testimony. Characterizing conduct as “cleaning out pockets” or “tampering with evidence” applies criminal labels without describing the underlying actions or establishing the elements of any offense. Witnesses are permitted to describe what they saw - not to assign random criminal classifications to those observations.
  
  Exhibit #2 Witness Statement Martin Haswell

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Martin Haswell]
    Date of Birth: [09/JAN/1996]
    Phone Number: [5689567]
    Occupation: [Lieutenant @ Los Santos County Sheriff's Department]

  Witness Statement

  • On the date of the incident in question, Empire were called out as having a large gathering of individuals near Fleeca Bank branches in the county. Whilst I was patrolling one of these branches, I noticed a Elegy Retro Custom registered to Sammy Kane sat behind the Joshua Road branch.
    
    As I spotted him, he made a call out, though it's indecipherable as to what specifically it was, All I heard was noise coming from his call, and seconds later, Multiple individuals arrive, with a Hostage in tow. I conducted negotiations with these individuals for safe release of the hostage in exchange for free passage,
    where who I believe to be the appellant left the bank and entered a Draugur which was imminently used to evade from the bank.
    
    Additionally, this individual came to clean out the pockets of his friend who had, for all intents and purposes, been caught already, but was not being paid attention to by ground units. (I was in the helicopter at this point using the helicam and the individual who was being helped by the appellant was injured).
    
    Coupled with the facts that 1) the appellant was sporting the same attire and 2) the appellant was driving the same vehicle, which had left the bank robbery to begin with, and was tampering with evidence from an individual who was confirmed to have come from the bank robbery, these lead me to believe that the person at the bank robbery, and the person who was arrested after these events are the same person.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Martin Haswell], 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,
    
    
    Martin Haswell
    Lieutenant
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 18/DEC/2025

  

---

• 
  Mic Ross. - Junior Attorney
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 224-2401
  Your Case. Our Commitment.
  
  
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION TO SUPPRESS REBUTTAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
25-BT-#0133

A Motion to suppress rebuttal was filed in the above case on the 13th day of January, 2026.

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion to suppress rebuttal;

Exhibit #2 Witness Statement Martin Haswell

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

Case Information

• Case Number: [Case Number]
  Incident Date: [01/JAN/2000]

Witness Information

• Name: [Martin Haswell]
  Date of Birth: [09/JAN/1996]
  Phone Number: [5689567]
  Occupation: [Lieutenant @ Los Santos County Sheriff's Department]

Witness Statement

• On the date of the incident in question, Empire were called out as having a large gathering of individuals near Fleeca Bank branches in the county. Whilst I was patrolling one of these branches, I noticed a Elegy Retro Custom registered to Sammy Kane sat behind the Joshua Road branch.
  
  As I spotted him, he made a call out, though it's indecipherable as to what specifically it was, All I heard was noise coming from his call, and seconds later, Multiple individuals arrive, with a Hostage in tow. I conducted negotiations with these individuals for safe release of the hostage in exchange for free passage,
  where who I believe to be the appellant left the bank and entered a Draugur which was imminently used to evade from the bank.
  
  Additionally, this individual came to clean out the pockets of his friend who had, for all intents and purposes, been caught already, but was not being paid attention to by ground units. (I was in the helicopter at this point using the helicam and the individual who was being helped by the appellant was injured).
  
  Coupled with the facts that 1) the appellant was sporting the same attire and 2) the appellant was driving the same vehicle, which had left the bank robbery to begin with, and was tampering with evidence from an individual who was confirmed to have come from the bank robbery, these lead me to believe that the person at the bank robbery, and the person who was arrested after these events are the same person.

Witness Affirmation

• I, [Martin Haswell], 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,
  
  
  Martin Haswell
  Lieutenant
  Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
  
  Date: 18/DEC/2025

(1) Empire were called out as having a large gathering of individuals near Fleeca Bank branches in the county.
The Defense is attempting to claim that Lieutenant Haswell is making statements about events that he did not witness. The Defense is claiming that this statement is in fact hearsay. The Prosecution Argues that the statement made by the Lieutenant is not hearsay and is made in order to explain why he was present during the robbery, why the area was being surveilled and to provide context for the observations.

(2) he made a call out, though it's indecipherable as to what specifically it was, all I heard was noise coming from his call,
This statement made by Lieutenant Haswell is the lieutenant stating facts as they occurred. The Defense is attempting to claim that this is speculative though as a firsthand account of events. The Lieutenant is not speculating on the context of what he heard. The prosecution sees no reason for the suppression of this Statement.

(3) where who I believe to be the appellant left the bank and entered a Draugur which was imminently used to evade from the bank.
The Defense is claiming that the witness is speculating about what they did not observe or personally see. This statement is made by an officer during an active investigation. The Lieutenant is making assertions based on his observations of the vehicle, the behavior of the vehicle and the individuals he saw enter the vehicle.

(4) this individual came to clean out the pockets of his friend
Lieutenant Haswell is making an observation what he saw by stating that the "individual came out to clean out the pockets of his friend". The witness is not making any claims outside of the scope of what he was able to witness.

(5) tampering with evidence
The statement made in regards to "Tampering with evidence" is the officers preliminary assessment during an active investigation. The prosecution believes that there are no grounds to suppress this statement.

(6) confirmed to have come from the bank robbery,
The Defense is claiming that that this statement is being made without the Witness observing facts that would have led them to the aforementioned conclusion. The witness personally saw the vehicle in question when they were observing the bank robbery from a helicopter and would have reason to believe that the vehicle would have come from the robbery.

(7) these lead me to believe that the person at the bank robbery, and the person who was arrested after these events are the same person.
The Prosecution would argue the non speculative nature of this comment due to the first hand information that the witness had prior to making this statement. The lieutenant is making this statement based off of the chain of events as he had witnessed them and nothing else.

Rowin Lawson
Prosecuting Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 451-9939 — [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

• Honorable Judge Lopez and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution would like to apologize, it looks as if the body camera footage from Arnold Rimmer was corrupted. The prosecution requests it be excluded from the discovery. ((the prosecution was unable to retrieve proof of RP from the officer. additionally I have attached the proof of RP for Martin Haswell.))
  
  ► Show Spoiler

  
  Rowin Lawson
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court has reviewed the Motion to Suppress submitted by the Defense on the 13th of January, 2026.
  
  The Court recognises the arguments raised by both parties; however, upon review of the specific suppressions requested, the Court finds that the suppressions requested are better served for courtroom conjecture than initial exclusion from trial discourse.
  
  The Court also notes that Exhibit #6 will be excluded following the Prosecution's docket notice.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF SCHEDULING

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

An attempt to schedule was made and recorded by the court on 19th day of January, 2026.

All parties in this case are encouraged to complete the following Scheduling Tool in an attempt to schedule a trial on the above case. When the scheduling tool has been completed by either party, please post on the docket stating as such.

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 continue to attempt to schedule the proceeding or seek alternative avenues to conclude the case.

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.


Respectfully,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

NOTICE OF TRIAL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

A trial date was set on the above case on the 21st day of January, 2026.

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 20:00 PM on 27th day of January, 2026 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 cancellation 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 Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court has mistakenly placed the date as the 25th of January, but the trial will instead happen on the 26th of January, 2026 at the same time of 20:00 PM.
  
  The previous Notice of Trial has been updated to reflect the corrected date.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

((May we change this tuesday as the clients sister is giving birth to his son.))

[Joseph Horton]

(( We can move it to Tuesday as that still fits within everyone's posted scheduling. The notice of trial will be updated to reflect this. ))

[Adam Patrone]

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

---

NOTIFICATION OF CHANGE IN COUNSEL

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
25-BT-#0133

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 26th day of January, 2026.

I, Adam Patrone, a Clerk 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 Co-Counsel and will await further instruction from the Presiding Judge.


Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

[Adam Patrone]

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. Omar Knight
25-BT-#0133

A Motion to Amend was filed in the above case on the 26th day of January, 2026.

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
  • SF07 - Bank Robbery

• Amended Charges
  • SF07 - Bank Robbery

• • Subsidiary Charges
    • Accessory to SF07 - Bank Robbery
    • GF16 - Tampering with Evidence
    • GM14 - Obstruction of Justice

• Detailed Explanation: The Prosecution would like the court to consider the subsidiary charges in accordance with the Lesser Offense Doctrine during its review.

Court Clerk
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]


On behalf of,
Rowin Lawson
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [email protected][/list]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• The defense would like to formally oppose the Motion to Amend that has been presented. The last time a prosecutor amended charges with both a primary and subsidiary charge was on May 14, 2023 - almost three years ago. The San Andreas Judicial Branch has changed, for the better, significantly since then.
  
  We are one day from trial. Does the prosecution truly expect the defense to completely re-review the evidence and reconsider whatever trial strategy has already been prepared? While we understand the major departmental charges that have been brought forth by the prosecution, does the division truly wish to revert to the year 2023 amidst the myriad of court cases and a system once described by the most progressive Attorney General as a “journey marked by challenges and transformations”?
  
  With regard to the remainder of the motion - which has left the poor defense rather confused - is the prosecution intending to pursue the charge of Accessory to SF07, GF16, and GM14 if they cannot prove SF07, or do they intend on pursuing GF16 and GM14 alongside SF07? If not the latter, and if that is how the prosecution intends for this motion to be laid out, it directly contradicts the very doctrine they have cited: the lesser included offense doctrine, which again dates back to 2023.
  
  Under this doctrine, it is stated: “The prosecution may charge the more serious offense primarily and the lesser charge subsidiarily, as the greater charge implies the lesser charge.” This is not what the prosecution is doing. Instead, they have provided the original charge and, should they fail to prove it, intend to add two additional charges while also pursuing the alleged lesser charge.
  
  Since the defense does not intend to force the prosecution to dig through file after file in an attempt to locate the actual precedent that recognized the lesser included offense doctrine back in 2023, we will cite it ourselves.
  

  Upon reconsideration, the court is amending its prior decision rejecting the prosecution’s Motion to Amend Charges on the basis of the lesser included offense doctrine. Under this doctrine, the prosecution may charge the more serious offense primarily and the lesser charge subsidiarily, as the greater charge implies the lesser charge.
  
  For clarity, if the prosecution is able to prove the lesser charge but not the greater charge, the defendant shall be found guilty only of the lesser charge. However, if the prosecution is able to prove both the lesser and the greater charge, the defendant shall be found guilty only of the greater charge. In either scenario, only one of the specified charges shall remain should the defendant be found guilty of either such charge.

  Not only has the prosecution misnamed the doctrine they have cited - which could have forced a less experienced defense attorney into a prolonged and extensive search through the archives of 2023 - they have also breached that very doctrine by attempting to pursue GF16 and GM14, which - more likely than not - have arisen from the same alleged act.
  
  The defense must also note its appreciation for the level of detail provided by the prosecution in the section labeled “Detailed Explanation.” In a Motion to Amend, the prosecution must provide evidence establishing probable cause for the charges they seek to add, as referenced in #23-AP-0004. The prosecution has failed to provide any example of probable cause within discovery for the additional charges, thereby rendering it effectively impossible for the defense to meaningfully contest them.
  

  It is the court’s opinion that the prosecution can pursue additional charges against a defendant in a case using a Motion to Amend Charges, but only if they can provide evidence to prove probable cause. In this case, the evidence being used is the body camera footage of the commander.

  Finally, the prosecution attempting to charge the defendant as both a principal to SF07 and, alternatively, as an accessory to that very same offense reads less like a legally coherent theory and more like a fallback plan in search of a conviction. A Motion to Amend is intended to correct defects or conform charges to the evidence - not to serve as a safety net should the prosecution fail to meet its burden on the primary charge. This issue is further shown by the prosecution’s complete failure to identify what specific conduct allegedly constitutes GF16 or GM14, or how either charge is temporally or factually distinct from the conduct underlying SF07. There is not even a basic articulation of these elements; the court is left to speculate as to the basis of the amendment - a task that is neither the judge’s nor the defense’s responsibility.
  
  We urge the court to deny the Motion to Amend for the many reasons we have stated above.

---

• 
  Izaak Scott Esq. - Founding Partner
  Criminal Defense & Constitutional Law
  ☏ 411-2330
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Levy Gold]

- - - - -

Blaise & Scott
5. Del Perro Blvd
"YOUR CASE, OUR COMMITMENT"

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 26 of January, 2026.
  
  I, Levy Gold, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant(s), Omar Knight, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Co-Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge.
  

  ---

  
  Levy Gold - Junior Attorney
  ☏ 590-2182
  Your Case. Our Commitment.

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

COURT DECISION

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

A decision was reached in the above case on the 26th day of January, 2026.

The Court has reviewed the Motion to Amend and the subsequent arguments of the Defense.

First, in addressing the use of the Subsidiary Charges and Lesser-Included Offence Doctrine, the Court does recognise the use of the Primary vs Subsidiary charges in presenting to the Court the lesser charges applicable in the case as per prior precedent. However, the usage in this case is inconsistent with the Doctrine as highlighted by the Defense.

The charges of GF16 - Tampering with Evidence and GM14 - Obstruction of Justice are separate offenses that are not necessary components of the greater charge. The inclusion of these charges, through a Motion to Amend, may have been acceptable to the Court in combination with a detailed justification, had it not been submitted on the eve of the trial.

While the Court, at times, has allowed for Motions to Amend far closer to trial, this has been in the case where the act of doing so has not unfairly burdened the Defense.

As such, the Court will accept the Motion to Amend the Subsidiary charge of Accessory to SF07 - Bank Robbery only. The other charges of GF16 - Tampering with Evidence and GM14 - Obstruction of Justice will not be considered at trial, given the fundamental expansion of charges that would unfairly burden the Defense this close to trial.


So Ordered,


Superior Court Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

ISSUANCE OF VERDICT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Omar Knight
#25-BT-0133

A decision was reached in the above case on the 27th day of January, 2026.

---

Facts

---

• A Bank Robbery took place on the 8th of December, 2025.
• A Draugur was found on scene during the Bank Robbery.
• Following a series of vehicles escaping from the Bank Robbery, the Draugur found on scene also left and was spiked.
• A Draugur returned, with popped tyres, and as per the Defendant's initial submission, Mr. Omar Knight was the individual to return and "check" the pockets of his brother.

---

Arguments From Either Side

---

The Defense has argued that throughout all of the Exhibit's, Prosecution has not provided enough evidence to substantiate the claim that their defendant was present at the Bank Robbery, or at all involved. Defense argues that identification made from a Helicam, in combination with the arresting officers' only placing charges based on Orders from others, cannot be enough to substantiate the Bank Robbery Charge.

Prosecution argues that the culmination of evidence provided, the multiple witness statements corroborating the arrest, the Defendant's vehicle being present at the scene, evading, and then subsequently returning, are all factors that establish the Defendant's involvement in the Bank Robbery.

---

Verdict

---

The Court agrees with the Defense that the evidence provided does not place the Defendant at the scene of the original Bank Robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense raised significant concerns surrounding the claimed identification of the Defendant, which Prosecution was not able to substantiate through the provided evidence. The Court cannot find a factual basis that places the Defendant in the Bank at the time of the Bank Robbery taking place.

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

• On the count of SF07 - Bank Robbery, I find the defendant, Omar Knight, not guilty.

The defendant should make their way to City Hall at their earliest convenience to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $24000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.



So Ordered,

Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [email protected]