#25-BT-0135 State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall

[Waldo Marshall]

Defendant Name: Waldo Marshall
Defendant Phone: 493-3725
(( Defendant Discord: billybluewater ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Self-Representation

Charging Department: Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

Date & Time of Incident(s): 14/DEC/2025 17:51
Charge(s):

• GM10 – Failure to Comply / Failure to Identify

Narrative:
I was lawfully present in a public area and was not engaged in any criminal activity, causing a disturbance or interfering with law enforcement operations when a Sheriff’s Deputy instructed me to leave without providing any legal basis, safety concern or explanation that my presence was unlawful. As I believed the request to be arbitrary and not a lawful order, I remained in place without obstructing, threatening or interfering with the deputy in any way. I was then arrested and charged with GM10 despite no underlying offense, investigation or lawful justification for the order.

---

I, Waldo Marshall, 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. ))

[Hope Kant]

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

---

NOTICE OF RECEIPT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall
#25-BT-0135

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 14th 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,


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

[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

The State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall
#25-BT-0135

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 14th day of December, 2025.

The case of State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall 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 defense or prosecution wishes set precedence or desire a formal criminal trial, they are welcome to file a Motion for a Change in Venue

Respectfully,


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

[Waldo Marshall]

---

MOTION FOR DISCOVERY

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall
Case Number: 25-BT-0135

---

I, Waldo Marshall, representing myself, am submitting this Motion for Discovery in response to the Court’s order dated December 14th, 2025.

I am asking that the prosecution provide all materials they plan to rely on for the charge of GM10 - Failure to Comply, including:

• The arrest report and any additional written reports related to this incident
• Any statements the prosecution claims I made
• Any body camera, dash camera or audio recordings connected to the stop or arrest
• Any documentation explaining why the deputy’s order to leave the area was lawful

At this time, I do not plan to submit my own evidence, witnesses or recordings. My defense is based on the information already documented by law enforcement and whether the charge is supported by the Penal Code.

I may submit additional requests or motions after reviewing the prosecution’s materials.

Thank you for the Court’s time and consideration.

Respectfully,

Waldo Marshall

Defendant (Self-Represented)
Date: Friday 19th December, 2025

[Joseph Horton]

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court appreciates the response from the Defendant and acknowledges their intent to self-represent.
  
  The previous order from the Court was an Order for Discovery to the Prosecution (and Defense), providing thirty (30) days from the date of the Order to provide their evidence. The Court notes there's still quite a bit of time left for the Prosecution to provide this material at this time.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 — [email protected]

[Audrey Hartwell]

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. Waldo Marshall

A Notification of Counsel was filed in the above case on the 1st of January, 2026.

I, Audrey Hartwell, a Private Defense Attorney with Rockford Law, will be representing the Defendant, Waldo Marshall in the underlying case.

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



Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

[Hugh Allgood]

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. Waldo Marshall
25-CV-#0135

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 30th day of December, 2025.

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 LSPD

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Waldo Marshall
    Telephone Number: 4933725
    Licenses Suspended: No
    Charges:
    • GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Giorgos Papageorgiou
    Badge Number: 9536
    Callsign: 220A

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-12-14
    Deputies Involved: Dezzy Bala
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • There was a 10-55 from PD's side, where I responded as backup. The guy I arrested was present and pulled up in front of the traffic stop. I immediately pulled behind him and told him to leave. He then did a uturn and did the same stopped again close to the traffic stop. I asked him multiple times to leave the area and when he didn't comply I arrested him.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Mission Row
    Exhibit A: knife
    Exhibit B: radio
    Exhibit C:

  
  
  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  Giorgos Papageorgiou
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness statement Deputy Papageorgiou

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [14/DEC/2025]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Giorgos Papageorgiou]
    Date of Birth: [24/Jul/1998]
    Phone Number: [5457738]
    Occupation: [Deputy Sheriff]

  Witness Statement

  • The suspect pulled in front of a traffic stop after PD stopped another vehicle that was being followed by the suspect, which I responded to as a backup while we had an open jurisdiction with the Police Department. The suspect was close to the traffic stop, and I wanted him to pull further away from the incident to make the people behind me as safe as it could. The suspect did comply at first, but then he did a U-turn, waiting on the other side of the road, even getting out of his car started searching around his trunk while I was trying to talk to him.
    
    I have used the megaphone the whole time to instruct him to drive away from the traffic stop, but he failed to do so many times when we both got out of our vehicles to interact face-to-face. The suspect pulled out his camera, I believe, and started recording me when I continued to give him instructions to go back inside his vehicle and leave or drive further away. He didn't comply with any of my demands when I had to arrest him for failure to comply. I have clearly said to him that I wanted him to leave because of the traffic stop, and I didn't want him next to us.
    
    The whole situation happened at the bridge next to Mission Row (San Andreas Avenue Bridge), where there are no safe spots to stop a vehicle, and traffic is flowing nonstop. Some vehicles decide to speed on this bridge a lot and found the suspect stopping improperly for various reasons, plus the traffic stop. He also committed an illegal U-turn on the bridge where most vehicles pass at high speeds, but I didn't want to pursue this further as I wanted him away from the bridge and us(traffic stop).
    
    The reason Bala was called to the scene is that the suspect wanted a supervisor on scene. SD and PD supervisors at that time concluded that it would be okay if Chief Bala responded to it and provided a solution to the suspect's request.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Giorgos Papageorgiou, 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,
    Giorgos Papageorgiou
    Deputy Sheriff
    LSSD
    
    Date: [20/Dec/2025]

  

• Exhibit #3 Body Camera

  footage.avi
  "Footage shows officer Papageorgiou pulling into a traffic stop that PD conducted. It also shows the suspect pulling up in front of the traffic stop, where Officer Papageorgiou pulls behind him and asks over the megaphone for him to leave. At the beginning, he refuses, but he complies and drives on the other side of the road again, close to the traffic stop. At this point, he exits the vehicle and starts searching the trunk, and he's been followed by the officer and gets instructed to leave the area for once and for good. He refuses several times, and the officer threatens him that he's going to be arrested. He never complies, so the officer puts him under cuffs and proceeds with the arrest. A mechanic is called to take his vehicle. Bala from PD gets called to respond as a supervisor."
  Rowin Lawson
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]
  
  
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

[Audrey Hartwell]

Rockford Capital Partners
Rockford Law
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Waldo Marshall
#25-BT-0135

A Motion for Summary Judgement was filed in the above case on the Day of Month, Year.

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Summary Judgement, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The charge against the Defendant cannot stand as a matter of law. Even accepting the State’s version of events in full, the evidence fails to establish that a lawful order was issued. As such, there are no material facts in dispute that would justify this matter proceeding to trial.
  
  • Detailed Explanation: Summary judgement is appropriate where there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. That is the situation before the Court.
    
    It is not disputed that the Defendant was present on a public roadway near an unrelated traffic stop. The Defendant’s vehicle was parked on the opposite side of the road, at a clear distance from the traffic stop, and was legally parked. Notably, the Defendant was never cited or charged with illegal parking, obstruction, or any traffic related offense, which further confirms that his vehicle was lawfully positioned.
    
    It is also undisputed that the Defendant was not the subject of the traffic stop, was not under investigation, and was not interfering with law enforcement operations. The State’s own discovery reflects that the sole issue was the Defendant’s presence in the area, not any unlawful conduct on his part.
    
    There is no evidence that the location had been designated as a restricted or controlled scene. There was no scene management in place, no signage indicating the area was closed to the public, no established safety perimeter, and no traffic control measures implemented. Members of the public were not advised that they were prohibited from being present in the area.
    
    The Defense fully understands that there are circumstances where officers must lawfully clear an area for safety reasons. Situations involving active violence, gang activity, or a declared emergency may justify such action. However, none of those circumstances were present here, nor were they articulated at the time. General safety concerns, without more, do not convert a public roadway into a restricted zone.
    
    In short, the Defendant was lawfully present, legally parked, and not engaged in any unlawful activity. Without a lawful basis for the command to leave, an essential element of the charged offense is missing. No reasonable trier of fact could find otherwise.
    
    For these reasons, summary judgement in favor of the Defendant is appropriate.

---

Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to support the Defenses motion for summary judgement with one condition. Due to the nature of this case the prosecution would like the chance to present argument prior to the summary judgment. If that is not possible, we would like the bench trial to proceed as scheduled.
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[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. Waldo Marshall
#25-BT-0135

A court order was issued in the above case on the 14th day of January, 2026.

The courts will be granting the Motion for Summary Judgment that was filed by the Defense.

As both Prosecution and Defense have agreed to proceed to Summary Judgement with acknowledgement of the presented facts, the Court will allow the Motion to proceed.

The court will now allow the prosecution seventy-two hours to present its 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, the court will then render its decision and issue a verdict.

Respectfully,


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

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution asserts that the only arguments to be made in this case are based around the interpretation of the law and not the facts. The facts are as follows: the defendant appeared during a lawful and active traffic stop, they were then instructed to vacate the premises, they refused to vacate the premises. The officer notified the defendant that he would need to vacate the premises or else he would be detained and charged. The defendant refused again and was charged with GM10 - Failure to Comply / Identify.
  
  The Defense has argued that the defendant was not illegally parked, charged with obstruction or any other traffic-related offense. GM10 - failure to comply is described as follows; "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". There was an active investigation in progress with an unrelated individual. The defendant was issued a lawful order to vacate the premises. The defendant refused to comply resulting in the charge.
  
  Officers of the Law are authorized to secure crime scenes and make lawful requests of citizens in order to ensure the safety of themselves or the public. The order the officer gave was lawful. The defendant parked their car on a busy roadway. The officer had concerns for the safety of the defendant, his own safety and the safety of the individual being pulled over. The officer made multiple attempts to urge the defendant to leave. He used a microphone in order to ensure that the lawful order was heard, yet the defendant refused.
  
  This case is only about the interpretation of the law. The defendant violated a lawful order given by an officer of the law. The defendant willfully refused to comply and was charged GM10-Failure to comply.
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Prosecuting Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Audrey Hartwell]

Rockford Capital Partners
Rockford Law
"JUSTICE, DONE RIGHT"

---

Honourable Justice Horton and all pertaining parties,

The Defence agrees with the State that this matter turns on the interpretation of the law rather than any genuine dispute of material fact. The Defence does not dispute that the Defendant was present near a lawful traffic stop, nor that an officer issued an instruction to vacate the immediate area. What the Defence does dispute is the State’s assertion that the Defendant refused to comply with that instruction. The record reflects the opposite.

Bodycam footage from the Prosecution's own discovery shows that the defendant complied with the officer's original command by leaving the immediate vicinity of the traffic stop. The defendant drove away from the stop and parked on the opposite side of the road, at approximately 160 meters away from the scene. In doing so, the defendant left the area of the traffic stop and removed himself from any reasonable proximity that could be seen as interference, obstruction, or a safety concern to the officers or the public. The statement that the defendant "refused to vacate the premises" by the prosecution is therefore factually inaccurate.

At issue is what the prosecution refers to as the “premises.” In context, that term can only reasonably apply to the traffic stop itself. The Defendant complied with the instruction to leave that area. After doing so, the Defendant was ordered to leave a second location where he was lawfully parked on a public roadway. GM10 requires failure to comply with a lawful command. Once the Defendant had already complied with the instruction to vacate the traffic stop, any subsequent demand to leave a lawful location required an independent legal basis. None existed. There was no declared crime scene, safety perimeter, traffic control measures, and no indication that the public was prohibited from being present.

The authority given to officers to secure scenes and issue lawful commands are only supported by reasonable safety concerns. However, generalized safety concerns do not grant unlimited authority to exclude citizens from public spaces. The Defendant was never cited for illegal parking, obstruction, or any traffic related offense, and his presence posed no objective threat to officer or public safety. Because the Defendant complied with the lawful portion of the order and was thereafter commanded to leave a public place without legal justification, an essential element of GM10 is missing. There are no material facts in dispute, and summary judgement in favour of the Defendant is appropriate.

---

Managing Partner
Rockford Law
377-1669 — [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution would like to take this chance for a final rebuttal. We would like to take a moment to highlight a couple of points made by the Defense in their previous rebuttal. The Defense and the Prosecution are in agreement on these facts; the defendant arrived at the scene of an unrelated traffic stop. The defendant was given a lawful order to vacate; he then drove his car on the other side of the bridge and parked. At this point the arresting officer continued to instruct the defendant to leave, his lack of compliance then facilitated his arrest. The Defense argues not whether the defendant refused the order but whether the order was a lawful one.
  
  The prosecution respectfully as a matter of law reminds the Court of VC04 - Illegal Parking (In a tunnel or on a bridge, except where permitted by signs.). This Vehicular citation is important because of the location of the arrest. When the defendant was given the order to vacate, he was stopped on a bridge. When the defendant moved his car, he was also on a bridge (this can be referenced in the witness statement given by Giorgos Papageorgiou). Officer Papageorgiou had legal basis to instruct the defendant to leave the area, because he was attempting to clear the scene of an active traffic stop and to clear the bridge from an illegally parked vehicle. The Prosecution brings up VC04 not to attempt to claim that another charge should have been placed on the defendant but to demonstrate that there are multiple reasons that the officer had grounds for the order to vacate. At minimum it is clear that the officer's order was a lawfully given order.
  
  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 acknowledges that both Prosecution and Defense have provided their arguments.
  
  The Court is currently in deliberation, and a verdict will be provided within three (3) days.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

[Adam Patrone]

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. Waldo Marshall
#25-BT-0135

A decision was reached in the above case on the 25th day of January, 2026.

---

Facts

---

Near the San Andreas Avenue Bridge, the defendant's vehicle stopped in the immediate proximity of a traffic stop and was ordered to leave. The defendant made a U-turn, parked across the street, and exited the vehicle. The defendant was once approached to vacate the area.

---

Arguments Made

---

The main points of contention are based on the prosecution's assertion that officers can secure their scenes and remove individuals for safety reasons. They argue that the order to leave the area was communicated multiple times, that they were warned they would be charged with Failure to Comply, and that they still disobeyed lawful orders. The prosecution maintains that the public's safety was a valid concern and that investigations were ongoing, making the orders lawful. The prosecution cites the arrest report, the arresting officer's witness statement, and their bodycam footage.

The defense argues that the defendant was parked on a public road and was not involved in the traffic stop or any direct interference. They state that the boundaries were not clearly defined at the scene and that the officers did not need to have the defendant move a second time for safety or illegal parking reasons, nor were they issued a citation or charge for any vehicular offense. Finally, the defense argues that the order to vacate the premises was unlawful due to its ambiguity.

---

Verdict

---

The court finds that the contested order to vacate, although vague, was issued in the interest of public safety because the vehicle was unlawfully parked on a public roadway. The attempts to order the defendant to leave were therefore lawful and did not violate their rights.

It is important to recognize that clearer orders from the officer in these circumstances would have benefited both parties. Additionally, if the vehicle had been parked legally and the defendant therefore not posed a safety hazard, then without further evidence such as citations or charges to support the order to leave, the grounds for a lawful order would have been deemed insufficient, and a different verdict would have been reached.

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, Waldo Marshall, guilty.

So Ordered,

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

On Behalf of

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