Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: Cale Makar
Defendant Phone: 586-4837
(( Defendant Discord: funguy4341 ))
(( Defendant Timezone: EST ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender Luna McMillan

Charging Department: LSSD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 23/DEC/2025 17:02
Charge(s):

• WM05 - Possession of Body Armor as a Felon
• DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
• WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
• WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
• VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle

Narrative:
My client feels like he has been wrongly charged.

---

I, Luna McMillan, 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. ))

---

---

I, Luna McMillan, a Public Defense Attorney with the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant(s), Name in the underlying case.

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



Luna McMillan
Public Defense Attorney
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

---

---

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.


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-4300 - [email protected]

---

---

The case of State of San Andreas v. Cale Makar 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.


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-4300 - [email protected]

---

---

• The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Witness List, designating the following list of individuals as witnesses, who may be called to the stand.
  
  Name of Witness:
  Cale Makar
  Type of Witness: (eye, fact, expert, or other type of witness)
  Eye
  Relevance to the case:
  Is the defendant of the case

Public Defense Attorney
Luna McMillan
San Andreas Judicial Branch
463-9315 — [email protected][/list]

---

---

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 (Los Santos County Sheriff's Department)

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Cale Makar
    Telephone Number: 5864837
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Driver
    
    Charges:
    • VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle
    • WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
    • WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications
    • DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed
    • WM05 - Possession of Body Armor as a Felon
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Nacho Navarro
    Badge Number: 28313
    Callsign: G13

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2025-12-23
    Deputies Involved: Nacho Navarro, Yuri Andre
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • During an ongoing operation, an unmarked unit observed a blue Kamacho registered to Cale Makar traveling along the train tracks originating from the Paleto Bay tunnel. The vehicle continued along the tracks before exiting off-road, crossing the Stab City bridge, and proceeding southbound on Senora Way, where it eventually pulled over.
      
      Due to the circumstances and manner of driving observed, the unmarked unit requested a marked patrol unit to conduct a traffic stop. Unit 118A responded and initiated the stop. The responding unit was advised that the driver would be receiving a charge for reckless operation based on the driving behavior witnessed prior to the stop.
      
      During the subsequent search of both the suspect and the vehicle, deputies located a fully modified advanced rifle, body armor, and a variety of controlled substances. All items were seized as evidence.
      
      The suspect was taken into custody and later escorted to the Department of Corrections by myself and Unit 118A for processing.
      
      During transport, the suspect requested the badge number of the deputy who ordered the traffic stop, indicating an intent to file an Internal Affairs complaint. I provided my own badge number and advised the suspect that he was free to reference it should he choose to pursue an IA report.

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: 1x Advanced rifle
    Exhibit B: 1x extended clip
    Exhibit C: 1x medium scope
    Exhibit D: 1x suppressor
    Exhibit E: 1x body armour
    Exhibit F: 3x marijuana
    Exhibit G: 1x marijuana plant
    Exhibit H: 1x steroid
    Exhibit I: 1x methadone
    Exhibit J: 1x heroin
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2: Witness Statement (Detective Nacho Navarro)

  

  

  
  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: Nacho Navarro
    Date of Birth: 04/DEC/1995
    Phone Number: 4879468
    Occupation: Detective

  Witness Statement

  • 1. Reckless Operation
    
    A blue Kamacho registered to Cale Makar was observed traveling southbound on the train tracks, originating from the Paleto Bay to Stab City train tunnel connection, passing through the Mount Chiliad area.
    
    The vehicle was seen on the train tracks near Stab City, where it continued along the tracks for a short distance before exiting the tracks and re-entering the roadway, proceeding southbound on Joshua Road. Operating a vehicle on active train tracks in this manner constituted reckless operation and presented a safety risk, prompting the traffic stop
    
    2. Reasoning for the Traffic Stop
    
    A LSSD Deputy conducted a traffic stop on him. The stop was initiated based on direct observation of a misdemeanor offense, specifically reckless operation of a motor vehicle, which had already occurred and was communicated to the responding unit.
    
    The traffic stop was therefore lawful and justified under existing enforcement authority, as the suspect had committed a vehicle-related misdemeanor in the presence of law enforcement.
    
    3. Reasoning for the Search of the Vehicle and Suspect
    
    Following the traffic stop, the suspect was lawfully detained and placed under arrest for reckless operation. As the offense involved the use of the vehicle in the commission of a crime, the Kamacho was subject to impound.
    
    In accordance with standard procedure, a search incident to arrest was conducted on the suspect, and an inventory search of the vehicle was performed prior to impound to document and secure any items of evidentiary value or contraband.
    
    During this lawful search, deputies located a fully modified advanced rifle, body armor, and a variety of controlled substances inside the vehicle. All items were seized and logged into evidence.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Nacho Navarro, 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,
    
    
    Nacho Navarro
    Detective
    Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
    
    Date: 21/JAN/2026

  

• Exhibit #3: Cale Makar - Partial Criminal History

  

  

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

  ---

  • Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,
    
    The Prosecution submits the following screenshot, showing the MDC record for the Defendant, specifically charges prior to the charges of interest in this case. Of importance, the Defendant has been charged multiple times with a felony. Although pleas of "not guilty" were entered, the Defendant has not initiated any appeals in the Superior Court, besides this one, and therefore the charges wherein "not guilty" was pled are actually convictions. Therefore, regarding the charge WM05 - Possession of Body Armor as a Felon, the Defendant has been previously convicted of a felony, and is therefore a "felon" per the penal code.
    
    Screenshot_CMakarMDCcharge.png

    
    
    
    
    
    
    Attorney General
    San Andreas Judicial Branch
    235-6076 - [email protected]

  

Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
235-6076 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution seem to have put an argument into the Evidence which we feel is wrong and should not be allowed into evidence the actually MDC photo is acceptable but prosecution is fighting a way in which they are perseeing the evidence not what was actually given to them by Law Enforcement. This feels very much a argument they should bring in court not in the discovery area.
  
  
  Public Defense Attorney
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  4639315 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge McCulloch and pertaining parties,
  
  We can remove the "argument", although we do not feel it is argument, and leaving just the screenshot if the Court wishes. We believe the inclusion of this exhibit to be necessary to meet the burden of proof on that specific charge.
  
  
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

---

• Parties,
  
  Apologies for the delayed response.
  
  Upon review of the witness list and the motion for discovery—along with the arguments made by both the prosecution and defense—the court rules the following.The inclusion of the Defendant as a listed witness is permissible and will be accepted by the courts.
  
  Now for the arguments for Exhibit #3. The Court acknowledges the Defense’s objection regarding the inclusion of prosecutorial argument within the discovery submission. Discovery filings are intended to disclose evidence, not legal conclusions or argument as to how that evidence should be interpreted. The court will be striking the written prosecutorial commentary from the discovery record, keeping the MDC screenshot as evidence.
  
  The courts will give three (3) days for any further motions before scheduling gets sent out.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  495-1265 — [email protected]

---

---

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,

Magistrate Judge
Director of Public Notary
San Andreas Judicial Branch
495-1265 — [email protected]

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 20:30 PM on 21st day of February, 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,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Do you have any objections to rescheduling for 22:30 PM?
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  298-3863 - [email protected]

---

---

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,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

---

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,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Dear Magistrate Judge Patron,
  
  The prosecution has submitted their availability.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Superior Court Judge
  Interim Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

---

---

In accordance with the availability reported by parties in response to the Notice of Scheduling, this trial shall take place at 20:30 PM on 13th day of March, 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,


Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Patrone and pertaining parties,
  
  Looking at the calendar for the next few days, the Prosecution would like clarification on the date/time for this trial. The notice of trial says it's 13/March at 2030 hours. However, in the scheduling notice, this time period was a time the Prosecution indicated unavailability, as our availability does not start until 2100 hours and only exists for an hour on this date. If the trial is indeed for 2030 hours, the Prosecution will be at least 20 minutes late, if not more.
  
  If the Court wishes, this Attorney can inquire of another prosecutor to substitute on the date/time currently scheduled.
  
  ((The court tracker in Discord shows this trial occurring at 0030 on 14/March, so not sure which time is correct.))
  
  
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The availability of all parties overlapped by only 1 hour, and as trials are often delayed by courtroom formalities and crowds, 2030 was scheduled for the public's sake. The court is open to hearing the case at 2100 on the 13th of March. Understanding the limited overlap, if the prosecution wishes to bring co-counsel should the case run long, that would be acceptable.
  
  Should the prosecution wish to reschedule, please let the court know. While 2300 on Saturday, the 21st of March, may be available. However, I will be on leave and need to obtain another judge to oversee this case.
  
  (( Sorry the Discord bot was set for the wrong time. ))
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  298-3863 - [email protected]

---

• Honorable Judge Patrone and pertaining parties,
  
  The Prosecution acknowledges and believes this trial can be handled within an hour, given there are only 3 exhibits to present. Due to the Prosecution's scheduling conflict, the Prosecution wishes to respectfully remind the Court of the Prosecution's inability to comply with the directive, "be present in the Judges Chambers no later than 15 minutes prior to the above listed date for pretrial arrangements." At best, the Prosecution, can likely arrive by 2045 hours. The Prosecution will be ready to proceed promptly upon arrival, and does not anticipate having any pretrial matters from the State to discuss.
  
  
  Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  235-6076 - [email protected]

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The court acknowledges the scheduling conflict with the Prosecution and will allow sufficient time for counsel to prepare before the trial begins. The court also acknowledges the limited availability of all parties and will do its best to accommodate all without placing an improper burden on either party. Should the case or verdict run long, it is understood that the lead prosecutor may need to leave and will be excused without any prejudice to this personal need. The following time is made with the understanding that pretrial motions will be heard in chambers only when both parties are present and prepared.
  
  It is with this understanding that the trial is officially scheduled to commence at 2100 on the 13th of March.
  
  Doors to the public shall close promptly at this time to avoid unnecessary disruptions.
  -

  ---

  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  298-3863 - [email protected]

---

---

---

---

• During an operation, a Sheriff’s Department deputy operating an unmarked unit observed a vehicle being driven on railroad tracks and off-road
• The unmarked unit asked a marked unit to conduct a traffic stop on the defendant's vehicle.
• The vehicle, a Kamacho, was stopped, and the driver, Mr. Makar, was arrested for VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle.
• Following the arrest, deputies searched Mr. Makar and the vehicle and found illegal items, leading to additional charges.

---

---

The prosecution argues that the defendant was driving on railroad tracks, which may cause harm to the vehicle or the tracks, and that there is no way to drive on them without the intent to harm the tracks, trains, or themselves. They argue that driving off-road would have additionally caused harm to themselves and others in the area. They argue this is to the extent of a Reckless Operation, showing intent to disregard property and life.


The defense argues that the defendant did drive improperly, which could have easily been covered by citations and/or lesser charges. They believe this was a charge used solely to make an arrest and search the defendant, rather than properly charging him with the vehicular offense actually committed.

---

---

First, noting the arguments made in the case file concerning the defendant’s prior pleas and classification as a felon for charging purposes:

• The defendant’s prior pleas of not guilty constitute an exercise of rights afforded to them, and any such pleas will not be considered adversely.
• The defendant’s classification as a felon for the body armor charge, although lawful, does not influence the Court’s decision in this matter.

Turning to the VM03 Reckless Operation charge, as its consequences led to the subsequent search and other contested charges, the Court recognizes that precedent affords deference to an officer’s discretion in assessing intentional disregard for the safety of life and property.

The defendant did indeed drive on train tracks and off-road and exhibited negligent driving behavior. The court also finds that driving on a railroad track could very well have caused them harm, but not to a level sufficiently documented to place them above other off-road areas.

Applying a reasonable person standard, the Court finds that there are no active rail operations within the state. Additionally, it is noted that there is no state statute or action forbidding such actions specifically on railroad tracks.

The defendant, who was only noted as driving a known off-road vehicle, was never documented to intentionally cause any harm or damage on railroad or off-road areas over other surfaces in this state. Without speed, time, damage, or further details, it can only be conjectured about many aspects of the driving. Therefore, the defendant’s sole operation of an off-road vehicle upon railroad tracks, without anything more or further detail, does not meet the elements of VM03.

Having found so, the Court turns to the legality of the search incident and the resulting charges. The Court defers to the Court of Appeals case #25-AP-0001, which permits additional charges to remain following searches conducted in "good faith." The Court finds in this instance that the statute was inapplicable in these circumstances for a reasonable fact finder and concludes that the evidence obtained constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree.

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

• On the count of VM03 - Reckless Operation of a Road or Marine Vehicle, I find the defendant, Cale Makar, not guilty.
• On the count of WM05 - Possession of Body Armor as a Felon, I find the defendant, Cale Makar, not guilty.
• On the count of DM04 - Possession of a Controlled Substance while Armed, I find the defendant, Cale Makar, not guilty.
• On the count of WM03 - Criminal Use of Weapon Modifications, I find the defendant, Cale Makar, not guilty.
• On the count of WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm, I find the defendant, Cale Makar, not guilty.

The defendant has made their way to City Hall to have the change to their record noted as well as the payment of $58,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.

So Ordered,

Magistrate Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
298-3863 - [email protected]