Eclipse Government

Defendant Name: David Deltoid
Defendant Phone: 593-1338 ((Might have to change as I have gone over the texts limit and have broken my phone))
(( Defendant Discord: dawud_. ))
(( Defendant Timezone: UTC ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Unknown

Charging Department: LSPD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 08/JAN/2026
Charge(s):

• Battery of Gov
• Evading
• Possession of III Controlled

Narrative:
While going about my day, I was driving my vehicle, a purple Paragon, and listening to music. I was pulled over by a police officer who identified as Muslim. During the stop, the officer forcibly removed my religious headgear without justification and conducted a search of my person, again without reason.

The stated reasons for the stop were:

• I was wearing the same type of trousers as a suspect.
• I share the same skin color as the suspect.
• I was present in the same area as the suspect.

During the encounter, the officer and other officers present mocked my charitable practices and compelled me to recite the pillars of Islam as a condition to avoid charges. There was no legitimate reason for the stop, search, or arrest, and the treatment I received constituted racial and religious discrimination.

I referenced a prior case I worked on, Kevin Reyes, which involved similar circumstances, and the legal precedent set in that case remains applicable. The officers also had no reason to initiate an actual 10-55 on me, and only did because they saw a black man in a nice car.

Once I got to DOC, I plead not guilty - which resulted in the officer adding on extra charges.

---

I, David Deltoid, 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. ))

---

---

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. As long as the defendant or their counsel makes an attempt to schedule the trial either on the docket or within the time-slot area, the court will do their best to accommodate with a Notice of Scheduling.

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,


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

---

---

The case of State of San Andreas v. David Deltoid is hereby activated and opened by this Court.

Be advised that the bench-trial court system runs on a weekly time-slot system. As long as the defendant makes an attempt to schedule the trial either on the docket or within the time-slot area, the court will do their best to accommodate with a Notice of Scheduling.

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,


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

---

---

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 Police Department ARREST REPORT "TO PROTECT AND TO SERVE"

  
  

  ---

  • ARREST DETAILS
    • Arresting Officer: David Loan
      Callsign: 4-L-15
      
      Date of Arrest: 08/JAN/2026
      Officers Involved:
      • Police Officer III David Loan
      • Police Sergeant II Aiden Beta
      • Police Detective I Rondal Olsson
      Narrative: Explain what happened in detail, provide sufficient detail to justify the charges. Video and image evidence can be provided. Specifically state why each charge listed was placed.
      
      Officer David Loan under 4-L-15 attempted to pullover a Hakucho Drag for speeding, whilst catching up to it the driver of that vehicle hit an object and fell of their motorbike. The suspect was told not to reach for his bike, he then proceeded to tackle Officer Loan and flee on the drag. A BOLO was posted (14:24 PM 08/JAN | Black Hakuchou Drag | LP: TOOSLOW | RO: Alistair Vespucci | Evading/Battery of a GOV https://i.ibb.co/zWjprmGK/image-png.png)
      
      Later on a Purple Paragon drove past where the drag was last seen, the driver matched the description to the BOLO and was pulled over. After confirming outfit, road rash, bruises and facial tattoos the suspect was arrested, taken to DOC for processing after. The suspect was found with a steroid and a mushroom, and was charged with Schedule III substance after confirming charges.

  ---

  • MUGSHOT
    SUSPECT #1 DETAILS
    • 
      Full Name: David Deltoid
      Phone Number: 5931338
      License(s) Suspended: Driver Trucker Firearms Pilot
      Charge(s):
      • VF01 - Evading an Officer of a Gov. Employee
      • GM02 - Battery
      • DM03 - Possession of a Schedule III Controlled Substance
      Evidence: Include a photo of the evidence items; it is optional to document the items in writing when including a photo. Always provide the serial number of any seized firearm. Mark where the possessions were stored.
      
      Evidence Description and/or Photo

      Exhibit A:
      
      Evidence Location: Mission Row Station Vinewood Police Headquarters Department of Corrections

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness Statement David Loan

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 08/JAN/2026

  Witness Information

  • Name: David Loan
    Date of Birth: 20/NOV/2000
    Phone Number: 417-2336
    Occupation: Police Officer III, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • I, Officer David Loan, operating under callsign 4-L-15, attempted to initiate a traffic stop on a Hakuchou Drag for excessive speed. While attempting to catch up to the motorcycle, I observed the rider strike an object and fall off the bike. As I approached, I issued clear verbal commands instructing the suspect not to return to the motorcycle. Despite these commands, the suspect ran toward me, tackled me, and fled the scene on the Hakuchou Drag.
    
    Following the incident, I issued a BOLO at 14:24 PM on 08/JAN for a black Hakuchou Drag with license plate TOOSLOW, registered to Alistair Vespucci, for evading and battery on a government employee.
    https://i.ibb.co/zWjprmGK/image-png.png
    
    Shortly after, I observed a purple Paragon driving past the area where the Hakuchou Drag was last seen. Due to the incident occurring in an open jurisdiction, I requested backup from both San Andreas State Police and Los Santos Police Department units. Deputy Jaxon Hayes, Zoe Virtue, Rebecca Edwards, Detective Rondal Olsson, and Sergeant Beta arrived on scene to assist with the investigation and traffic stop.
    
    The driver of the Paragon matched the physical description provided in the BOLO. Upon making contact, I observed that the driver’s clothing, visible road rash, bruising, facial tattoos, and braided hairstyle were consistent with the suspect involved in the earlier incident.
    
    The suspect was wearing a hat at the time of the stop. Based on the existing BOLO, my bodycam footage and matching physical indicators, I had probable cause to further identify the suspect and instructed him to remove the hat. The suspect initially refused, stating the hat was worn for religious and Islamic reasons. When questioned further, the suspect was unable to name the pillars of Islam. Upon removal of the hat, I confirmed that the braided hairstyle matched the BOLO description.
    
    Based on the totality of the circumstances, the suspect was placed under arrest and transported to the Department of Corrections for processing. During a search incident to arrest, the suspect was found to be in possession of a steroid and a mushroom. While processing the suspect, I radio'ed to confirm the legality of the mushroom. After consulting with supervisory units and receiving confirmation, the suspect was charged with possession of a Schedule III controlled substance in addition to the related offenses.
    
    ((Bodycam RP: https://img.lightshot.app/Kzu8Y1LmTWOHsYEHrtdf3A.png))
    ((Bodycam would show me attempting to initiate a traffic stop on a gray Hakuchou Drag for speeding. Upon catching up to the vehicle, the individual is observed on the ground and in the process of getting back up. I can be heard issuing clear verbal commands instructing the suspect not to return to the motorcycle. Despite these commands, the suspect runs directly toward me and tackles me before remounting the Hakuchou Drag and fleeing the scene northbound.
    
    Bodycam footage would capture the suspect’s clothing, including distinctive trousers, braided hair, and a specific facial tattoo, prior to their departure.
    
    Following the incident, units were coordinated in the surrounding area. A gray Hakuchou Drag was later spotted in the Vinewood Hills area. While officers were investigating the scene, a purple Paragon pulled over nearby and remained stationary in the middle of the roadway while observing officers.
    
    Upon making contact with the driver of the Paragon, bodycam would show that the individual had the same facial tattoo and distinctive trousers as the suspect involved in the earlier incident. The driver was detained and inspected for injuries, at which point visible road rash and bruising were observed that were consistent with the injuries sustained during the earlier motorcycle crash.
    
    The suspect was wearing a purple hat at the time. Due to the existing probable cause related to the BOLO and matching physical indicators, bodycam would show me requesting authorization from Sgt. Beta to proceed with further inspection, which was approved. After being read their rights, the suspect refused to remove the hat, citing religious reasons.
    
    Given the circumstances, further questioning occurred to assess the validity of the claim. Bodycam would show the suspect being unable to articulate basic tenets of Islam. Upon removal of the hat, the suspect’s braided hairstyle was confirmed to match the BOLO description.
    
    Based on the totality of the circumstances, the suspect was placed under arrest for Battery on a Government Employee and Evading Law Enforcement.
    
    While processing the suspect at the Department of Corrections, bodycam would show me radioing to confirm the legality of mushrooms found on the suspect’s person. After consultation with a supervisory unit, Lt. Lockwood, I was advised that the substance was illegal. Following this confirmation, the suspect was additionally charged accordingly shortly after processing.))

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, David Loan, 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,
    
    
    David Loan
    Police Officer III
    Los Santos Police Department
    
    Date: 03/FEB/2026

  

• Exhibit #3 Witness Statement Rondal Olsson

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Incident Date: 08/JAN/2026

  Witness Information

  • Name: Rondal Olsson
    Date of Birth: 03/30/2001
    Phone Number: 517-2335
    Occupation: Detective, Los Santos Police Department

  Witness Statement

  • On 08/JAN/2026, my unit 3-K-14 responded to a backup request from 4-L-15 regarding a traffic stop on a purple Paragon registered to David Deltoid. Once the suspect exited the vehicle, I joined the other officers on scene. I was briefed that the suspect matched a BOLO description from a previous incident.
    
    I assisted Officer Loan in comparing the suspect's description to the BOLO. We asked the suspect to remove his headwear so we could confirm his identity, but he initially refused due to religious reasons. After a brief discussion, the suspect complied and removed the hat. It was then clear that the suspect matched the BOLO posted by Officer Loan, specifically based on the clothing worn, tattoos, bruises, rashes, and hairstyle. My opinion was given to Officer Loan, alongside the opinion from other officers on scene. The suspect was subsequently taken into custody by Officer Loan, and my unit cleared the scene once backup was no longer needed.
    
    ► Show Spoiler

    (( The footage shows unit 3-K-14 arriving at the scene. Detective Olsson is seen exiting the vehicle and joining the group of officers already in conversation with the suspect. The audio captures the officers explaining the BOLO to the suspect and the suspect’s initial refusal to remove his headwear. The camera then records the suspect, eventually removing the hat, and the officers confirming the match to the BOLO description by the clothing worn, tattoos, bruises, rashes, and hairstyle. The suspect was subsequently taken into custody by Officer Loan. The video concludes with unit 3-K-14 clearing the scene as backup was no longer required. ))
    
    ((Bodycam RP ))

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, Rondal Olsson, 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,
    
    
    Rondal Olsson, Detective I
    Detective, Major Crimes Division
    Los Santos Police Department
    Date: 02/FEB/2026

  

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

---

---

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
Deputy Attorney General
San Andreas Judicial Branch
451-9939 - [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,

Superior Court Judge
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 227-6646 — [email protected]

---

• Counselors,
  
  In light of the prosecution returning from a leave of absence today, the Court will allow an additional seventy two hours for the prosecution to respond to the Defenses Motion to Suppress before issuing its ruling.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Superior Court Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  (909) 227-6646 — [email protected]

---

---

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

Your Honor, The Defendant’s motion attempts to reduce this case to a single moment the removal of a hat while ignoring everything that occurred before it. This was not a random stop. This was not a speculative detention. This was an active BOLO for a suspect who had just committed Battery on a Government Employee and fled on a motorcycle. Before the hat was ever removed, officers had: A facial tattoo matching the suspect, clothing matching what was seen in bodycam footage, Visible Road rash and bruising consistent with the motorcycle crash and the defendants proximity to where the suspect was last seen. That is not a hunch or guesswork.

The defense presents a false narrative: “If officers knew it was him, removal was unnecessary. If they didn’t, removal was unlawful.” But the law does not require certainty before identity confirmation. It requires reasonableness. Officers had reasonable suspicion and arguably probable cause before the hat was removed. The brief removal was a minimally intrusive identification step during a lawful detention. This was confirmation of identity tied to a violent offense. Officers were verifying identity during a lawful investigatory detention supported by a BOLO and multiple matching characteristics. And once probable cause existed, the subsequent search incident to arrest was lawful.

For those reasons, the State respectfully requests that the Motion to Suppress be denied in full.

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

---

---

I, Hope Kant, a Defense Attorney of the San Andreas Judicial Branch, will be representing the Defendant, David Deltoid, in the underlying case.

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


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

---

---

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

• Reasoning: The defendant indicated to the public defense division that they require counsel. While the defense acknowledges this happened less than 3 days ago, we would prefer 48 hours to review the case, the pending motion from the defendant when he was self-representing, and choose the best path forward after fully speaking with our client.

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

---

• Honorable Judge Harding and pertaining parties,
  
  The defense requests an extension for their continuance.
  
  ((There is bodycam RP that is being contested and we would like additional time to realize the results.))
  
  
  Branch Administrator
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 - [email protected]

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Discovery, and presents the following as evidence;

• Exhibit #4: Defendant in Outfit and Car of Arrest (Perfect Condition)

  
  

• Exhibit #5: Defendant in Outfit and Car of Arrest (Damaged Condition)

  
  

• Exhibit #6: Defendant in Outfit

  
  

• Exhibit #7: Defendants Clothing at the Time of Pictures

  

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

---

---

The Defendant, by and through the undersigned attorney, is amending their previous Motion to Suppress filed by the defendant prior to obtaining legal representation. We have filed this Motion to Suppress, and request the following be stricken from the record;

• Exhibit: Exhibit #1 Arrest Report
  Objection: Breach of Defendants 4th Amendment Right
  Item to be Suppressed: "the driver matched the description to the BOLO and was pulled over. After confirming outfit, road rash, bruises and facial tattoos the suspect was arrested, taken to DOC for processing after. The suspect was found with a steroid and a mushroom, and was charged with Schedule III substance after confirming charges."

• Exhibit: Exhibit #2 Witness Statement David Loan
  Objection: Breach of Defendants 4th Amendment Right
  Item to be Suppressed: The driver of the Paragon matched the physical description provided in the BOLO. Upon making contact, I observed that the driver’s clothing, visible road rash, bruising, facial tattoos, and braided hairstyle were consistent with the suspect involved in the earlier incident.
  
  The suspect was wearing a hat at the time of the stop. Based on the existing BOLO, my bodycam footage and matching physical indicators, I had probable cause to further identify the suspect and instructed him to remove the hat. The suspect initially refused, stating the hat was worn for religious and Islamic reasons. When questioned further, the suspect was unable to name the pillars of Islam. Upon removal of the hat, I confirmed that the braided hairstyle matched the BOLO description.
  
  Based on the totality of the circumstances, the suspect was placed under arrest and transported to the Department of Corrections for processing. During a search incident to arrest, the suspect was found to be in possession of a steroid and a mushroom. While processing the suspect, I radio'ed to confirm the legality of the mushroom. After consulting with supervisory units and receiving confirmation, the suspect was charged with possession of a Schedule III controlled substance in addition to the related offenses.

• Exhibit: Exhibit #3 Witness Statement Rondal Olsson
  Objection: Breach of Defendants 4th Amendment Right
  Item to be Suppressed: Entire Exhibit

The defense believes our client was pulled over without probable cause for the following reasons:

1. In the listed BOLO:
   • the RO is not the defendant.
   • the vehicle is a black drag.
   • the pictured individual has a large purple jacket, no hat, a black bandana mask, and lederhosen trousers. Nothing else is clearly visible.
2. In the arrest report:
   • The individual had on a purple bandana hat that covered his forehead, a camo purple ski mask, black leather gloves, sunglasses, a purple button down shirt, and lederhosen
   • the vehicle is a Purple Paragon.
   • there is no listed RO or license plate provided.
3. In the provided arrest report and witness statements:
   • The arrest report lists the reasoning for pulling over the vehicle, "Later on a Purple Paragon drove past where the drag was last seen, the driver matched the description to the BOLO and was pulled over."
   • The Witness statement from David Loan states the reasoning for pulling over the vehicle, "Shortly after, I observed a purple Paragon driving past the area where the Hakuchou Drag was last seen."

The defense first questions how it was possible for officers to get a clear enough view of the defendant to be able to determine any matching description between the defendant and the picture from the BOLO.
The second question asked by the defense surrounds the legality of pulling over a vehicle simply for passing by an area where a crime has occurred.

The defendant pictured in the arrest report looks nothing like exhibit 6 from the defense. The defense also fails to see how it would be reasonable to believe an officer, even when stood in front of the vehicle (exhibit 4 and 5), would be able to definitively determine the tattoo or any other identifying features that were listed as probable cause for removing my defendants items and eventually searching him.

We are requesting any information found from the traffic stop, eventual detainment, and search of my client be removed. We are ready to resume the case as soon as the Judge makes a determination on our motion.


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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  Prosecution, can you please inform the Court if you intend to provide a rebuttal to this Motion?
  
  Given the nature of the requested suppressions (alleged constitutional violations), this will need to be handled on the Docket before trial.
  
  The Court will move forward within three (3) days unless Prosecution states otherwise and provides a reasonable timeframe.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

---

---

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The prosecution would like to request an extension of two days in order to provide a rebuttal.

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

---

---

The State of San Andreas, by and through the undersigned attorney, filed this Motion for Continuance, and the reasoning for request is as follows;

• Reasoning: The prosecution would like to request an extension till the 13th.
  
  ((apologies to file another one back to back, been very busy OOC and have had little time to work on this case. I can get caught up this weekend))

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

---

• Prosecution and defense counsel,
  
  The Court will accept the Motion for Continuance until the 13th of April.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Associate Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  274-6959 - [email protected]

---

---

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

The Defense moves to suppress portions of the arrest report and accompanying witness statements on the basis that the initial stop and subsequent arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. This argument is based on an incorrect legal standard and a misrepresentation of the facts contained within the record. First, the Defense asserts that the stop lacked probable cause. An investigatory stop requires only reasonable suspicion.

The Defense further argues that the Defendant was stopped merely for “passing by an area where a crime has occurred.” This is not supported by the record. The arrest report and witness statements establish that officers were actively investigating a recent incident, and that a BOLO had been issued containing identifying characteristics of the suspect. The Defendant was stopped after being observed in the same area and matching the description provided in that BOLO. The Defense attempts to undermine this identification by pointing to perceived inconsistencies between the BOLO and the Defendant’s appearance, including differences in vehicle and clothing. However, the record reflects that the identification was not based on a single factor. Officers identified the Defendant based on a combination of characteristics, including clothing, facial tattoos, braided hairstyle, and visible injuries.

The Defense also questions whether officers could have observed identifying features such as tattoos. This argument is speculative and unsupported by evidence. Multiple officers on scene independently observed and confirmed the same identifying characteristics, as reflected in the witness statements. With respect to the removal of the Defendant’s headwear, the Defense characterizes this as an unlawful search. The record reflects that this action occurred after officers had already identified multiple matching characteristics linking the Defendant to the BOLO. The request to remove headwear was made for the purpose of confirming identity and was based on those existing observations. The Defense does not establish that this action exceeded the scope of a lawful investigatory detention.

Finally, the Defense seeks suppression of all evidence obtained following the stop. Because the Defense has not established that the stop or subsequent detention was unlawful, there is no basis to suppress the resulting evidence. For these reasons, the State respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defenses Motion to Suppress in its entirety.

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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The prosecution has a point. The defense should've stated the traffic stop had no reasonable suspicion. There was no way that the officers on scene had any way to determine that my client even resembled the person that tackled officer Loan. The prosecution claims that somehow the police officers on scene had superhuman eyesight which allowed them to designate the singular item of clothing the defendant was wearing and through that miracle tie some sort of reasonable suspicion for the stop.
  
  The prosecution claims that the record does not support the fact that my client merely drove through the scene. However the defense points to the officers own words and the merit of the arrest report. Within exhibit 1 it states: "Later on a Purple Paragon drove past where the drag was last seen,". In exhibit 2 the arresting officer again states: "Shortly after, I observed a purple Paragon driving past the area where the Hakuchou Drag was last seen." The defense points to the arresting officers own words, the defendant "drove past" the scene. He did not stop; he did not gawk; he did not prolong his time in front of officers for them to do as the prosecution has claimed.
  
  Stopping someone for matching a bolo means the officer had to have to been in the defendants presence a reasonable amount of time in order to distinguish the SINGULAR item of clothing that matched through black tinted glass. Given exhibits 4-5 the defense believes that to be impossible.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 - [email protected]

---

---

Firstly, the Court will apologise for the length of time it has taken to come to a decision on the previous Motion on the Docket.

The Court has reviewed the Defense Motion to Suppress on the grounds that the initial traffic stop was unlawful. During the review of this Motion, the Court has found that both sides of the argument have merit. As a result, the Court will not be accepting the Motion to Suppress at this time, but will allow these arguments to be made at trial, where a more comprehensive review will be held.

With this decision being made, the Court will now move on to scheduling and a notice will be posted shortly.


So Ordered,


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

---

• Honorable Justice Horton and pertaining parties,
  
  The defendant no longer has a valid citizenship with the State of San Andreas. The defense is formally submitting the defendants position of guilty with the courts.
  
  (( Individual has been banned ))
  
  
  Chief Justice
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  505-9925 - [email protected]

---

---

The Court accepts the defendant's guilty plea. To that effect, we will now be archiving this case. Thank you to all parties for their diligence.


So Ordered,


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