#26-BT-0013 State of San Andreas v. Synn Jinnal

[Synn Jinnal]

Defendant Name: Synn Jinnal
Defendant Phone: 543-3715
(( Defendant Discord: synnrsavior ))
(( Defendant Timezone: US Central ))
Type of Representation (Pick one): Public Defender

Charging Department: LSSD

Date & Time of Incident(s): 29/JAN/2026 04:01
Charge(s):

• WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm

Narrative:
My rights were violated, I would like to contest my charges.

---

I, Synn Jinnal, 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. ))

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

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

• A Notice of Council was filed in the above-captioned matter on January 29, 2026.
  
  Please be advised that I, Izaak Scott, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, have entered my appearance on behalf of the defendant, Synn Jinnal.
  
  I will serve as primary counsel in this matter and will proceed in accordance with any further orders or instructions issued by the Court.
  

  ---

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

- - - - -

[Mic Ross]

- - - - -

• A Notice of Counsel was filed in the above-referenced matter on the 29th of January, 2026.
  I, Mic Ross, a private defense attorney with Blaise & Scott, will be representing the defendant, Synn Jinnal, in this case.
  
  I will be acting as Co-Counsel and will await further direction from the Presiding Judge.

---

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

- - - - -

[Joseph Horton]

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. Synn Jinnal
#26-BT-0013

The court has hereby received and acknowledged the above case on the 30th day of January, 2026.

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availability. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

Prior to scheduling, 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,


Associate 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 ACTIVATION & ORDER FOR DISCOVERY

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

The State of San Andreas v. Synn Jinnal
#26-BT-0013

A Notice of Activation & Order for Discovery was entered in the above case on the 30th day of January, 2026.

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

The Superior Court Bench Trial system runs off of defendant responsiveness. If defendants are interacting with the court or their attorney, a Notice to Schedule will be posted with all parties being able note their availablity. A Judge will then pick the most suitable time for trial. Once a trial has been scheduled, the court will consider most submissions to be final.

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,


Associate Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
274-6959 - [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. Robin Bank
#26-BT-0013

A Motion for Discovery was filed in the above case on the 23rd day of February, 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

  

  ARREST REPORT
  

  MUGSHOT

  SUSPECT 1 DETAILS

  • 
    
    
    Full Name: Synn_Jinnal
    Telephone Number: 5433715
    Licenses Suspended: Yes
    • Weapon
    
    Charges:
    • WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm
    
    
    Additional Details (Suspect's vehicle, etc.) :

  
  
  VEHICLES INVOLVED

  
  
  DEPUTY DETAILS

  • Full Name: Justin Adams
    Badge Number: 28498
    Callsign: 116B

  
  
  INCIDENT DETAILS

  • Date of Arrest: 2026-01-28
    Deputies Involved: JTAC-1 with PD, Hugo Hernandez, Mason Ross, Tim Sutton, Jaxson Hayes, Gavin Sands, and a bunch others.
    
    Provide details of the incident leading up to the arrest
    • I arrived on scene of a code 1 at Bennys with people holding inside with heavies. At the moment there was a bunch of Bennies workers running around in there, and some of the shooters, where also called out on TAC for being bennies workers also. PD brought the insurgent inside and made way for the bennies employees to get out. and I was told to search every benny worker due to them possibly being together, and helping them inside.
      
      I first saw Synn Jinnal, and started to pat him down, and he had a bag on him. I searched the baq, and saw a AP pistol. I let TAC know about it, and they told me to arrest him. Synn did have a valid license for some guns, but AP pistol's are illegal, so I had to suspend his Weapons license due to the felony. He complied, and I got him in the back of my car. Due to the Code 1, he had to sit in the back for a while, and that being said I did not place the weapon mod charge due to that.
      
      I read his rights, and I took him to DOC, and he complied, and was processed.
      
      He is getting WF03 for having a illegal AP pistol on his person

  
  EVIDENCE DETAILS

  • Location of Evidence Locker: Sandy Station
    Exhibit A: AP pistol 1736506518249
    
    Photo of the evidence in the locker (if applicable)

    

    ---

  ARRESTING DEPUTY SIGNATURE
  
  

  ---

  

• Exhibit #2 Witness Statement Percy Heines

  

  

  
  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: Percy Heines
    Date of Birth: 05/SEP/1999
    Phone Number: [Withheld]
    Occupation: [Police Officer]

  Witness Statement

  • I wasn't actually the scene supervisor, as Captain Hill was present and was there well before I was, however I actually do have bodycam of the scenario and have located the exact point of contention. I arrived from the pager and so Cole/Dean will have more context, but I believe I have the missing piece here;
    
    *Bodycam footage*
    
    Here, you can see Mr. Jinnal being searched and one of your deputies finding an AP pistol on his person. Dean and another party then explains that he was being detained for offering to assist the heavily-armed kidnappers by holding the door open for them. Obviously if he was offering to help them while they were in the commission of a patently illegal action, his detainment was perfectly legal and even expected and his arrest for toting an illegal firearm is to be expected.
    
    I will grant him this, though: his charges are not correct. If Dean and the other party (I know he's a deputy I just can't place the voice) witnessed him offer to help the kidnappers turned shooters, he should also be given accessory to attempted kidnapping and potentially accessory to attempted murder of a government employee, depending on when he was detained/arrested. At the very least his actions would have warranted obstruction of justice.
    
    ((
    Proof of RP

    
    ))

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Percy Heines], 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,
    
    
    Sergeant II Percy Heines
    Officer-in-Charge, M-Platoon, Metropolitan Division
    Los Santos Police Department
    Date: [30/JAN/2026]

  

• Exhibit #3 Witness Statement Cole Brooks

  

  

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

  Case Information

  • Case Number: [Case Number]
    Incident Date: [29/JAN/2026]

  Witness Information

  • Name: [Cole Brooks]
    Date of Birth: [01/JAN/2000]
    Phone Number: [4326191]
    Occupation: [Police Officer - LSPD]

  Witness Statement

  • [I was there on the night of the benny's incident, and il try help in any way possible. So, during the initial push that involved 4 officers who were promptly gunned down. I ran up the ladder on the upper right side of the benny's garage door. I then laid down to take cover from the gunfire both from Law enforcements side and rooks. During my time laying down, approximately 5-10 minutes, i could hear both sides of the fight, as i was in the middle of it all. The benny's worker in question walked over to rooks, specifically Rizza Saint, he asked them ''Do you want me to stand by the door so it stays open for you'', Rizza responded with ''Yeah yeah''. The benny's worker then walked around to the entrance and stood on the left side of the door, dancing. The moment I heard this conversation i said over tac he's helping them, as I am the one who heard the initial conversation, I then proceeded to make it clear by repeating it a lot over tac during the entire fight, to make sure justice is served. After this my attention was taken off of the worker and onto the fight, as it was just a small obstacle in a really intense firefight. We then ended up winning the fight and i assume the worker was taken into custody for his crime. I do not have bodycam of the situation, just of a part that contributes nothing to this case, so I apologise. But I will say this, he was helping rooks, and he got what was coming to him. If there's anything else I can do to assist just let me know.
    
    ((Bodycam Proof of RP: https://i.ibb.co/x85bWdyd/image-2026-01 ... 645102.png ))
    Bodycam Footage: /do The bodycam worn by officer Brooks would show the mentioned bennys worker walking to the other side of the room, where rooks were located, and saying ''Do you want me to stand by the door so it stays open for you'', a response would be heard by a rook, ''Yeah yeah''. The mentioned benny's worker would then walk to the corner on the left side of the garage door and begin dancing. The bodycam would also include Cole Brooks mentioning it over TAC Radio multiple times during the gunfight.

  Witness Affirmation

  • I, [Cole Brooks], 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, Cole Brooks
    
    
    [Cole Brooks]
    [Police Officer III]
    [LSPD]
    
    Date: [30/JAN/2026]

  

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

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

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

• The Defense respectfully moves this Court to suppress the AP pistol recovered from the person of Synn Jinnal on the day in question, on the grounds that the search conducted by Deputy Justin Adams was unconstitutional, and that the evidence recovered as a direct result of that search must therefore be excluded in its entirety. The Defense appreciates that law enforcement had a great deal on their plate that evening, but that has never been accepted as a substitute for the Constitution.
  
  Deputy Adams, by his own account in the Arrest Report, arrived at Benny's Motorworks in response to a Code 1 involving armed individuals. Mr. Jinnal was identified not as one of those armed subjects, but as a Benny's employee. Deputy Adams further acknowledges - again, in his own words - that he was ordered to search every Benny's worker due to them "possibly being together" with the armed individuals. It is on this basis, and this basis alone, that Mr. Jinnal's person and belongings were searched. The Defense trusts the Court will immediately recognise the problem with that.
  
  A lawful warrantless search demands, at minimum, individualized probable cause - that is, specific and articulable facts pertaining to the individual being searched that would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that person had committed, was committing, or was about to commit a crime. A blanket directive to search every employee present because they might be connected to an unfolding incident does not come close to satisfying that standard. Presence at the scene, without more, has never been sufficient - and the Defense would respectfully suggest that if it were, the deputies themselves would have had cause to search one another. Deputy Adams has offered no facts specific to Mr. Jinnal - no observed behaviour, no communication, no identified connection - that could have grounded individualized suspicion prior to the search being carried out. None. The arrest report is notable in this respect for what it does not contain.
  
  What makes this all the more troubling is the huge volume of investigative resources that were available to law enforcement on scene and yet are entirely absent from the State's evidence. CCTV footage from Benny's Motorworks would have captured the interior of the garage and any interactions between employees and the armed subjects - a rather obvious starting point, one might think. Dashcam footage from the numerous law enforcement vehicles staged outside could have captured relevant activity. Bodycam footage - beyond the partial submission from Sergeant Heines which shows basically nothing, for which the Defense is at least grateful, from the many deputies and officers present, including Hugo Hernandez, Mason Ross, Tim Sutton, Jaxson Hayes, and Gavin Sands, has not been produced despite what appears to have been half of the sheriff and police department on duty attending the scene. Perhaps most critically, the State's own account confirms that at least one insurgent was literally inside the premises. Is the state attempting to say that the insurgent had no useful dashcam footage to provide while inside the scene itself?
  
  The failure to pursue any of these readily available avenues before resorting to a broad, suspicion-less search of every employee nearby and present is not a minor procedural oversight one can simply wave away. It demonstrates that law enforcement did not possess - and made no meaningful attempt to develop, the individualized suspicion that probable cause requires. The Court should not reward that failure by admitting the evidence it produced. To do so would be to suggest that the threshold for a lawful search is simply showing up to work that day.
  
  It is worth pausing to consider what the State is actually asking this Court to accept. Mr. Jinnal was at his place of work. He held a valid weapons licence. His record does not paint the picture of a man who warranted immediate suspicion upon sight. And yet, the moment armed individuals entered the premises, the calculus apparently shifted - not because of anything Mr. Jinnal said, did, or was observed doing, but simply because he was there and, in the assessment of someone on TAC radio, he might be connected to them. The Defence would invite the Court to consider how that reasoning would hold up if applied consistently - whether every employee present that night was treated with the same urgency, or whether a young Black man at his place of work simply found himself patted down rather more readily than his colleagues might have. The Defence does not make that observation lightly, nor does it make it without cause. What it does note is that "possibly being together with them" is a remarkably thin justification to place your hands on somebody - and that historically, it has never been a coincidence which bodies that justification tends to find its way onto. The arrest report does not address this. The Defence submits that the Court should.
  
  Because the search of Mr. Jinnal was unconstitutional, the AP pistol recovered as a direct result of it is inadmissible as fruit of the poisonous tree. The charge of WF03 rests entirely upon that single piece of evidence. With the weapon suppressed, there is no remaining basis upon which the charge can stand, and the Defense will move for dismissal accordingly.
  
  The Defense urges the Court to grant this motion.

---

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

- - - - -

[Clara Lopez]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Parties,
  
  The Court acknowledges the motion, Prosecution please provide a rebuttal so that we can provide a decision on the pivotal motion.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  495-1265 — [email protected]

[Rowin Lawson]

San Andreas Judicial Branch

"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Judge Lopez,
  
  The Prosecution submits this response to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress. At this time, we are only addressing the suppression, as the dismissal arguments exceed the proper scope of a suppression motion.
  
  The Defense attempts to frame this case as a blanket, unwarranted search of a Bennys employee based solely on their employment status. That framing of the situation is inaccurate and incomplete. At the time Deputy Adams detained and searched the Defendant, law enforcement was responding to an active firefight involving heavily armed individuals inside Benny’s Motorworks. Multiple suspects were actively using firearms inside the premises. The scene was dynamic, unsecured, and dangerous.
  
  Officers over TAC radio identified a Benny’s employee who had offered to assist the armed suspects by holding the garage door open during the confrontation. This was not speculation it was communicated across the radio during the firefight. Exhibit #2 clearly reflects that information being broadcast. Exhibit #3 further corroborates that an officer personally overheard a bennies worker offering assistance to the armed group and communicated that information to other officers. ((I would like to clarify in this section that due to the defendant claiming that the /do's in exhibit #3 are incorrect I am only referencing the statement made by officer brooks and not the footage.))
  
  Deputy Adams was entitled to rely upon information broadcast over TAC by fellow officers. The law does not require each officer to independently witness the conduct giving in order to justify a search. It requires only that the detaining officer reasonably rely upon information communicated by law enforcement personnel engaged in the same operation. Additionally, the circumstances presented safety concerns. Officers were dealing with; Active armed suspects inside the building, confirmed use of firearms, Employees moving within the structure and Reports that some “Benny’s workers” were among the shooters. In such an environment, temporary detention and protective searches of individuals reasonably believed to be associated with armed suspects was warranted. Officer safety during an active violent encounter is not a theoretical concern.
  
  The Defendant was not searched merely because he was employed at Benny’s. He was detained during an active shootout, there was radio communication indicating employee assistance to the armed suspects and the necessity of securing all potentially armed individuals within an unsecured scene. The discovery of an illegal AP pistol on his person was the lawful product of a search. Because the search was supported by probable cause and justified by safety concerns, suppression is unwarranted. The Prosecution respectfully requests that the motion to suppress submitted by the defense be denied.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Rowin Lawson
  Deputy Attorney General
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  451-9939 - [email protected]

[Izaak Scott]

- - - - -

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

• The Defense thanks the prosecution for its response, though it must confess that it has raised more questions than it has answered. We respectfully request the last say as well - since we are the party that introduced this motion into question.
  
  The prosecution places considerable weight on Officer Brooks as a corroborating witness, so the Defense would invite the Court to read his statement a little more carefully than the prosecution apparently has. Officer Brooks admits, in his own words, that after reporting the worker over TAC, his attention was "taken off of the worker and onto the fight." He heard something, reported it, and then by his own admission stopped paying attention entirely.
  
  The Defense would ask the Court to consider what Officer Brooks' statement actually establishes, because on close reading, it is remarkably little:
  
  • Officer Brooks does not name Synn Jinnal at any point in his statement. In a workplace with multiple employees present, the prosecution has made no effort to explain how "a Benny's worker" became "this Benny's worker."
  • Officer Brooks was lying flat either on a rooftop or just at the vertical increase taking cover from active crossfire coming from both sides of the confrontation. He did not see the conversation he describes. He heard it - from a position badly described, during a gunfight, whilst actively taking fire from multiple directions.
  • Officer Brooks never identifies the voice he heard. He does not describe the individual, does not name them, and offers nothing that would allow anyone to confirm that the person he heard speaking was Mr. Jinnal as opposed to any other employee present that evening.
  • Officer Brooks explicitly states his attention left the worker entirely before the incident concluded. He cannot speak to what that individual did, where they went, or how they conducted themselves after that point.
  The prosecution has also leaned heavily on the assumption that the Benny's worker Brooks heard and the Benny's worker Deputy Adams searched are the same person. That is not evidence. That is an assumption built on top of another assumption, dressed up as corroboration. Benny's Motorworks had numerous workers on duty that night. The prosecution has produced nothing - no name, no description, no identifying detail - that connects Brooks' account to Mr. Jinnal specifically. They have simply hoped the Court will make that connection for them, and the now Defense submits that is not how probable cause works.
  
  The Defense would also draw the Court's attention to the closing remarks of Officer Brooks' statement, in which he states, and the Defense quotes directly: "he was helping rooks, and he got what was coming to him." The Defense pauses here because it feels that sentence warrants a moment of reflection. This is not the measured, objective account of a witness providing evidence to assist the Court in establishing facts. This is the language of someone who had already reached a conclusion before going to find evidence and that conclusion just so happened to target an honest, hard working black member of this community. Officer Brooks did not testify to this Court as a neutral observer recounting what he heard during a chaotic firefight. He came having already decided that Mr. Jinnal was guilty, that his arrest was deserved, and apparently that justice had already been served. The Defense submits that a witness who closes his formal statement with "he got what was coming to him" is not a witness whose unverified, unnamed, heard-not-seen account should be treated as a cornerstone of probable cause. The credibility of Officer Brooks is not incidental to this motion - it is central to it. And on that question, Officer Brooks has rather done the Defense's job for it.
  
  Taking all of this into account, the Defense submits that the evidentiary foundation the prosecution has presented is not one this Court can in good conscience accept as sufficient to justify the search of a named individual. A witness who never names the defendant, who was pinned down by gunfire on a rooftop, who admits he stopped paying attention, who never actually saw the person he is describing, and who offers nothing more sinister than a voice he heard - that is what stands between Mr. Jinnal and the suppression of this evidence. The Constitution demands more than that. It has always demanded more than that. To allow this search to stand on the basis of what has been presented would be to set a precedent that presence, assumption, and an unidentified voice heard through the chaos of an active gunfight are sufficient to strip a person of their constitutional protections. The Defense urges the Court in the strongest possible terms to grant this motion, suppress the evidence, and decline to reward the kind of investigative shortcut that produced it.

---

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

- - - - -

[Clara Lopez]

San Andreas Judicial Branch
Docket Notice
"EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW"

---

• Parties,
  
  The Court will allow the defense the final statement as they introduced the motion. Please allow the Court 1-2 days to provide a decision.
  
  Respectfully,
  
  Magistrate Judge
  San Andreas Judicial Branch
  495-1265 — [email protected]

[Clara Lopez]

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. Synn Jinnal
#26-BT-0013

A decision was reached in the above case on the 1st day of March, 2026.

The Court has reviewed the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, the Prosecution’s response, the Defense reply, and all supporting exhibits submitted by both parties. The Court has also considered the arguments presented regarding the constitutionality of the search conducted by Deputy Justin Adams on January 28, 2026.

This motion concerns whether the warrantless search of Defendant Synn Jinnal’s person and belongings, which resulted in the discovery of an AP pistol, was supported by individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required under constitutional standards.

The Court finds the following:

• The arrest report reflects that Deputy Adams searched multiple Benny’s Motorworks employees pursuant to a generalized directive that employees “may be together” with armed suspects. This constitutes a blanket search of a group based on association and presence at the scene, rather than individualized suspicion.
• While the Court acknowledges the dangerous and rapidly evolving circumstances of the incident, the Constitution does not permit warrantless searches absent specific, articulable facts connecting the individual searched to criminal activity or establishing reasonable suspicion that the individual is armed and dangerous.
• The Prosecution relies primarily upon radio communications and witness statements indicating that a Benny’s employee offered to assist armed suspects during the incident. However, the evidence presented does not establish that the individual described in those communications was the Defendant, Synn Jinnal. No identifying description, visual confirmation, or corroborating evidence links the Defendant specifically to the conduct alleged.
• The Court further notes that the witness relied upon by the Prosecution did not visually identify the individual in question and did not name the Defendant. The Court cannot substitute assumptions for individualized probable cause.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the search of the Defendant’s person and belongings was conducted without individualized reasonable suspicion or probable cause and was therefore unconstitutional. The Court will not set a precedent on Assumption = Probable Cause. As a result the Motion to Suppress is hereby GRANTED.

Because the AP pistol was discovered as a direct result of an unlawful search, it constitutes fruit of the poisonous tree and is inadmissible.

The Court notes that the charge of WF03 is predicated solely upon the suppressed evidence. The Prosecution may move forward as it deems appropriate consistent with this ruling.

So Ordered,

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

[Rowin Lawson]

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

---

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

---

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

State of San Andreas v. Synn Jinnal
#26-BT-0013

A Motion for Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice was filed in the above case on the 1st day of March, 2026.

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

• Reasoning: Following the conclusion to the previous motion, the Prosecution would like to file for dismissal.

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

[Clara Lopez]

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. Synn Jinnal
#26-BT-0013

A decision was reached in the above case on the 7th day of March, 2026.

---

Verdict

---

The Court finds to accept the prosecutions Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The Charges below will be removed from the Defendants record.

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

• On the count of WF03 - Possession of a Class 2 Firearm, I find the defendant, Synn Jinnal, 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 $32,000 returned to them for fines, time, and other expenses/inconveniences incurred from the contested charges.



So Ordered,

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