Page 1 of 1
Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sat Jan 29, 2022 4:06 am
by Jack Cotton
Defendants Name: Jack Okimoto
Defendants Phone: 536-2076
Defendants Address: Del Perro Apartments
Requested Attorney: N/A
Department: Police Department
Officer/Deputy 1 Officer
Badge Number: 21684
Rank & Name: N/A N/A
Time & Date of Incident(s): 1/25/2022
Charge(s) Being Appealed: Failure to comply and Face concealment
Narrative:
I had just parked my motorcycle at city parking and began to make my way over to the motorsports dealership when I notice a police cruiser spin around and then his lights and being the only two people I had noticed in the area I stopped thinking this officer must be looking for a criminal and as I was wearing a mask must need to make sure it is not me. He approaches me telling me that I can not wear a mask and so I ask him if I am under investigation for anything or if I did something wrong, the officer had stated I was not under investigation nor was I doing anything wrong. He continues to tell me he had received an email from his superior allegedly telling him to arrest any citizens walking around wearing a mask. I responded to him that an email does not constitute the law. He said he was giving me a lawful order but I had done nothing wrong and as far as he was concerned I was a random citizen of the state, so he had no reason to do this, I was not threatening, I was not carrying a firearm, nor breaking the law. He said if I did not remove my mask he was going to arrest me and me feeling my rights were being infringed upon told him to go for it. I did not resist being arrested and acted as cordial as one could be when being falsely imprisoned. I was simply headed to the dealership to buy a new vehicle and ended up arrested, fined, and jailed for a month. The officer in question told me he was just following orders, I responded to him that is not a defense, these men and women take an oath to uphold the law and to make judgment calls for themselves. With officers like these denying responsibilities for their actions, it makes me nervous about trusting the ones who are meant to be there for my safety, and I have decided against filing an IA report because I don’t think anything will be done about the officer in questions conduct during our interaction.
I, [Jack Okimoto], 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.))
Re: Jack Okimoto V. Police Department | Docket #
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:40 am
by Dakota Macaw
Re: Jack Okimoto V. Police Department | Docket #
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2022 3:43 am
by Caroline Johnson
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2022 5:01 am
by Colt Daniels
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:21 am
by Dakota Macaw
Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery
Honorable Colt Daniels,
- We the Appellant in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
Jack Okimoto v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #22-01-28-AP-027
Requesting Party: Appellant
Party Members: Jack Okimoto, Dakota Macaw
Exhibit #1: Apellant
Type of Discovery:
- Various attire that Mr. Okimoto was wearing at the time of his arrest.
All Information from the Discovery
- Below you can find a photo of the attire that Mr. Okimoto was wearing at the time of his arrest by the LSPD. This information is vital to the case as it is the premise of the arrest.
Exhibit #2: San Andreas State Government
Type of Discovery:
All Information from the Discovery
Sincerely,
Attorney Dakota Macaw
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 419-3141 —
[email protected]
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2022 4:44 am
by Dakota Macaw
Motion to Compel Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion to Compel Discovery
Honorable Colt Daniels,
- We the Appellant in the case below are requesting the disclosure of the following material by opposing counsel, please find a detailed reason as to our request below.
Jack Okimoto v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Requesting Party: Appellant
Party Members: Jack Okimoto, Dakota Macaw
Discovery from: Los Santos Police Department
Type of Discovery:
- Arrest Report for the arrest of Mr. Jack Okimoto.
- Officer Deposition from the officer(s) involved.
- Any physical evidence gathered from Mr. Jack Okimoto, primarily the mask.
- The email that was received by the Officer who arrested Mr. Jack Okimoto that prompted him to go out and conduct the arrest.
- The bodycam footage of the entire interaction between the Officer and Mr. Okimoto.
Detailed reasoning:
- 1) The Arrest Report for Mr. Okimoto's arrest will provide critical testimony from the officer's point of view.
2) A deposition from the officer who arrested Mr. Okimoto will be critical to ensuring the story and evidence provided by the appellant is aligned with the story and evidence observed by the prosecution.
3) The mask from Mr. Okimoto's person will ensure that the evidence provided by Mr. Okimoto aligns with reality.
4) The email that the PD officer received prompted him to go out and arrest Mr. Okimoto. The contents of this email are PIVOTAL to the case and will reveal the legal basis that the Police Department believed they had in this arrest.
5)The bodycam footage will leave us with much more clarity for the entire situation.
Sincerely,
Attorney Dakota Macaw
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 419-3141 —
[email protected]
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2022 1:15 am
by Caroline Johnson
Motion for Discovery
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Discovery
Honorable Colt Daniels,
- We the Respondent in the case below are presenting our discovery to the court.
Jack Okimoto v. Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #22-01-28-AP-027
Requesting Party: Respondent
Party Members: Officer William Cemeni, Attorney-At-Law Caroline Johnson
Exhibit #1: San Andreas State Government
Type of Discovery:
All Information from the Discovery
- [PRESS RELEASE #23] New Pier Parking Regulations
This press release, specifically the section 'Mask Enforcement and Facial Concealment', outlines how charges of this type should be placed on an individual for failing to comply with law enforcement. While opposing council presents a more recent press release on this matter, we believe there is still value in allowing Press Release #23 to be presented before the court.
Exhibit #2: Los Santos Police Department
Type of Discovery:
All Information from the Discovery
- Knowing Your Rights & Due Process
This Press Release, specifically looking at the section 'Probable Cause', outlines how probable cause can be applied in a given circumstance. We firmly believe this section will firmly solidify the officers reasoning for requesting the appellant to remove his mask at that time.
Sincerely,
Attorney-At-Law Caroline Johnson
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 590-4566 —
[email protected]
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2022 12:42 am
by Colt Daniels
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2022 6:50 pm
by Colt Daniels
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:14 am
by Colt Daniels
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2022 4:00 pm
by Caroline Johnson
Motion for Summary Judgment
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Motion for Summary Judgment
Honorable Colt Daniels,
We have been reviewing all evidence presented during discovery, and after review find the following motion justified. In order to not delay the court, we are asking that this motion be reviewed while we continue to proceed forward with trial scheduling.
- We the Respondent in the case below are requesting a summary judgment.
Jack Okimoto v Police Department
Assigned Court Case Number: #22-01-28-AP-027
Requesting Party: Respondent
Party Members: Caroline Johnson, William Cemeni
Reasoning: We believe that given all the evidence collected during discovery, there is no hope for Mr. Okimoto to successfully appeal the following charges;
GM11 - Failure to Comply / Identify
GM20 - Face Concealment
Detailed explanation:
The evidence clearly shows that the appellant is wearing a mask publicly, and the penal code is firm that any such public activities are prohibited by the state. He was actively standing on public property while having his face fully concealed, and when asked by law enforcement to remove it, failed to comply with a lawful order. We firmly believe that only a gift from god would be enough to remove said charges. We look forward to any potential hearings this motion may bring.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Caroline Johnson
Attorney-At-Law
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2022 7:00 pm
by Colt Daniels
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2022 8:43 pm
by Phillipe Sanchez
Los Santos Police Department
"TO PROTECT AND SERVE" |
- Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Chief Justice Daniels,
I apologise if responding here is improper and this would be better suited in a private email, but I believe all parties present are relevant to review this response. As a member of the Office of the Chief for the Los Santos Police Department, I am worried by this dangerous precedent being set by allowing this case to go to trial as it wastes the time of the Judicial Branch as well as my officers who should be conducting their duties upholding peace on the streets of San Andreas. Allow me to break down the relevant breach of penal code.
GC-06 - Face Concealment
(a) No individual, while wearing any mask, hood, or device whereby any portion of the face is hidden, concealed, or covered as to conceal the identity of the wearer, shall:
(1) Be present on foot within public property, or property of the State of San Andreas.
By the complainants own admission, they were indeed concealing their face while within public property.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section are only a general citation if the face obstruction is not removed upon request by a Law Enforcement officer, and if not committed in relation to a crime, whereas then it shall apply to GM#20.
By his own admission, the mask was not removed upon request.
(c) The provisions of subsection (a) do not apply if the concealment is done during masquerades and other entertainment events that are deemed appropriate by the city (such as Halloween), or where there's reasonable cause e.g. motorcycle protection or medical reasons.
By his own admission, he was not involved in any relevant action under subsection C. The complainant admits to walking to Motorsport to purchase a new vehicle. I appreciate that he had just parked his motorcycle (of which the mask would have been lawful) but he was requested to remove it while on foot heading towards Motorsport as his admits himself. Furthermore, no medical reasons were presented to the officer or even noted in this appeal as relevant for the concealment.
(d )Individuals that are continuously stopped and written up for GC-06 will be liable for prosecution for failure to comply at the discretion of the handling officer. This would also result in the GC - 06 escalating to a GM - 20
As the complainant admits to failing to comply, per the penal code the escalation to GM-20 was again, lawful.
I appreciate that you want to "set a precedent", but doing so with such a clear-cut case is dangerous as it drains the resources of both departments and invites people to freely appeal when blatantly in breach of the Penal code to again drain the resources of the departments and remove my officers from the streets protecting and serving. I urge you to reconsider the Motion for Summary.
- Kind Regards,
Deputy Chief of Police Phillipe Sanchez
Chief of Operations
Los Santos Police Department
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2022 10:50 pm
by Colt Daniels
San Andreas Judicial Branch
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
- Deputy Chief Sanchez,
As much as I appreciate your interpretation of the Los Santos Penal Code, you are neither the presiding judge nor counsel for either side on this case. Furthermore, you state I am worried by this dangerous precedent being set by allowing this case to go to trial as it wastes the time of the Judicial Branch as well as my officers who should be conducting their duties upholding peace on the streets of San Andreas.
This statement confuses me for two reasons: First, this case going to trial does not waste our time; it is our job, as the San Andreas Judicial Branch, to ensure that every citizen in this city has the opportunity to be heard by the court. Does conducting your duties as a Law Enforcement officer waste the time of the Los Santos Police Department? Secondly, your officers are not required to attend the trial. In the Kopi Crozen case for example, Officer Papadakis chose not to be at trial, as it is his prerogative is he wishes to attend or not. Nowhere in our policy does it state that Law Enforcement officers are required to attend trials, as we have prosecuting attorneys whose job it is to prosecute those who are charged with breaking the law. Your department is, however, required by order of the court to present all relevant evidence upon request during cases to ensure that they have a justified outcome. If you would like to speak more about this, we can sit down together and review the policies, however, as you do not have direct involvement, we will not be speaking about the merits of this case. Thank you.
Respectfully,
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]
Re: Jack Okimoto v Police Department | Docket #22-01-28-AP-027
Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2022 4:55 am
by Colt Daniels
Form 3.0.5 - Issuance of Verdict
San Andreas Judicial Branch
"HERE FOR YOU | SAFE FOR YOU" |
ISSUANCE OF VERDICT - 22-01-28-AP-027
IN THE APPEALS COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
Jack Okimoto v. Los Santos Police Department
22-01-28-AP-027
CHARGES BEING APPEALED:
GM11 - Failure to Comply / Identify
GM20 - Face Concealment
A verdict was entered in the above case on the 7st day of March, 2022.
- The case of 22-01-28-AP-027 - Jack Okimoto v. Los Santos Police Department has been resolved.
On the charge of GM11 - Failure to Comply/Identify, the appellant is hereby found not guilty. On the charge of GM20 - Face Concealment (b), the court has determined that GC06 - Face Concealment is a more appropriate charge, therefore, the appellant is hereby found not guilty of GM20, however the violation GC06 will be placed instead.
After a Motion for Summary Judgement was filed from the prosecution, a hearing was held, and a verdict was reached. Chief Justice Daniels, Commissioner Langley, and Commissioner Osborn were in agreement after going over the facts of the case, and the penal code sections CG06 and GM20.
Subsection (a) clearly outlines where facial concealment is not allowed to be worn.
Subsection (c) clearly outlines exemption factors.
When an individual is suspected to be in violation of subsection (a), the officer has to detain them and investigate the subsection (c) exemption. This does not mean that the officer has the right to require them to present an ID.
If the officer determines subsection (c) isn't met, subsection (b) then allows them to require that the individual removes and keeps their facial concealment off. This does not mean that the officer has the right to require them to present an ID.
If the individual then takes it upon themselves to defy the order by either outright refusing to remove the facial concealment, or by putting it back on again, the officer then per subsection (b) has the right to issue a citation, at which point the officer also has the right to require that the individual IDs themselves.
At this point, if the individual defies the request to identify, they escalate it further to Failure to Comply / Identify, because, at this point, the officer had a lawful reason to require ID.
The law also allows for the general citation to be escalated to the general misdemeanor, as per subsection (d) if the individual (plural) has been continuously stopped and cited and/or arrested for GC-06 or GM-20. It would only escalate to this point if the individual defies the initial request to remove the facial concealment because that's the only point where the law allows them to be ID'd for the citation.
In relation to this case, the officer in this situation instead of asking Mr. Okimoto to show identification so he could give him the citation GC06 used a department notice sent out by a superior officer as a legally binding reason to conduct the arrest charging the appeallant as such.
If the officer asked Mr. Okimoto to show identification and he failed to do so it would then be considered GM11 therefore also upgrading the ciation GC06 to the misdemenor of GM11.
This case is now closed. AMENDED ON 08/MAR/2022
- CHARGES BEING APPEALED:
GM11 - Failure to Comply / Identify
GM20 - Face Concealment
- CHARGES BEING APPLIED:
CG06 - Face Concealment
Chief Justice
San Andreas Judicial Branch
(909) 402-9713 — [email protected]