Case Law

__NOEDITSECTION__
Case Law
The following is a list of case law in use in ONX's San Andreas.
Accurate as of August 1st, 2024.
==Current Case Law==
===Search and Seizure/Reasonable Expectation of Privacy===
State v. Roche — Case #1629
HELD: Tenants of a multi-unit apartment building do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the common areas of their building. Defendants argument essential boils down to common areas being within the “curtilage” of the tenant’s residences. Court finds that “curtilage” as a concept does not have applicability in the context of common areas in multi-unit buildings, as all persons—including law enforcement—have a legal right to enter the common areas. While the use of additional tools within the common areas may constitute a search under the fourth amendment, merely overhearing a conversation while passing through falls under plain hearing doctrine.
State v. Breaker — Case #1534
HELD: Police do not need to apply for a search warrant to search “brown paper bags” present in an area that officers have a legal right to be, under the plain view exception. In this case, the fact that officers entered the premises under exigent circumstances and then brought that exigency under control does not impose a duty on officers to seek a warrant before searching any “brown paper bags” in the area. Searches of other containers on the premises would have required a warrant before searching.
State v. Grabmeier — Case #5825
HELD: A readily-mobile vehicle, or one that can be made readily mobile in a brief period of time, may be searched by law enforcement without a warrant upon a showing of probable cause that the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime, provided that the vehicle is located in a place where law enforcement have a legal right to be.
The State v. Oliver Nova (The Randy Frisk) — Case #6747
HELD: When the facts and circumstances presented by an officer, detailed before the trial judge, are such that a reasonably prudent man would have been warranted in believing a Defendant was armed, and thus presented a threat to the officer's safety while he was investigating his suspicious behavior, a frisk is constitutionally viable.
Gaspar v. Meijer — Case #4748
HELD: This court finds that Law Enforcement Officers may detain and frisk suspicious individuals on the scene of a crime that is violent in nature without probable cause to effect an arrest. This is providing that the officer has a reasonable articulate suspicion that the individual may be in possession of material evidence that may be extracted from the scene.
State v. Cummins — Case #6669
HELD: In any situation in which law enforcement would have reasonable suspicion to stop and detain a suspect for further investigation or questioning, the odor of marijuana about the suspect in combination with the factors that created reasonable suspicion for the detainment gives law enforcement sufficient probable cause to perform a warrantless search of the suspect's person for drugs or drug paraphernalia.
State v. Pantalones — Case #7496
When an officer has a lawful reason to perform an impound of a vehicle, the officer is able to carry out an inventory search of the outer and inner compartments of a vehicle. This must be documented at the time of the search and the person in possession of the vehicle shall be responsible for any illegal contents found during the search.
Louis "et al." Bloom v. Karmalinda Jack — Case #11435
HELD: Those who obtain a driver's license give their phone number to the state for contact and record-keeping purposes. No person with sufficient MDW permissions to remove, alter, or modify a number is allowed to change one's own phone number or another individual's to incorrectly reflect or hide one's number from others.
State v. Falcone — Case #13233
HELD: Law enforcement may condition a person’s access to restricted government property upon a search of their person and/or surrender of any weapons. Law enforcement retains the right to search an individual whilst they remain in a restricted area. Further, it is both lawful and reasonable for law enforcement to take custody of an attorney’s phone while they are inside an interrogation room with a suspect. Law enforcement may not search or otherwise tamper with said phone unless independent probable cause exists to search it.
State v. Jace Verde et al. #17104
HELD: Absent separate justification, simply being seen leaving a call of suspicious activity does not constitute grounds for traffic stop detainment.
State v. Oliver Nova #10936
HELD: If a peace officer's understanding of the law is mistaken but reasonable, a resulting detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the officer had reasonable suspicion justifying the stop.
===Fleeing Felon===
State v. Glenn Armstrong Jr. — Case #6952
Where the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape using deadly force. If the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, warning has been given.
No constitutional or statutory right exists that would prohibit a police officer from using deadly force when faced with an apparently loaded weapon.
The reasonableness of the application of force of officers will be determined by weighing the below factors and circumstances:
* The severity of the crime at issue;
* Whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of police officers or others;
* Whether the suspect is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.
===Article V and Article VI Rights to Counsel | The Cassidy Rights===
Gage Cassidy v. State — Case #6479
HELD: It is clear from this Court's prior holdings, rulings, and even procedure, that any statement made contrary to a citizen's Article V rights, must be made voluntarily and knowingly.
Today we find that the Article V and Article VI rights attach at the time that an individual is brought into the custody of police, which is the beginning of the adversarial and charging proceedings against them.
Specifically, we find that the peace officers must advise a Defendant of their Constitutional Rights at such a time as the citizen is placed under arrest. Peace Officers must advise of the following rights:
* The right to remain silent, and that the statements made from the commencement of the arrest may be utilized against the individual in the court of law;
* The right to have an attorney present during any and all questioning and through the charging process if one is available, and;
* The right to request to contest any and all charges pressed against them at bench trial, provided the availability of one.
In examining whether a bench trial is considered to be "available" we find that a bench trial is not available when a judge is unavailable to hear the matter. We also find that when witnesses are unavailable due to injuries which occurred during the underlying incident or nucleus operative fact, a bench trial is unavailable.
Any statements made to peace officers during the course of a custodial arrest prior to the issuance of the above warning shall not be considered knowing or voluntary statements.
Tusk et al v. Caruso #10074
HELD: The roadside questioning of a motorist detained pursuant to a routine traffic stop does not constitute "custodial interrogation" for the purposes of the Cassidy rule.
The State v. Ike Block — Case #9815
HELD: An express statement by a individual that is brought into custody requesting a bench trial after being read their Cassidy Rights shall constitute an affirmative invocation of the Cassidy Rights.
 
State v Axel Blackwood — Case #12859
HELD: For a Defendant's Article VI right to be violated, the Defendant and/or their counsel must affirmatively invoke that right by calling or subpoenaing the witness in question to a court proceeding. The State upholds their obligation by under Article VI by (1) presenting information during the Criminal Records Request or Discovery Process informing the Defendant of the witnesses against them, and; (2) presenting witnesses against the Defendant for examination when they are listed as witnesses by the Defendant.
Franklin Dupont V Louis Bloom #16669
HELD: A simple misrepresentation of facts by peace officers, is not an individual fact which would make an otherwise voluntary plea of guilty or a voluntary confession inadmissible.
A confession, or a plea of guilt, when made, must be made knowingly and voluntarily. Where a misrepresentation by peace officers rises to the level where a Defendant's will is overborne at the time he confessed, such a plea cannot be considered voluntary.
State v. Forelli et al. #22824 (The Moberry Rule)
HELD: Where a detainment escalates to the point where the physical liberties of the detained are severely limited, peace officers must advise the detainee of their Cassidy Rights.
===Article VIII Cruel and Unusual Punishment===
State v. Jack Oswald White (#4444)
This Court, upon review of the eighth amendment, finds that to be compliant with the eight amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, the Court must consider specifically enumerated aggravating circumstances, and weight them against the mitigating circumstances provided by the Defendant.
This Court finds that aggravating circumstances which may be considered by the State in the implementation of Capital Punishment may include the following:
*The Felony (A) offense was intentional and carried out for financial gain.
*The defendant intentionally carried out the Felony (A) offense by means of lying in wait
*The defendant was convicted previously of any Felony (A) offense.
*The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one Felony (A) offense.
*The Felony (A) offense was committed by means of a destructive device, bomb, or explosive planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his or her act or acts would create a great risk of death to one or more human beings.
*The Felony (A) offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or perfecting or attempting to perfect, an escape from lawful custody.
*The victim was a peace officer, an emergency medical provider, a doctor, a firefighter a federal law enforcement, a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor, a judge or former judge, an elected or appointed official or former official , or other government employee and the Felony (A) offense was intentionally carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of, the victim's official duties.
*The victim was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing his or her testimony in any criminal proceeding.
*The Felony (A) offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity. As used in this section, the phrase “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity” means a conscienceless or pitiless crime that is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.
===Police K9s===
State v. Jimmy Dodger (Luna's Law) — Case #6313
HELD: For the purposes of the Attempted Murder of a Government Employee charge, Police K9's that are either clearly marked as such, or clearly identified and introduced as such; shall be treated as a Government Employee.
Rodney Rogers v. K9 Hobbs (Hobbs' Law) — Case #6667
HELD: Civil or criminal action shall be disallowed against any governmental agency using a dog in its occupational work if the bite or bites occured while the dog was defending itself from an annoying, harassing, or provoking act, or assisting an employee of the agency in any of the following:
* In the apprehension or holding of a suspect where the employee has a reasonable suspicion of the suspect's involvement in criminal activity;
*In the investigation of a crime or possible crime;
*In the execution of a warrant, or;
*In the defense of a peace officer or another person.
State v. Imogen Tsukasa #14046 (Chaos’ Law)
HELD: A drug-detection dog can be used to sniff a lawfully stopped vehicle for contraband on any traffic stop if the sniff occurs within the duration of time necessary to reasonably conduct the stop. A positive indication for drugs in a vehicle by a drug-detection dog provides an officer with probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the vehicle.
===Inadmissibility In Court===
State v. Larry Berry — Case #5918
HELD: Details of plea negotiations that break down are prejudicial and are not admissible in court testimony.
HELD: A plea of guilty which was later withdrawn shall not be admissible in court testimony.
===Sovereign & Qualified Immunity===
Brookshire-Soske v. UPD — Case #4278
The State of San Andreas has waived sovereign immunity from civil lawsuits against its government agents. Government agents instead are protected by qualified immunity.
Qualified Immunity is a legal doctrine from our sister jurisdictions that grants immunity from civil liability to government agents in the performance of their official duties. This immunity is qualified, or limited, in that if a plaintiff can show that government agents nonetheless violated a clearly established statutory or constitutional right in performing their duty, they are not immune from civil liability. The test commonly used in our sister jurisdictions is whether the government agent was acting as a reasonable government agent would under the same set of facts and circumstances at the time that the alleged violation of rights occurred.
Please note: the 'UPD' is not an entity that exists within ONX's San Andreas, which the parties involved in this case were not aware of at the time. Assume it just means the state's police force as a whole.
===Littering===
State v. Reed — Case #5622
HELD: Dumping, Crashing, or otherwise Abandoning a motor vehicle in the ocean, whether deliberate or accidental, constitutes littering under the law of San Andreas.
State v Bones — Case #11331
HELD: Dumping, Crashing, or otherwise Abandoning a motor vehicle or objects in a man-made body of water which contains an ecosystem, whether deliberate or accidental, constitutes littering under the law of San Andreas.
===Trespassing===
State v. Lawson — Case #2166
HELD: Seeking emergency assistance in a life-threatening situation, or rendering emergency assistance to a person in peril of life and limb, are both lawful reasons to enter both private or government premises without permission from the owner. Merely sustaining an injury without more, however, does not meet this threshold.
State v. Nova — Case #8862
HELD: A prison inmate shall be considered to be felony trespassing upon prison grounds if they remain within the area reserved for inmate general population after their prison sentence has expired, and they are to be reminded to leave by a correctional officer after or shortly before their sentence has expired, unless one of the following circumstances has been met:
* The inmate has permission from a correctional officer to remain within the prison;
* There is an imminent risk of grievous bodily harm to the inmate were they to leave;
* The inmate is subject to lockdown or other emergency procedure that would prevent them from leaving; or
* The inmate's sentence expired less than 10 minutes ago, or the inmate woke up in the prison with an expired sentence less than 10 minutes ago.
===Reckless Driving===
State v. Cobert — Case #2226
HELD: Driving with a “wanton disregard for the safety of persons” requires there to have been bystanders actually put into peril by the driver’s conduct. The court finds that an objectively reasonable person standard does not work as a legal standard here, because an objectively reasonable person would likely consider most things drivers do in this city to evidence a wanton disregard for the safety of persons. This standard would thus cause the Reckless Driving charge to eclipse nearly all other statutory driving offenses.
===Vehicle Registration Fraud | Reads' Law===
State v. Hazzard — Case #6559
HELD: Deliberately affixing a license plate upon a vehicle that does not match the vehicle's registration papers is to be considered falsification of a license plate, for the purposes of the Vehicle Registration Fraud charge. The existence of an incorrect license plate affixed upon a vehicle creates a presumption that the vehicle owner or operator has committed vehicle registration fraud, which may be rebut by the Defendant by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a permissible or excusable reason that the vehicle does not have the correct plate attached.
===Animal Cruelty | Major===
State v. Dawson (Fish's Law) — Case #11932
HELD: Willfully causing an animal to consume, ingest, or imbibe a controlled dangerous substance through force, threat, neglect, or trickery shall constitute torment or torture of the animal. Medical professionals administering such substances in the normal course and scope of providing treatment shall be exempt. Any non-medical personnel who provides Fish with a controlled dangerous substance, due to the strange, unique, and frankly alarming qualities of Fish, shall instead be guilty of a Sale of a Controlled Dangerous Substance.
===Sale of a Controlled Dangerous Substance===
State v. Moody et al — Case #2213
HELD: Where police (1) are directed to a location due to a CAD alert indicating suspicious, an anonymous tip, a 911 call, or other alert which would tend to indicate the sale of drugs based on the training and experience of officers, and; (2) police present evidence in the form of a photograph OR testimony of suspicious handoffs by a citizen observed on location of the first, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her based upon the reasonable articulate suspicion formed by the combination of the above.
State v. Grabmeier — Case #5825
HELD: Officers have probable cause to perform a search of a suspect for drugs, drug paraphernalia, or contraband in circumstances where (1) the Officer would be entitled to perform a Moody Frisk of the suspect, and (2) the suspect attempts to flee the area upon notice or arrival of law enforcement.
===Consumption of Controlled Dangerous Substance===
The State v. John Block & Leonard Washington — Bench Trial #11778
HELD: Forcing another person against their will to consume, ingest, inject, or otherwise partake in a Controlled Dangerous Substance scheduled in Section 2 of the San Andreas State Code shall be in violation of Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Controlled Dangerous Substances carry substantial risks to physical and mental wellbeing of a person, and thus willingly exposing a person to those risks constitutes an assault under San Andreas law. No guilt shall be made articulated when the administrator of the substance is a licensed medical professional, operating in the normal duty of care and scope of their profession. In the case where further facts or evidence is presented to constitute a higher charge, the case law can be superseded.
===Obstruction of Justice===
State v. Finch — Case #2135
HELD: This Court finds that absent separate legal justification, no citizen of this State is under a duty to comply with questions posed by law enforcement. Independent legal justification can include being requested to identify oneself while under detainment or arrest, or a requirement to comply with lawful orders to surrender to a detention.
However, this court will not impose a duty of any citizen of this State to comply with questions posed during an investigation absent a clearly proven exigency, i.e., an imminent threat to life.
===Affirmative Defenses===
State v. Teebo Strongbad et al — Case #3019
HELD: The court found that, where there was no proof that the Defendant had previously arrived or been inside of the stolen vehicle, that the Defendant's entry into a vehicle which had been tampered with was an action taken in an emergency to prevent bodily harm or death to themselves, and that a reasonable person would have taken the same action. Accordingly, the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of Theft of a vehicle.
===Failure to Comply with a Peace Officer===
State v. Falcone — Case #13233
HELD: In the State of San Andreas, all persons are required to comply on-scene with requests made by law enforcement officers that are reasonable in light of the circumstances in which they are made, regardless of whether an argument exists that the request or order was unlawful. No person shall be required to comply on-scene with any order by law enforcement that to a reasonable person would be patently ridiculous, offensive, or unsafe.
State v. Mahmoud #15605
HELD: It is reasonable for a law enforcement officer to request the driver of a vehicle or its passengers to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop, when that officer can articulate facts or circumstances that indicate there may be a threat to the officer’s safety posed by the vehicle occupants or the location of the traffic stop.
===Affirmative Defenses===
State v. Teebo Strongbad et al
HELD: The court found that, where there was no proof that the Defendant had previously arrived or been inside of the stolen vehicle, that the Defendant's entry into a vehicle which had been tampered with was an action taken in an emergency to prevent bodily harm or death to themselves, and that a reasonable person would have taken the same action. Accordingly, the Defendant was found NOT GUILTY of Theft of a vehicle.
===Hot Guns | The Schwinghammer Statute===
The People vs Donald Ashford — Case #3640
If a person is found to be in constructive possession of a weapon or firearm that can be identified as being used in the commission of a previous crime (a “Hot Gun”), that person shall be subject to all charges that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which are tied to that weapon or firearm. To prove their innocence in such a case the burden of proof shall shift to the defense where they must prove based on a preponderance of evidence that the person was not the perpetrator of the crimes.
===8th Amendment: Cruel and Unusual Punishment===
State v. Jack Oswald White — Case #4444
This Court, upon review of the eighth amendment, finds that to be compliant with the eight amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments, the Court must consider specifically enumerated aggravating circumstances, and weight them against the mitigating circumstances provided by the Defendant.
This Court finds that aggravating circumstances which may be considered by the State in the implementation of Capital Punishment may include the following:
* The Felony (A) offense was intentional and carried out for financial gain.
* The defendant intentionally carried out the Felony (A) offense by means of lying in wait
* The defendant was convicted previously of any Felony (A) offense.
* The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one Felony (A) offense.
* The Felony (A) offense was committed by means of a destructive device, bomb, or explosive planted, hidden, or concealed in any place, area, dwelling, building, or structure, and the defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that his or her act or acts would create a great risk of death to one or more human beings.
* The Felony (A) offense was committed for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest, or perfecting or attempting to perfect, an escape from lawful custody.
* The victim was a peace officer, an emergency medical provider, a doctor, a firefighter a federal law enforcement, a prosecutor or assistant prosecutor, a judge or former judge, an elected or appointed official or former official, or other government employee and the Felony (A) offense was intentionally carried out in retaliation for, or to prevent the performance of, the victim's official duties.
* The victim was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing his or her testimony in any criminal proceeding.
* The Felony (A) offense was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity. As used in this section, the phrase “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, manifesting exceptional depravity” means a conscienceless or pitiless crime that is unnecessarily torturous to the victim.
===Private Property===
State v. Steele & Grey — Case #8311
HELD: A duly recognized business granted by the State shall act as an agent for the public property upon which the business operates, and be granted all rights that a private property owner would enjoy. Specifically, the business shall be able to allow individuals to park in a manner that would otherwise be determined as illegal on that property, and shall be able to trespass individuals from the land. A tow truck driver must obtain permission from a private property owner or recognized agent in order to tow a vehicle on that property.
===Marriage===
Rosemary Walsh v Adam Walsh (Clement's Law) — Case #9763
HELD: Clement's Law states that marriage and marriage Licenses commissioned outside of the State of San Andreas are not legally recognized. Marriages and Marriage licenses must be commissioned in San Andreas to be considered legal.
 
===DNA Collection===
State v. Raith Robinson — Case #10374
HELD: After warrantless DNA collection, The State shall have 21 days to bring forth criminal charges stemming from the incident that prompted the collection; failure to do so within this period entitles the citizen whose DNA was collected to petition the court for its removal from the peace officer's database. The State may request an extension on this deadline, provided that the charges remain within the statute of limitations.
===Government Exemptions===
State v Tusk et al — Case #10074
HELD: Clearly marked emergency vehicles are SA exempt with or without the plate present on the vehicle.
 
===Malicious Prosecution===
Tip Johnson v. Riley Reads et al. — Case #12057
HELD: To succeed in a malicious prosecution claim pertaining to a criminal matter, a Plaintiff must establish the underlying criminal action (1) terminated favorably for the Plaintiff; (2) was brought without probable cause, and; (3) was initiated with malice.
 
===Parking Offenses on Private or Leased Property===
State v. O'fhell #20221 (The Weems Addendum)
HELD: For the purposes of Section 013 of the State of San Andreas Parking and Motor Vehicle Code, vehicles can only be requested for tow by law enforcement when the vehicle was used or otherwise involved in the commission of a misdemeanor or felony offense, or presents a safety hazard or obstruction to public utilities.
 
==Former Case Law==
===Government Premises===
State v. Lawson — Case #2166
HELD: Doctors and Emergency Medical Services personnel are government employees that are employed and managed by the State of San Andreas. Therefore, Mt. Zonah Hospital is a government building.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)
===Trespassing===
State v. Lawson — Case #2166
HELD: Trespassing Statutes in San Andreas do not explicitly require a person to be formally trespassed from the premises before a charge may be issued. They merely require a person to be on the premises without a lawful reason or permission from the owner.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)
State v. Nova #8862
HELD: A prison inmate shall be considered to be felony trespassing upon prison grounds if they remain within the area reserved for the inmate general population after their prison sentence has expired, and they have been reminded to leave by a correctional officer after or shortly before their sentence has expired, unless one of the following circumstances has been met:
* The inmate has permission from a correctional officer to remain within the prison;
* There is an imminent risk of grievous bodily harm to the inmate were they to leave;
* The inmate is subject to a lockdown or other emergency procedure that would prevent them from leaving; or
* The inmate’s sentence expired less than 10 minutes ago, or the inmate woke up in the prison with an expired sentence less than 10 minutes ago.
===Reckless Evading===
State v. Cobert — Case #2226
HELD: The definition for Reckless Driving is necessarily included in the statute for Reckless Evading. The element of driving in a “reckless manner” under the statute is the manner defined by the Reckless Driving statute, which at the time of this trial referred only to driving with a wanton disregard for the safety of persons.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)
===Felony Possesion of a Controlled Dangerous Substance with Intent to Distribute===
State v. Dios, Ibarra, Osadia, and Short — Case #2220
HELD: 20 vials of Ketamine more than exceeds a felony amount of Ketamine, for the purposes of the intent to distribute element of felony possession. The “nearest neighbor” with which to draw a comparison at law to is Oxycodone, of which more than 3 bottles is a felony amount. As 20 vials far exceed 3 bottles, being nearly 7 times the amount of its nearest neighbor, the Court is satisfied that a felony amount of Ketamine possession is present in this case. Court respectfully declines to draw an explicit line on where felony vs. misdemeanor possession of Ketamine lies at the time of this case.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)
===Brandishing===
State v. Richard Breaker — Case #2165
HELD: Brandishing of a firearm or non-firearm requires that a weapon be exhibited in a Rude, Angry, or Threatening manner. Legal analysis of this element does not end with whether any person was actually threatened, but whether an objectively reasonable person viewing the event would feel threatened by the Defendant’s conduct.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)
===Criminal Possession of a Handgun===
State v. Dios, Ibarra, Osadia, and Short — Case #2220
HELD: Criminal Possession of a Handgun does not prohibit the carrying of firearms without serial numbers at the time of this trial. There was no legal requirement present in any of our legislation or criminal statutes that firearms must have a printed serial number on the frame. Additionally, there were no actual restrictions on the type or nature of firearms that a person is allowed to carry with a valid weapons license. The sole disposing issue in the law existing at that time was whether a person has a license to carry a firearm.
(Removed Feb 28th, 2024 by Ray Montag)