[GUILTY] United States of Argonath vs. [NAR]Lamont

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Desk of Chief Gabriel Adams

Criminal Prosecution Case
2018.01.13
TO: The Court of Vice City
FROM: Office of Chief of Police Gabriel Adams, Vice City Police Department, Washington Beach

I. Opening Statement

10th January, 2018, ARPD Officer Maddy Callahan has pulled over a red voodoo vehicle, driven by a man identified by the officer as [NAR]Lamont for vehicular assault against a police vehicle. As this has given the officer a probable cause to conduct a search on the citizen, Officer Callahan has frisked [NAR]Lamont to find him in posession of the Kurz SMG submachine gun, which is illegal for civilian use. Therefore, the Vice City Police Department, based on the evidence provided, is hereby suing [NAR]Lamont.

II. Legal Reference

1.

Section 5: Illegal Possession Offences
It is a criminal offence for any person to be in possession of:
   (a) an M60 Machine Gun and any relevant ammunition for such weapon, or
   (b) a Bulldog Shotgun and any relevant ammunition for such weapon, or
   (c) a device that can project fire or flames and any petrol, fuel or other thing used to project such fire or flame, or
   (d) a rocket propelled grenade launcher and any relevant ammunition for such weapon, or
   (e) an explosive grenade(s) or remotely controlled explosive grenade(s), or
   (f) a Desert Eagle and any relevant ammunition for such weapon, or
   (g) a Kurz SMG and any relevant ammunition for such weapon.
   (h) a traffickable quantity of gemstones, jewels, raw minerals or any other objects or items that are similar in nature and/or purpose.

2.

Section 10: Strict Liability
All criminal offences within this ordinance are to be interpreted that of strict liability, meaning that intention or mens rea is not required to find a defendant guilty of an offence in this ordinance.

III. Charges

1. Posession of illegal weaponry.

IV. Demands

1. Citizen [NAR]Lamont to be fined 100.000 ARD for posession of illegal weaponry.
2. Imprisonment of five years (ten minutes) in a federal prison.

V. Settlement Offer

Vice City Police Department does not wish to provide a settlement offer for the defendant.


VI. Evidence

1. Evidence taken by Officer Max Callahan's camera
https://imgur.com/a/RZb7p
2. Officer Maddy Callahan is to appear in the court as a witness.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [NAR]Lamont" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0002/18

COURT MINUTE

The Court has received notice of the criminal case and will be processing the matter once the prosecution provides evidence of the defendant being issued a summons. The defendant has from the time of the prosecution's summons, five days to enter into a plea (guilty/not guilty). 

DATED, on this 14th day of January, 2018.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Maddy]

Oath: I swear that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Affirmation: I solemnly affirm that the evidence that I shall give, shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Your honour, Chief Adams has already summed up the situation very well.

Your honour, the plaintiff showed up out of nowhere and rammed Officer Kappa's cruiser and ran away. I took the initiation to pursue the suspect and finally pulled him over.

When the plaintiff was frisked, I found him in possession of illegal weaponry. And that is where I took the plaintiff's ID and took pictures of the evidence.

That'll be all, your honour.

[XyZ]

pro lawyers co will represent me

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [NAR]Lamont" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0002/18

COURT MINUTE

The Court notes that the defendant has replied, thereby waiving service. As a result, the defendant or his counsel will be required to enter a plea of either guilty or not guilty if no substantial pre-trial motions are raised, within two days.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That a formal plea (guilty/not guilty) must be entered into by the Defendant within two days, if there are no substantial procedural issues raised by either party. If no plea is entered into, the Court will note a plea of "not guilty" has been entered into, by the Defendant.

ORDERED, on this 18th day of January, 2018.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Klaus]

FERNANDO J. ULLOA Criminal defense lawyer

From: ProLawyers Co., Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 08459 To: Vice City Courthouse, Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 00101

Your honor,

My client Mr Lamont Harris Jr. will plead guilty to Section 5: Illegal Possession Offences (g) a Kurz SMG and any relevant ammunition for such weapon. My client acknowledges said crime and has since returned the Kurz SMG to the authorities. He would like give his sincere apologies for the crime he committed but wishes to be treated equally and fairly.


There are some parts of this case that we would like to contest, as we feel parts of this case are not concrete. At the time the incident occurred, my client was unaware that the Kurz SMG was indeed in his possession, and feels he was unfairly treated by the Police Officer. The Police Officer, Max Callahan(Maddy), did not make my client aware of his rights before conducting a search. Unless a suspect of a crime, when the police stop and search, they must provide the following information before the search can begin:

• proof of their warrant card
• information on police powers to stop and search
• information on your rights
• the reason for the search
• what they think they might find when they search you

None of this was provided to my Client, and my client accepted to being searched without fully knowing his rights. We believe this to be an extreme lack of professionalism by the Police Officer, and would also like to contest that my client be found not guilty should the search be found to be illegal.

The police can stop and search any person, vehicle, and anything in or on the vehicle for certain items. However, before they stop and search they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find: stolen goods, or drugs, or an offensive weapon, or items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans. Therefore we would like to question why my client was searched and under what grounds. If my client was indeed involved in a car accident, we feel this does not give the Police reasonable grounds to suspect my client would fall under any of the categories mentioned. The defense would like to highlight that the police do not have the right to stop and search just because of race or religious background, in which we feel my client may of been unfairly treated during this incident due to his ethnicity.

In conclusion, we feel my client was illegally searched and therefore we feel we have a case of Police Misconduct. If so, that will have massive consequences in regard to the case.



The defense would also like to put forward that Police Officer Max Callahan has many priors to Police Misconduct, having previously been given warnings by his superiors for failing to follow procedure and regulations. Evidence of such can be supplied by the VCPD as they have it documented themselves. We would also like to point out the fact that Max Callahan has an awful history with the VCPD, having been fired a number of four times, his most recent application denied which can be seen here. He has a large rap sheet as well, committing major crimes such as smuggling vehicles, which lead to one of his multiple sackings from the VCPD. The defense believes that the history of corruption of Max Callahan should be taken into account, and believe the courts should be aware that the Officer is extremely liable for acts of corruption.


Lastly, the defense would like to contest the charges put forward by the prosecution. We feel the charges are absurd, based on the crime committed by my client. In support of this, the defense would like to highlight the charges given in previous cases for Illegal weaponry possession.

United States of Argonath vs. HatDag - "Defendant to pay a fine of 5,000$ for possession of illegal weaponry".
United States of Argonath vs. =BN=Solis - "Defendant to pay a fine of 10,000$ for big-scale possession of illegal weaponry".
United States of Argonath vs. DaniGold_Singh - "Defendant to pay a fine of 10,000$ for big-scale possession of illegal projectiles".
United States of Argonath vs. Stanley_Mitchell - "Defendant to pay a fine of 15,000$ for big-scale possession of illegal weaponry".
United States of Argonath vs. Larry_Sinagra - "The Federal Bureau of Investigation demands that Larry Sinagra receives a fine of $20,000 for harboring illegal weaponry in his property".

We believe that these previous cases highlight the insane difference in the demands given by the prosecution in previous cases and in this case. We feel the charge of $100,000 for possession of illegal weaponry in no way related to usual charges for said crime and feel our client is being mistreated unfairly. In the previous cases highlighted, the amount of weaponry the authorities found were much larger, in some cases involving multiple weapons of high ammunition. This is the first time my client has committed a crime of said nature and has zero priors. All my client had in his possession for one Kurz SMG with a 5 bullets. The defense would like the courts to take this into account when giving their judgment as again we feel the charges to be absurd and plain out of order.

Thank you,
ProLawyers Co.

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Desk of Chief Gabriel Adams

Response to Defence
2018.01.17
TO: The Court of Vice City
FROM: Office of Chief of Police Gabriel Adams, Vice City Police Department, Washington Beach

Your Honor and the Honorable Defence,

The Prosecution has read the defences submission is now going to state their counter-arguments for the points raised.

I. Allegations of an Unlawful Search

The Defence claims that the search conducted by ARPD Officer Maddy Callahan has been unlawful. Quote for reference:

The Police Officer, Max Callahan(Maddy), did not make my client aware of his rights before conducting a search.

The Prosecution believes this to be a false statement, Your Honor. Law Enforcement operatives are not required to inform the subject of his rights upon conducting a search of his belongings. Law Enforcement personel are required to inform someone of their rights under one of the following occasions:
1) The Subject is being detained.
2) The Subject is being interrogated/questioned.
The defendant was not being subjected to any of the mentioned procedures, Your Honor. The defendant was not arrested after the search procedure took place.

Unless a suspect of a crime, when the police stop and search, they must provide the following information before the search can begin:

    proof of their warrant card
    information on police powers to stop and search
    information on your rights
    the reason for the search
    what they think they might find when they search you

Your Honor, the prosecution are rather surprised the by defence's lack of legal competence. Some of the points made in the statement quoted above are factually inacurrate. Quote from the Constitution of the State of Vice City:
" Ordinance II
    A law enforcement officer can search and seize any illegal material only if justified by reasonable doubts
    and reasons. The citizen must be informed prior to the search, and if he feels the reason is not good
    enough, may request a superior authority such as a sworn officer, police chief, federal agent, or
    government official to make a decision. The decision can be contested in a court of law if the decision
    cannot be justified by valid reasons."
Based on the mentioned ordinance, these are the prosecution's observations:
1) Officer is required to inform the citizen prior to the search. Your Honor, this was done in accordance to this law. The defendant has consented to a search as visible in the evidence proviced ((He accepted the frisk. He had a script option and a right to reject it, but he had accepted it, which, we believe, is only right to be considered as a consent of search)). The search was not forced on the defendant and he was informed that he was going to be searched..
2) A law enforcement officer can search and seize any illegal material only if justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. Your Honor, the officer did have a reasonable doubt to search the citizens belongings. We shall start with the established fact that the citizen had collided his vehicle with the one of another law enforcer. Furthermore, as seen in the evidence, this whole situation took place in the Vice Port docks, an area that is under strict police control, as for our knowledge, this location is often used by vehicle traffickers to smuggle stolen vehicles outside of Vice City. The defendant's being in a scene of a probable crime has been reason enough to search his belongings, Your Honor.
3) "<...> if he feels the reason is not good  enough, may request a superior authority such as a sworn officer, police chief, federal agent, or government official to make a decision. ". Your Honor, no attempts to contact an official VCPD member have been made to our knowledge. We would also like to point out that Cadet Kappa of the Vice City Police Department has been available on the scene. The defendant has made no effort to contest the search and request an official law enforcer to be present.

Therefore, we would like to contest the claims made by the defence that:
1) "A law enforcer must provide the citizen being searched with a warrant." Your Honor, warrants are not required to search citizens in a scene of a probable crime. In fact, warrants are only required for property searches. There is no ordinance in the constitution of Vice City that establishes otherwise.
2) "Information of police powers to stop and search" must be provided before search. Your Honor, it seems that the defence are making up laws of their own at this point. Once again, no such requirement is established in any of the city's legal documentation.
3) "what they think they might find when they search you" must be provided before search. Your Honor, once again, there is no such legal requirement in any of the city's legal documentation.

None of this was provided to my Client, and my client accepted to being searched without fully knowing his rights. We believe this to be an extreme lack of professionalism by the Police Officer, and would also like to contest that my client be found not guilty should the search be found to be illegal.

As pointed out before, your honour, it is not in the duties of a police officer to inform a citizen of his rights prior to search. The occasions during which a citizen needs to be provided his rights have been pointed out in our previous statement.
Your Honor, even if the search in a very unlikely scenario is found to be illegal, the defence has already stated that their client pleads guilty for the charge. The fact that the citizen was found in a posession of an illegal firearm alone proves that the officers doubts and reasoning behind conducting a search have been well founded.

The defense would like to highlight that the police do not have the right to stop and search just because of race or religious background, in which we feel my client may of been unfairly treated during this incident due to his ethnicity.

Your Honor, this statement is not only absurd and a blatant lie, but also an insult to the police force and the officer on the scene. No actions of the officer could have been possibly taken as racial profiling. The Officer did nothing to offend the defendants ethnicity or race, noir has based his decision to search the defendant on the mentioned factors. The reason behind the search has already been clarified above. Unless the defence has strong evidence to proove such claim, we feel that this is an attempt of slandering and defamation against Officer Maddy Callahan.

II. Officer Callahan's credibility

The defense would also like to put forward that Police Officer Max Callahan has many priors to Police Misconduct, having previously been given warnings by his superiors for failing to follow procedure and regulations. Evidence of such can be supplied by the VCPD as they have it documented themselves. We would also like to point out the fact that Max Callahan has an awful history with the VCPD, having been fired a number of four times, his most recent application denied which can be seen here. He has a large rap sheet as well, committing major crimes such as smuggling vehicles, which lead to one of his multiple sackings from the VCPD. The defense believes that the history of corruption of Max Callahan should be taken into account, and believe the courts should be aware that the Officer is extremely liable for acts of corruption.

Officer Maddy Callahan was indeed discharged from the Vice City Police Department in suspicion of corruption, your Honor, however, none of his previous misconduct should be taken as a deciding factor in this case. The evidence provides without reasonable doubt that the defendant has comitted a crime of illegal possesion, Your Honor. We fail to see how Officer Callahan's unfortunate carreer in the Vice City Police Department is a counter-argument against said fact. The Defence are resorting to very questionable ethics in order to achieve their goals, Your Honor. We would like the Court to clarify on this issue and whether such conduct should be acceptable in a court of law.

III. Charges

Your Honor,

The flow of illegal weaponry in Vice City has become a very serious problem that the law enforcement are trying their hardest to combat. As evident from several legal cases opened by the VCPD in a matter of a few days, it is evident that such crimes require strict liability in order to combat them effectively. That, Your Honor, is our justification of the demands.

[Klaus]

FERNANDO J. ULLOA Criminal defense lawyer

From: ProLawyers Co., Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 08459 To: Vice City Courthouse, Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 00101

In response, as previously mentioned in the past:

"Whilst it is not explicitly mentioned in the Interim Constitution, the fair trial umbrella is extensive in its application. This means that a criminal defendant is entitled to the presumption of innocence, the right to legal assistance before questioning, the right to silence, right to be brought before the Courts in a timely and just manner and to be treated humanely whilst in custody awaiting trial or pending the outcome of a trial. These rights may be changed or altered further. I will discuss these a bit more in detail in the judgement.

The Government has a responsibility to ensure it is abiding by the Constitution. And it should be practice for law enforcement officials who are collecting evidence to mount a court case against a defendant to tell that defendant of their rights. Often the defendant may be in the heat of the moment, words of a defendant's rights are likely to prevent injustices occurring."

Not everything is written in the constitution, but you will find that the laws I mentioned on stop & search are just as real as the laws of miranda rights, that you also rejected before.

1) Officer is required to inform the citizen prior to the search. Your Honor, this was done in accordance to this law. The defendant has consented to a search as visible in the evidence proviced ((He accepted the frisk. He had a script option and a right to reject it, but he had accepted it, which, we believe, is only right to be considered as a consent of search)). The search was not forced on the defendant and he was informed that he was going to be searched..

My client was not told of his rights, and that he has the right to refuse to be searched by the Police. This however was not told by the Police Officer. My client is not a legal expert and was not aware of his rights, hence why he consented to the search. My client was under the impression that he must consent to the search otherwise he would be arrested.

2) A law enforcement officer can search and seize any illegal material only if justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. Your Honor, the officer did have a reasonable doubt to search the citizens belongings. We shall start with the established fact that the citizen had collided his vehicle with the one of another law enforcer. Furthermore, as seen in the evidence, this whole situation took place in the Vice Port docks, an area that is under strict police control, as for our knowledge, this location is often used by vehicle traffickers to smuggle stolen vehicles outside of Vice City. The defendant's being in a scene of a probable crime has been reason enough to search his belongings, Your Honor.

Firstly, a car accident does not give the right to begin searching my client, in fact your first reaction should have been to check if he was injured and at most ask for his license and registration. In no way does a car collision give right to stop and search. Also, saying that stop and search is allowed on anyone in Vice Port is a lie. Thousands of people work there daily, and although it is a hot-spot for crime you cannot suddenly make up your own laws depending on which district of the city you are. There was, and is, zero evidence relating my client to trafficking of any kind. He was a citizen involved in a car accident, and nothing more.

Therefore, we would like to contest the claims made by the defence that:
1) "A law enforcer must provide the citizen being searched with a warrant." Your Honor, warrants are not required to search citizens in a scene of a probable crime. In fact, warrants are only required for property searches. There is no ordinance in the constitution of Vice City that establishes otherwise.

Not everything is written in the constitution, but you will find that you cannot search a vehicle or person without a warrant, unless that person is a suspect.

Laws such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 set out the circumstances when an officer can legally search you. An officer must suspect that: You are in possession of a prohibited item, such as drugs, weapons or stolen goods.

The fact that the citizen was found in a posession of an illegal firearm alone proves that the officers doubts and reasoning behind conducting a search have been well founded.

Unless the search was conducted legally, anything found becomes fruit of the poisonous tree. This means that all charges can be dropped, despite whether or not my client was caught in possession of an illegal firearm.

The reason behind the search has already been clarified above. Unless the defence has strong evidence to proove such claim, we feel that this is an attempt of slandering and defamation against Officer Maddy Callahan.

If your reasoning for the stop & search is:

• He was in Vice Port
• He was involved in a car accident

Then I have nothing more to add. This clearly is not enough of a reasoning to conduct a search on my client, especially without telling him of his rights. We are not here to slander or defame, but to make it clear that the search on my client was illegal.

II. Officer Callahan's credibility
Officer Maddy Callahan was indeed discharged from the Vice City Police Department in suspicion of corruption, your Honor, however, none of his previous misconduct should be taken as a deciding factor in this case. The evidence provides without reasonable doubt that the defendant has comitted a crime of illegal possesion, Your Honor. We fail to see how Officer Callahan's unfortunate carreer in the Vice City Police Department is a counter-argument against said fact. The Defence are resorting to very questionable ethics in order to achieve their goals, Your Honor. We would like the Court to clarify on this issue and whether such conduct should be acceptable in a court of law.

If we doubt the credibility of a witness, we can challenge that in courts. There is no question about ethics, an Officer such as Mr Callahan cannot be fully trusted based on his file. How can you put a convicted criminal and someone who has priors of Police Misconduct on the stand without thinking we could question his credibility? It should be taken into account as he is a witness in this case.

III. Charges

Your Honor,

The flow of illegal weaponry in Vice City has become a very serious problem that the law enforcement are trying their hardest to combat. As evident from several legal cases opened by the VCPD in a matter of a few days, it is evident that such crimes require strict liability in order to combat them effectively. That, Your Honor, is our justification of the demands.

You cannot increase your demands by 400% [(100 - 20) / 20] × 100% = 4 × 100% = 400%] on my client just because you have a serious problem. That's not how it works I'm afraid. Justice is when everyone is treated equally and fairly. No way should be client be facing such charges, and an increase of 400% is absurd when my client has no priors at all and was only caught holding a single weapon with minimal ammunition.

That's all we have to say for now. We'll wait for the Judge to comment on these proceedings.

Thank you,
ProLawyers Co.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [NAR]Lamont" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0002/18

COURT MINUTE

The Court has noted the plea of guilty and will reserve summary judgement to be published within one week. I will call for final submissions on sentencing only to be submitted within three days. The prosecution be will allowed one reply to make submissions to the allegations of unlawful search.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the prosecutor file and serve on or before the 21st of January 2018 its written submissions addressing sentencing as well as respond to the allegations of an unlawful search.

[2].        That the defendant file and serve on or before the 21st of January 2018 its written submissions addressing sentencing only.

ORDERED, on this 18th day of January, 2018.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Huntsman]

Prosecution will post its statement on 21st January.

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Desk of Chief Gabriel Adams

Response to Defence
2018.01.21
TO: The Court of Vice City
FROM: Office of Chief of Police Gabriel Adams, Vice City Police Department, Washington Beach

Your Honour,

The Prosecution has already responded to the allegations of unlawful search in our earlier response to the Defence.

My client was not told of his rights, and that he has the right to refuse to be searched by the Police. This however was not told by the Police Officer. My client is not a legal expert and was not aware of his rights, hence why he consented to the search. My client was under the impression that he must consent to the search otherwise he would be arrested.

Your Honour, the prosecution would once again like to state that there is no such requirement to inform a subject of a search of his rights anywhere in the legal documentation of the State of Vice City. Therefore, Police Officer Callahan simply cannot be accused of breaking a law that does not exist, your honor. How could the officer follow a law that does not exist?
The Constitution of the State of Vice City and all the ordinances are open and available for everyone to see. The fact that and / if the defendant was not aware of his rigths is only accountable to himself only.

Firstly, a car accident does not give the right to begin searching my client, in fact your first reaction should have been to check if he was injured and at most ask for his license and registration. In no way does a car collision give right to stop and search. Also, saying that stop and search is allowed on anyone in Vice Port is a lie. Thousands of people work there daily, and although it is a hot-spot for crime you cannot suddenly make up your own laws depending on which district of the city you are. There was, and is, zero evidence relating my client to trafficking of any kind. He was a citizen involved in a car accident, and nothing more.

We find it hard to take the defence serious when they throw accusations against the prosecution of making up laws, when they themselves seem to follow laws that do not exist.

Even so, the police force are not making up their own laws. We're acting in accordance with the Constitution of the State of Vice City. Your Honour, we would like to quote the Law Enforcement Ordinance, Section 20 (Power in Relation to Vehicles) on the matter:
"A police officer has the following powers with relation to motor vehicles:
<......>
 (c) the power to search the motor vehicle if the police officer believes on reasonable grounds:
      (1) the motor vehicle is being, was or may have been, used in connection with the commission of a criminal offence, and
      (2) that usage of said power may provide evidence of the commission of a criminal offence. "

Your Honour, Officer Maddy Callahan was right about his suspicion on the vehicle and his judgement to search the vehicle. An illegal weapon has been found in the vehicle, wich means that the "usage of said power" DID provide evidence of the comission of a criminal offence. Therefore, the Officers actions were within legal boundaries and the officer cannot be accused of unlawful search.

Not everything is written in the constitution, but you will find that you cannot search a vehicle or person without a warrant, unless that person is a suspect.

Laws such as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) and the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 set out the circumstances when an officer can legally search you. An officer must suspect that: You are in possession of a prohibited item, such as drugs, weapons or stolen goods.

Your Honour, I would once again state that the Prosecutions stance on basing decisions on acts that are not made valid by the legal system of the state of Vice City and are not part of the constitution, their ordinances or any other legal documentation by the Honorable Court of  Vice City is unconstitutional. Such practice would make as much sense as Vice City Police Department enforcing traffic laws in the State of Vice City based on the fact that they are present in the constitution of San Andreas. It seems that the defense seems to suggest that we can. do that..?

((Seriously though, going off character, we're people with lives, most of our officers as well as the majority of players are 16 years old average. To expect them to follow real-life laws is absurd. They base their decisions on what is available and presented to them as the law of the community they play in, which means they read the constitution and follow it. Trying to accuse someone of not doing something that they simply had no means to know they were supposed to do is absurd. Constitution of Vice City and its ordinances should be the only legal documents together with their admendments in the court. Remember that this is a game, not an irl court room.))

Futhermore, Your Honour, Officer Maddy Callahan was not required to inform the defendant for the reason of his search. Let us quote the Law Enforcement Ordinance, Section 23 (Officer not Required to Disclose Reasons for Use of Powers):

Section 23: Officer not Required to Disclose Reasons for Use of Powers
Unless the contrary appears, a police officer is not required by law to immediately disclose their reasons for the exercise of any powers listed in Part 5 of this ordinance when executing those powers at the time unless:
   (a) the person who would be directly impacted by the use of such powers has asked for such reasons after a short period of time from the initial use of such powers.
   Note: The requirement to disclose that a person is being arrested under section 17B is still required and is unaffected by this section.

As mentioned in our previous statements, Your Honour, Law Enforcement are only required to inform a subject of his rights upon arrest and upon questioning. As pointed out by this Section, law enforcement officer is NOT required to disclose reasons for use of law enforcement powers (in this case, search of a vehicle) unless the citizen ask for the said reason, which he did not to our knowledge.

As you see, Your Honour, every action conducted by Officer Maddy Callahan was legal and within the constitution of the State of Vice City. Officer broke no law of the Constitution or their ordinances by his actions, noir has he breached the defendants rights in any way. Therefore, Your Honour, the search was lawful, as well as all the findings. It is unconstested without a doubt that Defendant [NAR]Lamont WAS in posession of illegal weaponry and should be sentenced for the crime.

Act VII
    No individual may be judged for a crime that occurred before the adaptation of a law by that law

Your Honour, the said ordinance of the Constitution of the State of Vice City prevents any debate whether law that is not officially adapted in the legal documentation of the State of Vice City has any value in the courtroom. Laws mentioned by the Defence simply do not apply to the State of Vice City.

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Desk of Chief Gabriel Adams

Criminal Prosecution Case
2018.01.27
TO: The Court of Vice City
FROM: Office of Chief of Police Gabriel Adams, Vice City Police Department, Washington Beach

Your Honour and Honorable Defence,

The Prosecution are ready to offer a plea bargain for the defendant in the light of recent legal action taken elsewhere in the court against violations of similar nature. If the defence are willing to enter the plea of guilty and unconditionally confess, we're willing to lower the demands to 20.000 ARD fine and imprisonment of five years (five minutes).

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "United States of Argonath v [NAR]Lamont" Proceeding Number: VC-CR0002/18

Medium Neutral Citation:	United States of Argonath v Lamont [2018] AFCR 2
Date of Decision:	29 January 2018
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Judge alone trial - trial verdict. CRIMINAL LAW - Defendant charged with possession of illegal weaponry. CRIMINAL LAW - Law enforcement and police powers - search powers - applicability
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017 Interim Constitution
Cases Cited:	United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 2] [2017]  AFCR 11 United States of Argonath v The Escotta Family [2017] AFCR 12
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	United States of Argonath (Prosecution) Lamont Harris Jr (Defendant)
Representation:	Legal Representatives/Counsel: Mr G Adams (Prosecutor) Mr F Ulloa (Defence) Instructors: Vice City Police Department (Prosecutor) ProLawyers Co (Defence)

JUDGEMENT

[1].        By criminal summons and information filed on the 13th of January 2018,¹ Mr Lamont Harris Jr (the 'Defendant') stands charged with one count of possession of illegal weaponry under the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017.

[2].        The defendant entered into a plea of guilty² and I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence provided that it would not be a miscarriage of justice for the defendant to be found guilty of the offences. The defence however has raised important questions of law regarding if the search was lawful in nature.

Defence Submissions

[3].        The defence submits in primary three grounds, one that his client was unaware of the possession, two the police officer who executed the search failed to inform the defendant of the reasons for his search and three the police officer’s conduct and character may amount to corruption and police misconduct.

Ground One: Unaware of Possession

[4].        The defence relevantly submitted: ‘[a]t the time the incident occurred, my client was unaware that the Kurz SMG was indeed in his possession’.

[5].        This is not a mitigating factor: see section 10 of the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017:

Section 10: Strict Liability
All criminal offences within this ordinance are to be interpreted that of strict liability, meaning that intention or mens rea is not required to find a defendant guilty of an offence in this ordinance.

[Emphasis original]

[6].        The literal reading of this section is that it does not mitigate criminal liability of the defendant regardless of the submissions. However, this first ground does attempt to support the second ground offered by the defence.

Ground Two: Failure to Inform Reasons for Search

[7].        The defence put the following:

The Police Officer, Max Callahan(Maddy), did not make my client aware of his rights before conducting a search. Unless a suspect of a crime, when the police stop and search, they must provide the following information before the search can begin:

• proof of their warrant card
• information on police powers to stop and search
• information on your rights
• the reason for the search
• what they think they might find when they search you

None of this was provided to my Client, and my client accepted to being searched without fully knowing his rights. We believe this to be an extreme lack of professionalism by the Police Officer, and would also like to contest that my client be found not guilty should the search be found to be illegal.

The police can stop and search any person, vehicle, and anything in or on the vehicle for certain items. However, before they stop and search they must have reasonable grounds for suspecting that they will find: stolen goods, or drugs, or an offensive weapon, or items which could damage or destroy property, for example spray paint cans. Therefore we would like to question why my client was searched and under what grounds. If my client was indeed involved in a car accident, we feel this does not give the Police reasonable grounds to suspect my client would fall under any of the categories mentioned. The defense would like to highlight that the police do not have the right to stop and search just because of race or religious background, in which we feel my client may of been unfairly treated during this incident due to his ethnicity.

[Emphasis original]

[8].        The Interim Constitution relevantly provides:³

A law enforcement officer can search and seize any illegal material only if justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. The citizen must be informed prior to the search, and if he feels the reason is not good enough, may request a superior authority such as a sworn officer, police chief, federal agent, or government official to make a decision. The decision can be contested in a court of law if the decision cannot be justified by valid reasons.

[Emphasis original]

[9].        In addressing the defence’s submissions, any person who is searched does have to be informed by the law enforcement official that they are being searched and the reasons for such a search, this is because the relevant constitutional provision states: ‘[t]he citizen must be informed prior to the search, and if he feels the reason is not good enough …’, the second part of this provision gives context to the first part. The effect of is this that the correct interpretation of this provision should be the following: ‘[t]he citizen must be informed [of the reason(s)] prior to the search’.

[10].      The other submissions such as warrant card, information on police powers to stop and search, information on rights and what they think they might find when they search you are irrelevant and hold no legal basis in applicable law, the defence did reference⁴ my comments in United States of Argonath v The Escotta Family,⁵ however these statements only apply to giving oral evidence to police. I do not see how failure to mention any rights regarding stop and search powers, at best only limited to questioning the reason for stop and search, would lead to an injustice at law.⁶ The defence also submitted that the defendant has the right to refuse to be searched, I reject this proposition as there is no explicit right setting out this in the Interim Constitution merely only the offering that a citizen may request a superior to determine if the search is legally appropriate.

[11].      The defence also submitted that the reason was not legally justified, which stated by the prosecution was:

ARPD Officer Maddy Callahan has pulled over a red voodoo vehicle, driven by a man identified by the officer as [NAR]Lamont for vehicular assault against a police vehicle. As this has given the officer a probable cause to conduct a search on the citizen.

[Emphasis original]

[12].      The Court is of the opinion that any search committed after the commission of a crime is legally justified, the Court rejects defence’s submissions that the incident was a ‘car accident’. The defence has admitted that a vehicular incident did occur and for it to occur against a police officer’s vehicle may constitute a crime. Police officers may wish to search an individual who has committed such crimes to ascertain whether or not they were under the influence of narcotics or alcohol.

[13].      In addressing the appropriate test I set out in United States of Argonath v Silent [No. 2],⁷ I am satisfied that police officer Maddy Callahan did have reasonable reasons to justify his search against the defendant as I have explained above. In addressing whether or not officer Callahan stated his reasons for search as I stated in paragraph nine, officer Callahan did not directly say his reasons before executing a search against the defendant however he did explain that he had stopped the defendant for the reason that he had caused a vehicular incident with a police officer. Courts have wide ranging discretion to determine whether or not certain circumstances are legally appropriate. In this circumstance, I am satisfied that officer Callahan did implicity state his reasons for such a search as the defendant knew what he had done and was told by officer Callahan why he had been stopped. Furthermore officer Callahan executed the search within a reasonable timeframe.

[14].      I feel it is not appropriate or an ambitious task to attempt to address the defendant and plaintiff’s other submissions in regards to this ground. For this reason the search is valid, however I would strongly urge the prosecutor to have police officers directly state the reasons for conducting a search before undertaking such a search as would prevent legally tight situations like the present case.

Ground Three: Officer Callahan’s Character

[15].      I feel it is not necessary to address Officer’s Callahan’s character as he is not giving oral evidence that is not supported by photographic, audio or visual evidence. The prosecutor and the Vice City Police Department may however wish to address the conduct of the Officer which included pointing a weapon at the defendant who was in a car and offering little resistance and the usage of profanity by the officer.

Sentencing

[16].      In addressing sentencing, the defendant was found to be in possession of a Kurz SMG which is prohibited by the Crimes (Further Offences) Ordinance 2017, in previous cases I have set a guideline sentence of $10,000 ARD⁸ with a varying degree of terms of imprisonment. As the defendant has pleaded guilty, he is entitled to a 20% discount in monetary penalty.⁹ I find no alternative to conviction and subsequently convict the defendant.

[17].      I accordingly penalise the defendant $8,000 ARD and sentence him to a term of imprisonment of five years (5 minutes).

I certify that the preceding seventeen (17) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Registrar

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That the defendant is to be convicted of the crimes for which he plead guilty to.

[2].        That the defendant is sentenced to an term of imprisonment of 5 years, (5 minutes) to commence at the earliest date possible when the defendant is taken into custody.

[3].        That the defendant be issued a monetary penalty of $8,000 ARD, to be stripped from the defendant's bank accounts and/or if the defendant cannot pay the sum, for the liquidation of any property, businesses, vehicles or other assets to cover such fine with the rest of the liquidation funds to go to the State.

ORDERED, on this 29th day of January, 2018.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Prosecution, ‘Information’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Lamont VC-CR0002/18, 13 January 2018.
² Defence, ‘Defence Primary Submission in Chief’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Lamont VC-CR0002/18, 17 January 2018.
³ Interim Constitution s III ord II.
⁴ Defence, ‘Defence Submission in Reply’, Submission in United States of Argonath v Lamont VC-CR0002/18, 18 January 2018.
⁵ [2017] AFCR 12.
⁶ Ibid [7]-[9] (Treblin J).
⁷ [2017] AFCR 11 [8]-[12] (Treblin J).
⁸ See United States of Argonath v Mustang [No. 2] [2017] AFCR 3 [9] (Treblin J).
⁹ See United States of Argonath v The Escotta Family [2017] AFCR 12 [19] (Treblin J).

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court found that a search was validly conducted as the police officer had implicitly given his reason for a search and the added fact that it had been done after the commission of a crime, whilst the defendant was not charged for vehicular assault, he was found to be in possession of an illegal firearm. He was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and given a $8,000 ARD fine.
 

• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

~Distributed by authority of the Courts of Argonath~