badboydhia VS ronman

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

The court thanks the Sergeant Ray Fearon for his testimony, the Sergeant has made it clear he didn't hear and see all that took place in this scene.

As for defenses solicitor , Mr Kowalski i would strongly suggest you get your self more familiar with Liberty City laws and constitution before taking another case.

You have 4 issues, court needs to resolve, and some of them are already listed but never answered.

1. As per defenses claims, now the defense must present there evidence, not guesses that will show that plaintiff did indeed break the law at the time he was pulled over and searched.
2. Your claim that Sergeant  Ray Fearon was able to hear you and my client clearly, yet didn't intervene as there was no abuse according to the constitution. Has been proven to be false.
3. There are no laws that state how Police officers should act, there is only constitution. As said before you even quoted and replied, when i said this.
4, You have signed and accepted that court will only use constitution as guideline's  to evaluate did and abuse of power happen.

Court would like to once again explain to defenses solicitor: Crime is an action described in this document and is punishable by the law. Quote from laws of Liberty City as they are just that laws, they are under constitution.

Spoiler for Hiden:

and only thing more important then constitution is server rules.

The court allows digression from the plaintiff if he feels that is something that needs to be mentioned.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović


 

[badgirl.dhia]

we dont know why the spokesman dosent want to accept my statement !
while they are based on LCPD Procedures!

Ordinance XI:
A law enforcer can search and seize any illegal material. The search can only be justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. The citizen must be informed before the search. If he feels the reason is not lawful, he may request a superior authority such as sworn officer, police chief, federal agent or government official, to come and take a decision. The decision can be contested in court if the decision taken cannot be explained by valid reasons.

Looks like none of you guys watched the video footage
So i will write the conversation on a paper also i"ll read it outloud for thoes who cant read!

ronman(1) said : my name is Ron , now please step out of your vehicle
badboydhia(5) steps out
ronman(1) said : you got anything on ya?
badboydhia(5) said : yes
ronman(1) said : weapons? weed?
badboydhia(5) said : no
ronman(1) said : alright
ronman(1) said : turn your face to the vehicle please
badboydhia(5) said : why?
ronman(1) said : i want to frisk you
badboydhia(5) said: why u want to frisk me ?
ronman(1) said : sir , no questions
ronman(1) said : face to the vehicle
badboydhia(5) said : first why u pull over me?
badboydhia(5) said : and now why u want to frisk me
ronman(1) said : face to the vehicle , then i will answer your questions
ronman(1) said : do it , NOW
badboydhia(5) : u are not allowed to frisk me without any reason and without any warrant
badboydhia(5) : call me ur supervisor right now
ronman(1) said : this is the last time i say it
badboydhia(5) : i request a supervisor
ronman(1) said : FACE TO THE VEHICLE

so as we can see, the lcpd freecop asked my client to turn his face to the vehicle in order to frisk him!
he must provide a reason for that ! he didnt
when badboydhia asked the reason of the frisk, the officer said clearly Sir Questions
means he gave a law order to my client to not ask any questions
badboydhia asked again the officer about the reason of the frisk also the reason of the pull over , and his answer is face to the vehicle , do it now
my client informed the lcpd freecop that he is not allowed to frisk him without any reason , and without a warrant
so he is aware that he cant do that, he he simply ignored and keeps screaming

If he feels the reason is not lawful, he may request a superior authority

there was no reason stated by the officer before he frisk badboydhia , thats why he requested a supervisor  2 times ! not only a single 1
and the officer answer is screaming : FACE TO THE VEHICLE , this is the last time i say it
at this moment my client complied so he dosent get arrested for failure to comply
dosent mean that he agree getting frisked
so as we can see mr badboydhia asked the officer 4 times (green msgs) about the reason of the pullover and the reasons of the frisk
the defendant refused to call his supervisor over the radio
didnt provide the reason of the pull over and the reason of the frisk
also attempted to frisk my client vehicles.

i saw that the citizen was abit resisting the orders of the officer while frisking process.

asking the reason of the pull over / and the reason of getting frisked and requesting a supervisor is resisting ???
also wanted to add my opinion about the sergeant who was observing there and didnt interfare on the abuse made by this freecop officer
what a shame on you sir 

[Kowalski.]

Badgirldhia: Your client was given instructions by an Officer of the law. Failing to comply is a criminal offence.

we dont know why the spokesman dosent want to accept my statement !
while they are based on LCPD Procedures!

As a lawyer, I'd have thought you'd know that LCPD procedures are not laws and can't be used to press criminal charges. They are simply internal rules enforced by the LCPD within their department. If an LCPD Cadet+ (clearly not my client) breaches any of the said protocol, you can report them at the ARPD forums. (https://arpd.argonathrpg.com)

"The search can only be justified by reasonable doubts and reasons."

My client felt he had adequate reasoning to search you as you were at an area notorious for narcotics production. He didn't call a supervisor as he thought the Sergeant's presence was already considered supervisor presence.

To the Judges:
For proof, it's clear from Mr. Badboydhia's bodycam where he was, an area where cannabis is grown.

We dismiss our claims of Sergeant Fearon hearing what happened. ((scriptwise he could hear, i asked him over discord and hence why wrote that as /l range is specifically tuned by devs for roleplays))

((Also,

According to my observation i saw that the citizen was abit resisting the orders of the officer while frisking process.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Scriptly i can hear, if you tell me the script is perfectly done, nothing is perfectly made unless its by god, When the officer moved to his crusier and the citizen went to him, the conversation were cut out, i believe that an attorney should gather the info then evidence too before considering someone has done something.

how can he know of badboy's resistance if he couldn't hear the conversation? He could, scriptwise, which should be considered rp as that's what the script range is set for.))

My client's demands remain the same.

Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

The court would like to respond to both party's.
First the defendant:

Badgirldhia: Your client was given instructions by an Officer of the law. Failing to comply is a criminal offence.  This statement is false, please find me that law that says that.

Act 4.1
Resisting arrest is a crime in itself. *arrest in this case mean that man is wanted for committing a crime or a suspicion of committing a crime, plaintiff has not been suspected in this case.*
Act 4.5
Disobeying the order or court or government will result into a more severe punishment. *Government are managers not police officers.*

As i said before, simply being in a area, is not a valid reason for a suspicion of a crime, if you found weed in the area then by all means, frisk, search and arrest.

As for Sergeant Ray Fearon he has said in his official court testimony, he was there only to provide support in case of a chase. His presences wasn't anything else.*I will not go in depth why Sergeant Ray Fearon thinks plaintiff did a bit resist, as Sergeant Ray Fearon statement is how this court will look at his presence and actions.*

Now for the plaintiff:

Your statement is not ignored or not accepted, if you would look at past cases like this were dealt per LCPD protocols as base to determine did any abuse happen.

The defendant's solicitor asked for LCPD protocols to be disregarded as the defendant is not a LCPD member, as such we have gone to base on what the LCPD protocols are made and that is the Liberty City Constitution.

When you did read the constitution i'm sure you found it to be very similar to LCPD protocol, only in different wording. As is it just that.

I have watched the video you made and I do find it that defendant didn't have enough reasons to conduct that frisking and demand anything of you, as such i have been asking for defenses reasoning.

I have every intent of making this case a example of how Police officers should act, and as such i will try my best to explain why and where is anyone wrong.

That said, both sides have one final testimony to make for this case and one and only one reply to other sides testimony. Time given for this is 72h.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[Kowalski.]

Judge, are you trying to tell me that failing to comply with law enforcement is acceptable by the law?

I feel that being in an area that's NOTORIOUS for narcotics production is fair. How do you see being near a cannabis plant as invalid suspicion?

I await your answer.

Regards.

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

The court would like to highlight the following to the defendants solicitor.

Crime is an action described in this document and is punishable by the law.

Perpetrator is a person who has committed or attempted to commit a crime.


Ordinance III:
Because of the ownership of a property, an owner may lawfully request a person to leave their property. This does not include businesses which are public markets. The above ordinance does not apply to enforcers of law who have probable cause to be on the property. If the trespasser appears hostile or threatening, refer to Ordinance II. A business owner can still use his right of propriety in circumstances mentioned in Ordinance VIII. [same here probable cause = valid  crime.]

Ordinance IV:
The right of the citizens to be secure in their own belongings against unreasonable searches shall not be violated without probable cause. A citizen may neither be arrested without a legal reason. A law enforcer is allowed to question a person if he has any reasonable motive to think this person is doing a suspicious act. The law enforcer cannot force a person to be put in detention in the only goal to interrogate him. If, in any case, the law enforcer had to transport the person to another area in order to interrogate him and the person is found not guilty, it is the law enforcer responsibility to transport or pay for a transport to carry the person back to his initial location where he was when he was approached to be interrogated. A law enforcer may interview people present at a scene as witness.

*The right of the citizens to be secure in their own belongings against unreasonable searches shall not be violated without probable cause. [read valid crime]*
*A law enforcer is allowed to question a person if he has any reasonable motive to think this person is doing a suspicious act. all a officer can do to a person who is driving in a "suspicious zone**
*The law enforcer cannot force a person to be put in detention in the only goal to interrogate him. [read you need a valid crime  to search and frisk a person and interrogate]*

Ordinance XI:
A law enforcer can search and seize any illegal material. The search can only be justified by reasonable doubts and reasons. The citizen must be informed before the search. If he feels the reason is not lawful, he may request a superior authority such as sworn officer, police chief, federal agent or government official, to come and take a decision. The decision can be contested in court if the decision taken cannot be explained by valid reasons. * The search can only be justified by reasonable doubts and reasons read [valid crime].*

Ordinance XII: 
In the case of arrest or detention, a citizen must be promptly informed of the reasons, must also be informed that he has the right to a lawyer and must be allowed to use that right as soon as possible. He shall also have the validity of the detention controlled by the present law and to be released if the detention is not lawful.

As you can see when LCPD procedures were made they knew the constitution means and they fenced them selfs off how they should act, weather you want to be judged by LCPD or Constitution they mean the same, just LCPD procedures are shorter then the actual constitution post.

9. An LCPD Officer is allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is stated as suspect.
B. When someone's life is in direct danger (example: hostage situations, robberies, chasing a criminal).
C. When the owner of the private property gives permission for it.

10. An LCPD Officer is NOT allowed to cross, search or raid private properties without a warrant:
A. When the owner of the private property is NOT stated as suspect.
B. When a higher ranked LCPD member does not give permission to do so.
C. When the owner of the private property does NOT give permission (exception: life threatning situations).

18. An LCPD Officer is allowed to suspect ONLY:
A. When a civilian committed a valid crime.
B. For roleplaying purposes (both sides must confirm)

1. An LCPD Officer is allowed to use their weapon in the follow situations:
A. When a suspect is refusing to surrender, after atleast two warnings.
B. When a suspect is trying to evade from law enforcement agencies (example: tire-shooting).
C. When a persons' life is in direct danger by being threatened by a suspect / dangerous civilian. The LCPD Officer is allowed to open fire without warning or suspectation and should always aim at non-vital organs.
D. When the LCPD Officer is off-duty and there is a direct danger to self or other lifes and there is no law-enforcement on scene.


Judge, are you trying to tell me that failing to comply with law enforcement is acceptable by the law?

Act 2.6
Anyone who commits or assists in committing a crime, attempts to commit a crime, or who helps the perpetrators to evade or hide or funds them, is guilty of that crime.
Act 6.1
A person who by omitting to perform his duty jeopardizes the lives of others is guilty of criminal negligence.
Act 5.8
A person who endangers the comfort, safety, property or lives of others is guilty of common nuisance.
Act 5.7
Causing disturbance on public places by shouting, fighting, screaming, swearing or using obscene language, being drunk or impede or loitering or molesting is a crime.
Act 3.3
A person who expresses, by his words or actions, seditious intentions, is guilty of sedition.
Sedition is an act that tends towards insurrection or rebellion against the established order by creating and promoting discontent and resistance to authority.


If a person is not taking part in a valid crime and isn't putting his or other lives in danger also isn't obstructing justice by aiding covering or some other form of help to a person who did commit a valid crime, a citizen isn't obliged to obey orders from LCPD, as in this case some orders could mean that police officer is using one’s powers to cause harm to others or pursue one’s personal goals.
Traffic offenses in this case count as valid crimes and can be a reason to carry out searches of vehicles and person. *if the driver rps they are drunk / drugged/ high/ sick or some sort of intoxication.

Example's
Police officers must stop all vehicles/civilians from entering a crime scene in progress or under investigation.
Police officers must stop and question all present witnesses to a crime that's on going or under investigation
Police officers cant search vehicles or persons unless there is a BOLO out on them, or they took a part in a valid crime by witness statements.

Reasonable doubt is driving same vehicle model and color as the vehicle that on BOLO, being in same zone as a BOLO suggest a group/one of criminal's/suspect's are. Being in same house/building as a suspect's are. Being seen by witness/LEO fleeing the scene of a  crime. Being wanted by court order, court warrant. LCPD warrant. Being a interesting party in a ongoing investigation into a crime group/crime.
A 911 call that asks for help in case of assault/threats w. w.o deadly weapons. 911 calls that say a weed dealer is in x zone with x vehicle ( interrogation of the caller must happen also.)

In some other case i failed to mention you can use common sense to see if the person did commit a valid crime and should he be stopped by LEO.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[Kowalski.]

However, being within range of a cannabis plant surely raises suspicion and gives law enforcement the suspicion of narcotics production. My client argues that his actions were in the interests of the state and its laws, as well as the Constitution. He was ensuring that there was no illegal activity and simply wanted to make sure that the city was safe and that there were no underworld drug deals. If he's going to be punished for trying to prevent crime, then the said punishment is a disgrace to the Court, and to the government, as well as a disgrace to law enforcement in the state, in my client's eyes.

My client's demands remain the same.

Regards,
Kowalski
Attorney.

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin


From: Liberty State People's Court Jury, Spokesman of Liberty City Jury Mane Jugović

Please once again, lets go over this.
Were any narcotics found in the area? I have asked 3-4 times where is your evidence that supports your guess that a crime has been done by the plaintiff?

Act 2.1
Presumption of innocence - a person is deemed innocent until proven otherwise in the due process of justice.

And way its proven is by evidence, not guesses.

Thinking that if you a police officer you are entitled to things is shameful, nothing else.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[Kowalski.]

Badboydhia wasn't declared guilty by any means. There were no narcotics found, nor is there any hard evidence proving badboydhia guilty, which isn't even an allegation from our side. My client isn't calling him a drug trafficker or producer, I'm simply trying to explain the reasoning behind my client's actions and why he felt his actions necessary.

Regards.

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin

Since both sides decides not to make last statments, court will now come with a verdict in next 72h.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović

[superh2o]

From:Courts of the State of Liberty
Frankfort Ave.
Liberty City, Algonquin

The court has reached a verdict in this case.

Te defendant police officer Ronman, has been found guilty of abuse of police power when performing a illegal search of the plaintiff.

He is suspended from active police duty lasting for 1 month (24h). From a moment of his choosing and coordinated with LCPD or Court directly.

Signed:
Mane_Jugović