What's new

Ex Parte - Antonio Falcone

Status
Not open for further replies.

KD83

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
525



San Andreas Trial Court
Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus


Antonio Falcone,
Petitioner

v.

THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS,
Respondent


NO: H.C.2020-0X
DATED: 11/16/2020



Indictment Charges
Charges:
  • Count 1: §306. Evading
Charging Agency: Bone County Sheriff's Department
Charging Officer's Name: (if known)
Charging Officer's Badge #: (if known)

Date of charging: 16/11/2020

(( Would you like an In Game hearing?: No ))



I, Antonio Falcone, do solemnly swear that all information above is true to the best of my knowledge.​
Defendant's Signature:




 

Limitless

Faction Consultant
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
2,764
Location
San Andreas Supreme Court



San Andreas Trial Court
Receipt of Filing & Judge Assignment


In the matter of:
Antonio Falcone
Petitioner
v.
THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
Respondent
[H.C.-2020-33]


The Trial Court accepts the Habeas Corpus in the matter of: Antonio Falcone v. The State of San Andreas (H.C.2020-33). The Court will forward this to the appropriate agency and arresting officer, and you should receive a reply within 72 hours.


Judge Assignment

The Honorable Chief Justice Denzel Thompson

 

KD83

Silver Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2017
Messages
525
Antonio Falcone comes to the front, he clears his throat as he takes a look at the arrest report footage displayed
Your honor, as you can clearly see in the footage provided by the agency, the following cruiser was more than a thousand yards behind, without either emergency lights or sirens at first. I'd like to ask for the footage to be replayed and pay very close attention to the eighth second. As I noticed the cruiser coming up behind me, I proceed to pull over and fully cooperate with the deputies in question. The deputies proceed to invite me outside of my vehicle and detain me for unknown reasons at the time. After my full cooperation, the deputies proceed to pressure me into telling them why I did not stop at the very beginning, and truth to be told, after being searched and my vehicle being looked into, nothing of their interest was found; there was no reason for me not to stop my vehicle. The arresting officer also failed to inform me about the reason of my arrest at the time I asked. I believe the footage provided is clear proof of what I had to say, your honor.
 

strangulation

skater
Retired Admin
Joined
Mar 30, 2015
Messages
3,367
Your honor. I activated my emergency signals at the earliest convenience, and that is, by law, all that is required to initiate a vehicular stop. The ignorance behind Antonio Falcone's actions, or lack of, does not matter in the slightest. I did all that was required of me by law, and the fact that he didn't see me, simply does not matter. @Limitless
 

Limitless

Faction Consultant
Joined
Mar 20, 2019
Messages
2,764
Location
San Andreas Supreme Court




San Andreas Trial Court
Judgment

In the matter of:
Antonio Falcone
Plaintiff
v.
THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS
Defendant
H.C.2020-33
I. Background
The plaintiff had been spotted driving over the speed limit northbound on Route 7. Deputy Theo Saulter determined the speed of the vehicle to be excessive and drove after the plaintiff in order to clock his speed. Upon doing so deputy Saulter identified that the plaintiff was indeed speeding (as seen on the speedometer on the police car camera) and therefore he turned on his lights and sirens and attempted to pull over the plaintiff. According to deputy Saulter, the vehicle refused to stop.

II. Analysis
The charge of Evading is clearly defined as the act of knowingly failing to stop your vehicle. Therefore, Mr Falcone must have reasonably known that he was being pulled over. Is that the case?

It can be seen that Mr Falcone was driving at a speed of 80 miles per hour or more when he passed deputy Saulter's police car. Deputy Saulter did not immediately turn on his lights and sirens which gave Mr Falcone the opportunity to gain a lead on the deputy due to speeding. Once the lights and sirens were activated, Mr Falcone was a significant distance forward that deputy Saulter had to catch up on. This catching up is the reason for the length of the 'pursuit'.

This court believes there is not a preponderance of evidence that shows Mr Falcone knowingly evaded, because it does not appear he would have reasonably seen the pursuing police car over this distance in this short amount of time. Mr Falcone is certainly guilty of such speeding that he did not see the police car, but that is no grounds for an evading charge.

(( Due to GTA mechanics you will not hear the siren unless you are quite close and you do not have a rear view mirror unless you look backwards manually. It would be unfair to uphold an evading charge when there's a preponderance of evidence showing that KD83 didn't know he had a police car on him. We must take into account the limitations of the game in our daily interactions. ))

Mr Falcone's charge will be reduced to an infraction Speeding with 20 miles over the speed limit and infraction Reckless Driving in line with the Penal Code.

III. Judgment
As to Count 1: §306. Evading:
( ) A. The defendant is guilty by preponderance of evidence.
(✔) B. The defendant is not guilty.


Judicial Branch of San Andreas

The Honorable Justice Denzel Thompson
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top