Case Closed CRIMINAL APPEAL - Rolf Lions - Settled

Status
Not open for further replies.

NiaLiviaus

Member
DOJ
Apr 12, 2023
87
3
8
Username: NiaLiviaus

Select the type of case you wish to file with the court:
CRIMINAL APPEAL

Defendant:
Noah Woods [dxrch]

I. Statement of Claim
WHEREAS the officers involved in this incident were patrolling in an unmarked vehicle, painted in a manner that mirrors the style of a notorious local criminal organization, the Defendant had a reasonable doubt that the vehicle attempting to pull him over was operating in an official police capacity.

WHEREAS, P.C. 810 “Felony Evading a Peace Officer” is defined as “A person who has been given a visual or auditory signal by an officer, and willfully refuse to stop their motor vehicle” AND the Defendant did not believe that the individuals in the unmarked vehicle were officers, the Defense claims that the charge does not fit. The Defendant’s doubt is furthered when, according to the Incident report, he asks the officers “Who’s this?” multiple times. At this time, officers refused to identify themselves, instead they pressured the Defendant to “just pull over” according to the incident report.

WHEREAS the Defense has not been given evidence that clearly indicates the exact speed and plate of the Defendant when he was alleged to have been Excessively Speeding, the Defense finds insufficient evidence to support this charge. Additionally, WHEREAS The People vs. Tuck ([Crim. No. 29852. Court of Appeals of California, Second Appellate District, Division One. December 5, 1977.]) found that “Every officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person so charged [for a violation involving speed] while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 and 11 (traffic code) is incompetent as a witness if at the time of such arrest he was not wearing a full distinctive uniform or was using a motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner." THEREFORE the officer testimony regarding the alleged speeding should not be considered. WHEREAS the 4th Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures;

WHEREAS “unreasonable” searches are those without “probable cause” AND considering the Defense’s claims above that there is insufficient evidence of excessive speeding and no evidence of felony evading; the Defense claims that the search of Mr. Woods was not supported by Probable Cause and thus the Possession of a Class 2 Weapon charge should also be dropped due to it being obtained from an improper search.

II. Charge(s)
P.C. 810Felony Evading a Peace Officer
P.C. 805Excessive Speeding
P.C. 907Possession of Class 2 Weapon

III. Representative
Nia Liviaus [selliee]
Devyn Little [sleighwhite]

IV. Officers Involved
CO-305 Roger Fitzgerald
CO-303 Ronny Roman
LT-129 Quintin Johnson

V. Evidence
image.png
image.png


VI. Actions Taken
63 Months
$1,900 Fine

VII. Witnesses
Meeko Evans
 
Scheduling has started and therefore so has Discovery for this case.

Thanks
 
The Defense would like to request that the Prosecution turn over any and all physical evidence that they wish to use in this case at this time. Thank you!
 
In this case, the arresting officers Ronny and Fitz are going to be presenting the case with the District Attorney office overseeing them similar to a Bench Trial format.

I will meet with them to get the evidence in order and presented to you in a timely manner.
 
The Defense would like to submit the following pre-trial motion:


We ask that the Court please provide a ruling regarding the motion prior to scheduling.
 
Opposition to the Motion

The defense mentions multiple times about the vehicle code as well as the results from a prior case law that is not listed within our section of approved case laws. Secondly, the results state as mentioned in the motion,

“Every officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person so charged [for a violation involving speed] while on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 and 11 (traffic code) is incompetent as a witness if at the time of such arrest he was not wearing a full distinctive uniform or was using a motor vehicle not painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner."

Later in the motion, it is stated that in the report Fitz is doing "undercover patrol" in an "unmarked vehicle" which by definition is not being on duty for the exclusive purpose of enforcing traffic enforcement under Divisions 10 or 11.

We would be happy to meet to discuss the motion in person.

Thanks,
 
Due to the length this has been active, the State has agreed to settle the case for multiple reasons.

We have agreed to a settlement of $6500 in restitution.

Will pay Nia when I see her next!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.