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)
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
VI. Actions Taken
63 Months
$1,900 Fine
VII. Witnesses
Meeko Evans
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. 810 | Felony Evading a Peace Officer |
| P.C. 805 | Excessive Speeding |
| P.C. 907 | Possession 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
VI. Actions Taken
63 Months
$1,900 Fine
VII. Witnesses
Meeko Evans
