Ace_ Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 (edited) L.M. v. LSPD: Deputy found guilty of Failure to Yield/Stop to a Traffic Control Device BY VICTORIA MILLER Los Santos, SA - On the 19th of February, 2021, Deputy Sheriff L.M, employed within the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, has filed a traffic petition to the Superior Court, in which he alleged a miscarriage of justice by the Los Santos Police Department in regards to a traffic violation. On the said date, at around 1AM, Deputy L.M. has received a ticket for Failure to Yield/Stop to a Traffic Control Device, issued by Police Officer J.N. As per court's records, Deputy L.M. was on duty in an unmarked vehicle, on active surveillience pursuant to an investigation. Officer J.N. initiated a traffic stop after Deputy L.M. passed a red light, L.M. allegedly made his sirens audible and lights visible upon spotting the police vehicle. Officer J.N. issued a ticket to the on-duty Deputy, which resulted in Deputy L.M. losing the suspect he was tailing. (The picture is taken from the internet, it is not related to the article) After a while, the courtroom discussions turned tense. L.M's attorney, Malikah Saleh, has pointed it out to Judge Matt Eckart that Police Officer J.N. has had the opportunity to seek qualified legal representation, but despite that, he chose to represent himself. "Instead by opting to represent himself in this case he is operating as one might expect as someone with little to no legal knowledge of court procedure, federal rules of evidence, and now is opting to offer blatant and baseless conjecture from his "standpoint and in [his] opinion" upon LSSD matters without having any official overview of the actual operation they were engaged in, without having any briefing he has submitted to the evidence to back up his opinion with something tangible to the court, and in his blind graspings at the law is making a criminal accusation of perjury not just to my client but to my client's superior, Sergeant L.C. Would the court be able to remind him that making accusations of perjury without providing actual evidence is bordering on contemptuous in a court of law in San Andreas, especially when positioning said baseless criminal accusations as the sole objection to the admission of a piece of evidence so consequential?", stated Ms. Saleh in the courtroom. Furthermore, Ms. Saleh was fined with $2,500 by Justice Matt Eckart for contempt of court. "Miss Saleh, I explicitly asked Officer J.N. to speak, only him. I told you already, first and final warning. You will be fined, $2,500 for contempt of court. Court is in recess for twenty-four hours", said Justice Eckart. "After further discussion with my clerks, and my Justice colleague, we've come up with an agreement about the decision. Dashcam footage attached on the traffic report didn't show Deputy Sheriff L.M. turning on the emergency lights, as it never showed the vehicle they were tailing. Even though, Deputy Sheriffs were on undercover duty, the Court argues that, as per Penal Code points "1107." and "1203." Exigent Circumstances were not established. And thus in support of the narrative, it is the finding of the court that in the case matter at hand, the court rules that the defendant is guilty of Failure to Yield/Stop to a Traffic Control Device", said Judge Matt Eckart as he concluded the court case. Statement from the Office of the Sheriff > Comments are enabled Username: Comment: Edited March 6, 2021 by YB 1 Link to comment
.Pluto. Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Username: Admeen Comment: tf traffic court so important ppl write in the news about it? no one gives a fuck Link to comment
Biscuit Posted March 5, 2021 Share Posted March 5, 2021 Username: trashcyber Comment: LSPD vs LSSD street war when? Link to comment
Ace_ Posted March 6, 2021 Author Share Posted March 6, 2021 (edited) Username: LSNNComment: The article has been updated with a statement from the Office of the Sheriff. Edited March 6, 2021 by YB Link to comment
doubletrio Posted March 6, 2021 Share Posted March 6, 2021 Username: caddyenthusiast88 Comment: to protect and to suck Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now