LCS-CV-2024-001 - Post-Award - Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

[Kayayday]

"Can you please repeat the questions I must answer?"

[Kotwica]

“Q29. What did the pager say Lieutenant?

Q30. What did you and Stefan Castillo discuss? 

Q31. What was your impression of Mr. Castillo?

Q32. Why did you select Mr Castillo as opposed to the other individuals on scene to speak to?

Q33. When you spoke to Mr Castillo did you intend to conduct an investigation?

Q34. Did you Mirandize or Garrity warn Mr Castillo in the hospital?

Q35. What if anything did Mr Castillo admit to or deny during your conversation at All Saints?

Q36. Did you request an interview in a different location? If so, where?

Q37. When did you request a second interview?”

(( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

[Kayayday]

Q29. What did the pager say Lieutenant?

"Use of force incident, do not recall the full details."

Q30. What did you and Stefan Castillo discuss?

"We discussed the purpose of the pager."

Q31. What was your impression of Mr. Castillo?

"No impression taken."

Q32. Why did you select Mr Castillo as opposed to the other individuals on scene to speak to?

"Castillo was identified as the individual who used force."

Q33. When you spoke to Mr Castillo did you intend to conduct an investigation?

"No."

Q34. Did you Mirandize or Garrity warn Mr Castillo in the hospital?
"No."

Q35. What if anything did Mr Castillo admit to or deny during your conversation at All Saints?
"He did not admit or deny anything, as far as I recall."

Q36. Did you request an interview in a different location? If so, where?
"The Internal Affairs Bureau offices."

Q37. When did you request a second interview?
"After midnight.”

 

(( @Michael@Fabi@Kotwica ))

[Kotwica]

"Q38. Did you keep notes of your conversation with Mister Castillo?
Q39. If you kept notes, what did they say?
Q40. At what point did you conclude your initial investigation with Mister Castillo?
Q41. At what point did you refer this incident to a formal investigation?
Q42. According to your own statement you had no impression, why did you refer this to a formal investigation?
Q43. What is your understanding of a law enforcement officers rights? Do they lose any rights that normal citizens have when being questioned?
Q44. How did you inform Mister Castillo that he was to attend a second interview?
Q45. What time did that second interview occur?"

(( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

[ImperiumXVII]

(( I will not have access to the forums until the 25th of September, assume no objections for the other 100 questions ))

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, we would request you instruct the witness to answer."

(( @Kayayday, @Michael, @Fabi ))

[Fabi]

"Miss Crawford, please answer the given questions. And any upcoming ones."

(( @Kayayday @Kotwica @Michael ))

[Fabi]

@Kayayday

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, this witness is non-responsive. At this point we believe that the witness has refused to answer and will continue to refuse to give truthful answers. We ask that the witness be struck and that any testimony that the witness could have gave be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff under the spoliation doctrine."

(( @Fabi, @Kayayday, @Michael ))

Edited September 23 by Kotwica

[Fabi]

"Opposing counsel, anything in response to Mister Wright's request?"

(( Since tomorrow's the 25th, we'll wait as common courtesy and then we'll hopefully get this moving at a proper speed. Our apologies for all the inconviniences. @Michael @Kotwica ))

[Kotwica]

"Your Honor, at this point this case has wasted more time in my professional career than any other case has. Opposing counsel and this Lieutenant have dragged their feet long enough and it has caused this court to not have the ability to remedy the situation at hand. This witness will not answer and I ask that her refusal to testify look in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. I have waited over a month for lines of questions, and in a month I have had less than ten questions answered.

The defense  identify any witnesses to call which shows their complete levity of this court and my client. This court is incapable of rendering judgment at this time. We cannot finish our case in chief without this witness testifying and we have waited long enough for her to testify. We request that the Lieutenant be held in criminal contempt of court, we ask the court to reconsider the judgment against Sophia Thyne.

 

Criminal Contempt is proper when a party "disrespects the decorum of the court, or otherwise infringes upon due process." The sole purpose of this case is a deprivation of Due Process, of the Second Amendment and the rights afforded to Mister Castillo as a government employee. What I have attempted to do is provide this court with the evidence required in order to come to that conclusion. However, the defense has purposely, willingly, and intentionally refused to answer. At this point this courtroom and case has become a total clown show. I have another case I am preparing for and if the defense doesn't want to protect liberty interests they should reevaluate their career decisions.

 

I renew my motion for summary judgment when I took this case on.

Thank you."

(( @Fabi ))

 

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald J. Wright
 

MOTION FOR JUDGEMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the plaintiff Stefan Castillo through his counsel moves this court to render a judgment in favor of the moving party as a matter of law.

The Los Santos Sheriff's Department violated fundamental rights of Mister Castillo. When they were confronted with them, they became sheepish and refused to cooperate with the legal system. As a result, the Internal Affairs Bureau Lieutenant is not answering questions. The counsel for the Defense has drug her feet, and has lied to this court about settlements. Why? Because the evidence that would come out of this case would taint the public image of the Sheriff's Department and would show that their Internal Affairs, and Executive Staff are clueless on how to conduct lawful interrogations.

 

Judgement as a Matter of Law is appropriate in circumstances where there is (1) no genuine dispute of a material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

 

Argument One: Stefan Castillo, despite the Los Santos Sheriff's Departments effort to prove otherwise was in a custodial interrogation resulting from discharging his firearm and his questioning required him to be read his Miranda Rights.

 

Law Enforcement Officers do not lose the rights afforded to any person within the United States, they do not receive a watered down version of Constitutional Rights. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967). In any other circumstance besides the fact that this was a police officer involved shooting, any other person in public would have been afforded their Miranda Warning. This court has an obligation to ensure that law enforcement officers are afforded their Miranda Rights when involved in an officer involved shooting as the elements of a criminal act have been committed, and until proven otherwise are deemed a homicide. This state's law enforcement agencies have time and time again utilized an administrative warning to conduct a dual purpose investigation. The transcript of the interrogation is clear that the purpose of that investigation was the shooting of a suspect, albeit the evidence was inadmissible because of the Defenses refusal to cooperate with the lawful proceedings of this court. We offer the interrogation in this extraordinary circumstance, as we were unable due to her refusal to testify to bring in this dialogue.

 

Here, a custodial interrogation was conducted by the Los Santos Sheriff's Department as we heard from Captain Guanti who stated he felt he was not free to go. Miranda establishes a two step process that determines when a custodial interrogation takes place. The two elements plainly are "(1) a person is in custody or feels that their otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, (2) was questioned." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966).  A multitude of cases were argued on whether a person is truly "in custody" or "feels that their otherwise deprived of freedom of action in a significant way."  The Supreme Court determined the test to be applied is whether "a reasonable person would have felt he or she was not at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave." Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). Here, a seasoned Captain of the Los Santos Sheriffs Department felt that he was not free to leave. 

 

Argument Two: Mister Castillo was deprived of Equal Protection he was discriminated against because he was a law enforcement officer.

 

Due Process is afforded to all persons who are present on American soil. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953). Here, Stefan Castillo as a state government employee had a liberty interest in his job. Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 (1974). This case demonstrates the fact that law enforcement involved in an officer involved shooting are not afforded the same rights as a citizen who would be in the same custodial interrogation. This liberty interest in entitled to the court's rational basis review of whether there is any lawful government interest in not affording the same protections to citizens to a law enforcement officer. Garrity v. New Jersey answers this question question that law enforcement officers do not lose rights afforded to any other person within the United States. This court is bound by that determination. Although Miranda is not a Constitutional requirement, Equal Protection is, and here the Los Santos Sheriffs Department treated Mister Castillo differently based solely on his occupation.

 

Argument Three: The Defense has made this trial an obstacle from the beginning, depriving Mister Castillo again from Due Process.

 

The Defense in this case have gone out of their way to prevent Mister Castillo from receiving protections owed to him, even now. Mister Castillo has not been afforded an opportunity to remedy the situation against him. The Defense has continuously undermined this court, Mister Castillo, and myself and that is evident on the record itself. Refusing to answer questions for a month, lying under oath, and now a resurgence of refusing to answer questions in a courtroom have done nothing but prolonged the suffering of my client. The actions of the defense has brought great shame upon law enforcement, and civil servants throughout this state.

 

Due to the extraordinarily circumstances of this case, we reraise the court to consider the charge of contempt due to the defenses continual delay of due process of Mister Castillo. Additionally, we request attorney fees to be paid by the state, in addition to the amount requested in the original complaint and any other relief this court finds applicable.

 

_______________________________________________

Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge.

 

Sworn this 29 day of September, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright
Donald J. Wright

 

 

 

Spoiler

* Elise Crawford widens her eyes as she leans forward. She places her finger over the recording b ...
[01:34:15] * ... utton and then presses it after a moment. (( Elise Crawford ))
[01:47:01] Elise Crawford says: Investigators Sergeant Elise Crawford and Sergeant Robert Geisbauer.
[01:47:55] Elise Crawford says: I'm here with Sergeant Stefan Castillo and his representative Captain James Guan ...
[01:47:55] Elise Crawford says: ... ti.
[01:48:24] Elise Crawford says: It is... 0248 hours on the 26th of June, 2024.
[01:48:47] * The device is recording. (( Elise Crawford ))
[01:49:20] Elise Crawford says: Sergeant Stefan Castillo, can you tell me what happened at the situation that le ...
[01:49:20] Elise Crawford says: ... d you to discharge your firearm?
[01:49:37] Stefan Castillo says: Which situation are you referring to, exactly?
[01:50:15] * Elise Crawford leans closer to Robert.
[01:50:47] Elise Crawford says: Sergeant Robert Geisbauer, can you tell me what was the name of the suspect?
[01:51:12] Robert Geisbauer says: For the record, the name of the suspect was DeAndre Lawrence.
[01:52:24] Elise Crawford says: Sergeant Stefan Castillo, can you tell me what happened at the situation that le ...
[01:52:24] Elise Crawford says: ... d you to discharge your firearm against DeAndre
[01:52:27] Elise Crawford says: Lawrence?
[01:52:34] Stefan Castillo says: What date and time was this?
[02:00:42] Elise Crawford says: What do you mean, Sergeant Castillo?
[02:00:48] Elise Crawford says: Do you not remember the incident that led us here?
[02:01:05] Stefan Castillo says: I'm asking if you know. This is an investigation. I'm assuming you have the deta ...
[02:01:05] Stefan Castillo says: ... ils.
[02:01:25] Elise Crawford says: Sergeant Castillo, do you not remember what led to this investigation?
[02:01:39] Elise Crawford says: You read the Garrity warning, this involves your performance if you fail to reme ...
[02:01:39] Elise Crawford says: ... mber why we're here.
[02:01:43] Stefan Castillo says: I do. I'm asking if you have the details.
[02:01:44] Elise Crawford says: Think before you speak, please.
[02:01:49] Elise Crawford says: You're here to answer.
[02:01:53] Elise Crawford says: Do you know why we're here?
[02:01:56] * Stefan Castillo looks over at Guanti.
[02:02:01] Elise Crawford says: Or do you have an issue with remembering?
[02:02:23] Elise Crawford says: The shooting happened two hours ago. You trying to imply you forgot is another i ...
[02:02:23] Elise Crawford says: ... ssue.
[02:02:28] Elise Crawford says: So, please... remember what you signed.
[02:02:31] Stefan Castillo says: Can I get a moment with my representative, please?
[02:02:32] Elise Crawford says: This relates to your performance.
[02:02:37] Elise Crawford says: You can speak right now.
[02:02:42] Stefan Castillo says: Is that a no?
[02:02:50] Elise Crawford says: It's a yes, you can speak to them right now.
[02:02:58] Stefan Castillo says: OK. Thank you.
[02:03:07] * James Guanti leans in towards Stefan.
[02:03:11] Elise Crawford says: Just be careful about what you plan to say in this interview cause if it's "I do ...
[02:03:11] Elise Crawford says: ... n't remember," then it's another issue.
[02:03:43] * Stefan Castillo nods a bit.
[02:04:11] James Guanti says: Right, he's not saying that though.
[02:05:00] * James Guanti has no pistol on his hip.
[02:05:11] * Elise Crawford procures a notepad and pen. She jots down something.
[02:05:18] Stefan Castillo says: OK.
[02:05:29] Stefan Castillo says: So, this incident happened on the 25th at 2357 hours, just for the record.
[02:05:47] Stefan Castillo says: Your question was about what happened, right?
[02:05:47] Elise Crawford says: That's fair, then.
[02:06:04] Elise Crawford says: Yes, correct.
[02:06:15] Elise Crawford says: Where did this incident transpire?
[02:06:22] Stefan Castillo says: Idlewood Pizza Stack.
[02:06:58] Elise Crawford says: Why were you there? Can you run us through the initiation of the incident?
[02:07:22] Stefan Castillo says: I was patrolling through the Idlewood area after leaving SOD HQ.
[02:07:48] Stefan Castillo says: Can you elaborate a bit regarding the initiation? I didn't understand that quest ...
[02:07:48] Stefan Castillo says: ... ion.
[02:08:45] Elise Crawford says: Initiation refers to how the incident came to be. Why were you in Idlewood? Was ...
[02:08:45] Elise Crawford says: ... it because of a 911?
[02:08:48] Elise Crawford says: That's what we mean.
[02:08:58] Stefan Castillo says: Oh. I just answered that, then.
[02:09:00] * Elise Crawford turns her head to Robert, then back to her notepad.
[02:09:07] Elise Crawford says: Yeah, that sounds good.
[02:09:11] Elise Crawford says: What made you stop in Idlewood?
[02:09:23] Stefan Castillo says: What made me stop where I stopped or what made me drive through there?
[02:09:46] Elise Crawford says: What made you stop there.
[02:10:11] Stefan Castillo says: I saw a heavy set black male running with a bat behind a black male in a brown s ...
[02:10:11] Stefan Castillo says: ... uit. I elaborated everything in my arrest -
[02:10:15] Stefan Castillo says: report, if you're able to pull it up.
[02:10:26] Elise Crawford says: We'll look into that report later.
[02:10:32] Elise Crawford says: Please do go on.
[02:10:45] Stefan Castillo says: That was what made me stop.
[02:11:13] Elise Crawford says: Do you know the guy with the bat? What is their name?
[02:11:30] Stefan Castillo says: At the time? No. After we identified him at ASGH, yes. You mentioned his name al ...
[02:11:30] Stefan Castillo says: ... ready. Deandre Lawrence.
[02:11:54] Elise Crawford says: OK. Deandre Lawrence had the bat?
[02:11:59] Stefan Castillo says: Correct.
[02:12:51] Elise Crawford says: How did you engage Deandre Lawrence?
[02:12:59] Stefan Castillo says: At what time?
[02:13:10] Elise Crawford says: At the time you stepped out.
[02:13:15] Elise Crawford says: Or whenever you engaged.
[02:13:28] Elise Crawford says: If there's a difference in time, please do tell me what happened at each point, ...
[02:13:28] Elise Crawford says: ... then.
[02:13:44] Stefan Castillo says: There is a difference in time, yes. I figured you would ask me the events in chr ...
[02:13:44] Stefan Castillo says: ... onological order.
[02:14:00] Elise Crawford says: What is it in chronological order, then? Since you brought it up.
[02:14:10] Elise Crawford says: Give me the chronological order, please.
[02:14:13] Elise Crawford says: You raise a good point.
[02:14:29] Stefan Castillo says: Perfect. So, I was approaching the intersection of Winona and Gilmore and I was ...
[02:14:29] Stefan Castillo says: ... stopped at the intersection when I saw -
[02:14:48] Stefan Castillo says: Deandre Lawrence running after a black male with a baseball bat. Lawrence was ar ...
[02:14:48] Stefan Castillo says: ... med with the bat, the other male was unarmed.
[02:15:09] Stefan Castillo says: I pulled into the parking lot there to see what was going on. Almost right after ...
[02:15:09] Stefan Castillo says: ... I stopped, the two ran up behind my car and -
[02:15:32] Stefan Castillo says: Deandre Lawrence either tackled or threw the other male to the ground, I couldn' ...
[02:15:32] Stefan Castillo says: ... t tell because I was in the process of getting -
[02:15:54] Stefan Castillo says: out of my SUV. As I'm getting out, I see Deandre Lawrence hit the male on the gr ...
[02:15:54] Stefan Castillo says: ... ound with the baseball bat about nine times.
[02:16:19] Stefan Castillo says: I shot him once and he went down. I told him to toss the bat away and he did. Th ...
[02:16:19] Stefan Castillo says: ... en backup arrived, helped me place him in -
[02:16:44] Stefan Castillo says: custody, rendered aid with EMS and I transported the male victim to the hospital ...
[02:16:44] Stefan Castillo says: ... while EMS transported Deandre Lawrence.
[02:17:07] Stefan Castillo says: That would be it.
[02:17:20] * Elise Crawford writes down notes while Castillo recites the story.
[02:17:45] Elise Crawford says: Was Deandre facing you when he was using the bat on the downed person?
[02:18:09] Stefan Castillo says: I was at his side and he was hitting the person that was on the ground with the ...
[02:18:09] Stefan Castillo says: ... baseball bat at the back of my patrol SUV.
[02:18:14] Stefan Castillo says: So, he was facing my SUV. Not me.
[02:18:22] Stefan Castillo says: I was also in a marked patrol SUV.
[02:18:59] Elise Crawford says: So he was not directly facing you when using the bat?
[02:19:40] Stefan Castillo says: No.
[02:19:48] Stefan Castillo says: As I said, he was hitting the male victim with the bat.
[02:20:08] * Elise Crawford looks to Robert.
[02:20:14] Robert Geisbauer says: Where did you fire the shot into the victim?
[02:20:18] Stefan Castillo says: Center mass.
[02:20:27] Stefan Castillo says: Hold on. Victim?
[02:20:34] Stefan Castillo says: I didn't shoot the victim, sorry.
[02:20:38] Robert Geisbauer says: Sorry, the suspect.
[02:20:39] Stefan Castillo says: I shot Deandre Lawrence.
[02:20:43] Stefan Castillo says: Center mass.
[02:21:37] Elise Crawford says: Right. So, did you give any warning to Deandre Lawrence or attempt to use less-t ...
[02:21:37] Elise Crawford says: ... han-lethal options?
[02:22:45] Stefan Castillo says: No.
[02:22:52] Stefan Castillo says: I countered deadly force with deadly force.
[02:23:09] Stefan Castillo says: The circumstances were exigent at the time.
[02:23:11] Elise Crawford says: How many people were approximately in the immediate area?
[02:23:26] Stefan Castillo says: I'm not sure. I didn't count.
[02:23:35] Elise Crawford says: Did you notice any other people in the area?
[02:23:48] Stefan Castillo says: Again, I'm not sure.
[02:23:59] Elise Crawford says: OK. So only the victim?
[02:24:19] Stefan Castillo says: The suspect and the victim, as far as I recall.
[02:24:29] Elise Crawford says: OK. The victim was on the ground or standing?
[02:24:44] Stefan Castillo says: He was either thrown down or tackled to the ground.
[02:25:31] Elise Crawford says: Right, we will review the footage you speak of during the interview, OK?
[02:25:37] Stefan Castillo says: Sure.
[02:25:40] * Elise Crawford rises.
[02:32:37] * Elise Crawford checks her watch.
[02:32:38] * Elise Crawford checks the time.
[02:32:44] Elise Crawford says: Resumption of interview at 0332.
[02:33:09] Elise Crawford says: We have reviewed the footage.
[02:33:18] * Stefan Castillo nods a bit.
[02:33:45] Elise Crawford says: We have enough to form up the UOF now and we will proceed with the investigation ...
[02:33:45] Elise Crawford says: ... .
[02:33:48] Elise Crawford says: Do you have any questions?
[02:33:59] Stefan Castillo says: I do, yes.
[02:34:04] Elise Crawford says: OK. Go on.
[02:34:14] Stefan Castillo says: When we came up here, why did I have to secure my firearm but neither of you sec ...
[02:34:14] Stefan Castillo says: ... ured yours?
[02:34:41] Elise Crawford says: This is the private office of the Internal Affairs Bureau, it's our internal met ...
[02:34:41] Elise Crawford says: ... hod of handling interviews.
[02:34:54] Elise Crawford says: Not to mention, one of the reasons is you're also under admin leave.
[02:34:55] Stefan Castillo says: Is there anything in writing that states that?
[02:35:03] Elise Crawford says: I'm informing you of my office's policy right now.
[02:35:12] Elise Crawford says: Consider that your notification of it.
[02:35:16] Stefan Castillo says: I wasn't given anything in writing when we came up here regarding administrative ...
[02:35:16] Stefan Castillo says: ... leave.
[02:35:22] Stefan Castillo says: I do have one more question.
[02:35:23] Elise Crawford says: You are about to.
[02:35:25] Elise Crawford says: Go on.
[02:35:43] Stefan Castillo says: OK. So that wouldn't have been relevant at the time, gotcha... Is my firearm goi ...
[02:35:43] Stefan Castillo says: ... ng to be used as evidence in any way?
[02:35:59] Elise Crawford says: We will use it as evidence, correct.
[02:36:12] Stefan Castillo says: OK. In that case, do you have a signed warrant from a judge for it?
[02:36:22] Elise Crawford says: It's Department property.
[02:36:24] Elise Crawford says: Legally.
[02:36:33] Stefan Castillo says: You're using it as evidence, right?
[02:36:43] Elise Crawford says: Correct.
[02:36:46] Stefan Castillo says: OK.
[02:36:49] * Stefan Castillo looks over at Guanti.
[02:37:03] Elise Crawford says: OK. Are you done about that part?
[02:37:28] James Guanti says [low]: Is it your department issued firearm? Or your personal firearm?
[02:37:33] Stefan Castillo says [low]: Issued.
[02:38:18] Stefan Castillo says: That's pretty much all I have, unless Captain Guanti has any questions.
[02:38:29] Stefan Castillo says: I know he saw the footage as well.
[02:38:52] James Guanti says: Um, nothing much to say. I think the footage speaks for itself.
[02:39:02] Elise Crawford says: OK. We have another portion of the interview regarding the reason we're here.
[02:39:28] Stefan Castillo says: Is it regarding this incident?
[02:40:04] Elise Crawford says: It's regarding the reason we're in this room right now.
[02:40:14] Stefan Castillo says: OK..
[02:40:47] Elise Crawford says: At the beginning of our response to the use of force incident, you were hesitant ...
[02:40:47] Elise Crawford says: ... to cooperate with the field interview.
[02:40:56] Stefan Castillo says: Oh, right.
[02:41:09] Elise Crawford says: Can you elaborate your point of view?
[02:41:44] Stefan Castillo says: Not a problem. You stated that you wanted to collect my statement about the shoo ...
[02:41:44] Stefan Castillo says: ... ting. I provided you with my statement and -
[02:42:04] Stefan Castillo says: offered to rewind the footage of the shooting for you. When you mentioned that y ...
[02:42:04] Stefan Castillo says: ... ou wanted to ask me questions, I said that I -
[02:42:24] Stefan Castillo says: would answer them, but not in a hospital lobby that's accessible to the public a ...
[02:42:24] Stefan Castillo says: ... nd in an area that isn't audio and video -
[02:42:32] Stefan Castillo says: recorded without representation and my Garrity rights.
[02:42:53] Stefan Castillo says: We had a civilian following us around the lobby for a few minutes.
[02:42:56] James Guanti says: I also think it should be stated for the record that there were multiple supervi ...
[02:42:56] James Guanti says: ... sors and Captains on scene, leading to added-
[02:43:04] James Guanti says: -confusion.
[02:43:24] Elise Crawford says: Can you elaborate why a Captain and Lieutenant showed up with regard to your jus ...
[02:43:24] Elise Crawford says: ... tification of representation?
[02:43:51] Stefan Castillo says: Lieutenant Abramson and Captain Guanti are both in my direct chain of command.
[02:43:59] * Stefan Castillo looks over at Guanti.
[02:44:39] Elise Crawford says: OK. Do you believe your questions were consistent with what is expected in Use o ...
[02:44:39] Elise Crawford says: ... f Force field investigations?
[02:44:47] (( [117] Elise_Crawford: actions* ))
[02:44:51] (( [117] Elise_Crawford: Not questions. ))
[02:45:20] Stefan Castillo says: Can you elaborate on what the expectations are, just for the record?
[02:46:02] Elise Crawford says: The expectations are to assist IAB in ascertaining whether or not it is necessar ...
[02:46:02] Elise Crawford says: ... y to launch an investigation.
[02:46:35] Stefan Castillo says: I provided you with a statement and offered to show you the footage of the use o ...
[02:46:35] Stefan Castillo says: ... f force incident, yes.
[02:46:50] Stefan Castillo says: The only time I said "no" to anything was when you said you wanted to ask me que ...
[02:46:50] Stefan Castillo says: ... stions about the incident.
[02:47:02] Stefan Castillo says: At that time, I told you that I wasn't answering any questions without represent ...
[02:47:02] Stefan Castillo says: ... ation and my Garrity rights.
[02:47:03] Elise Crawford says: You refused to answer any questions and refused to be alone for the reminder of ...
[02:47:03] Elise Crawford says: ... the interview, correct?
[02:47:20] Stefan Castillo says: Was that an interview or were you simply collecting my statement?
[02:47:27] Elise Crawford says: You said something along the lines of Captain and Lieutenant are my representati ...
[02:47:27] Elise Crawford says: ... ves thus won't leave.
[02:47:29] Elise Crawford says: Is that correct?
[02:47:36] Stefan Castillo says: Correct.
[02:47:46] Stefan Castillo says: I didn't get an answer to my question, though.
[02:47:48] Elise Crawford says: Was this during the Use of Force investigation?
[02:48:00] Elise Crawford says: Let me finish, Sergeant.
[02:48:09] Elise Crawford says: Was it during the Use of Force investigation?
[02:48:14] Stefan Castillo says: At that time, it wasn't stated whether or not it was an investigation, so that's ...
[02:48:14] Stefan Castillo says: ... not relevant.
[02:48:34] Elise Crawford says: Castillo, when did you say that the Captain and Lieutenant are your representati ...
[02:48:34] Elise Crawford says: ... ves and won't leave?
[02:48:44] Elise Crawford says: Was this during the Use of Force investigation in the hospital?
[02:48:51] Stefan Castillo says: This wasn't during any official investigation.
[02:48:59] Elise Crawford says: Sergeant Castillo.
[02:49:03] Stefan Castillo says: That's my answer.
[02:49:06] Elise Crawford says: Pick your words wisely.
[02:49:13] Stefan Castillo says: You yourself stated that it wasn't an investigation yet.
[02:49:23] Stefan Castillo says: Captain?
[02:49:25] * Stefan Castillo looks over at Guanti.
[02:49:56] Elise Crawford says: The Use of Force investigation is any activation of IAB, for your information.
[02:50:03] Elise Crawford says: So if you wanna rephrase your answer now is the time.
[02:50:15] Stefan Castillo says: You stated that it wasn't an investigation at the time.
[02:50:42] Elise Crawford says: Just to help you understand:
[02:51:14] Elise Crawford says: We during Use of Force investigation ascertain whether or not we launch an admin ...
[02:51:14] Elise Crawford says: ... or criminal or use of force case file.
[02:51:32] Elise Crawford says: When we respond to IAB activations we are technically in the sense of the word i ...
[02:51:32] Elise Crawford says: ... nvestigating whether or not we wanna make it int
[02:51:34] Elise Crawford says: ... o a case file.
[02:51:38] Elise Crawford says: So, again:
[02:51:44] Elise Crawford says: Think wisely about how you wanna put that answer.
[02:51:47] Stefan Castillo says: I believe what you said was you were gathering my statement to determine whether ...
[02:51:47] Stefan Castillo says: ... or not an investigation would take place.
[02:51:54] Elise Crawford says: In consideration of what I said, was that your final answer?
[02:52:23] Stefan Castillo says: Captain Guanti was there. I believe he could elaborate a bit on that.
[02:52:32] Elise Crawford says: Sadly he cannot.
[02:52:37] Stefan Castillo says: He's my representation.
[02:52:42] Elise Crawford says: Correct?
[02:52:52] Elise Crawford says: What do you mean by that?
[02:53:06] Stefan Castillo says: You have my signed Garrity form. He signed as my representative.
[02:53:15] Elise Crawford says: This interview is about you.
[02:53:19] Stefan Castillo says: I'm aware.
[02:53:21] James Guanti says: Sergeant Crawford, granted I was a third party, I don't feel like you made that ...
[02:53:21] James Guanti says: ... apparent and based off our conversation-
[02:53:25] Elise Crawford says: So you're the person that will speak on the record.
[02:54:25] James Guanti says: -neither myself or Captain Gunner were sure if you wanted to esclate this situat ...
[02:54:25] James Guanti says: ... ion into a formal interview, or end it.
[02:54:56] James Guanti says: And Castillo talked about it briefly earlier, but it was a chaotic situation.
[02:55:05] * James Guanti wafts his left hand.
[02:55:10] James Guanti says: That's really all I have to say.
[02:55:16] Elise Crawford says: OK.
[02:55:31] Elise Crawford says: If that's your final answer to the original question we will conclude it here, S ...
[02:55:31] Elise Crawford says: ... ergeant Castillo.
[02:55:32] Elise Crawford says: Is it?
[02:55:37] Stefan Castillo says: It is.
[02:55:45] Elise Crawford says: OK. We are ending the interview at...
[02:55:46] * Elise Crawford checks the time.
[02:55:49] Elise Crawford says: 0355.
[02:55:57] * Elise Crawford clicks on the recording device. She turns it off.

 

(( @Fabi, @Michael ))

Edited September 29 by Kotwica

[Fabi]

"Due to the given circumstances and continous unncessary delay, the Defendant is granted 24 hours to provide a response to this motion. Then we'll have a recess until the Court renders a judgement on this motion."

(( @Michael @Kotwica ))

[ImperiumXVII]

Defense will provide a response shortly.

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, Plaintiff makes very moving points and I would fall for it myself if I didn't know better, but he's confusing the timeline and ultimately arguing points that we've already discredited in this very court room.

 

Plaintiff's argument one alleges that Stefan Castillo was in custodial interrogation and therefore required his Miranda rights to be read. Mr. Castillo was not, at any time, part of any criminal investigation by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department and thus his Miranda rights were not required to be read. It is true that Mr. Castillo was in an interrogation - although not custodial - related to his performance as a sheriff's deputy within the Department and thus - and rightly so - was given a Garrity warning.

 

Plaintiff's argument that Captain Guanti "feeling" that he was not free to leave does not make it custodial. The fact that he is a "seasoned Captain" is irrelevant. His mere feeling is lay testimony - the personal experience of Captain Guanti is not reflective of Internal Affairs Bureau procedures. Captain Guanti, being a "seasoned Captain" himself however, does know what a performance interview is. Nobody is required by law to attend - of course they should if they want to keep their job - but at no point was Mr. Castillo ever in custody. Your honour, in my personal experience I feel like I'm not free to leave when my mother in law wants me for Christmas, and dare I say no reasonable person believes they would be able to leave either - does that make it custodial by any meaning of the word? Stefan Castillo - and you can check the transcripts, your honour - Stefan Castillo never once asked to leave the interrogation. In fact, Mr. Castillo was told in plain English that the interview was regarding his performance and this makes it clear that the interview was just that - a performance review, and not custodial detention.

 

Miranda does establish that a reasonable person should feel that their freedom of action is deprived in a significant way. No reasonable person thinks that they are not legally free to walk right out the door when in a performance-based interview.

 

Plaintiff argues in their argument two that Mr. Castillo was discriminated against for being a law enforcement officer and that his rights were somehow lessened during this so-called "custodial interview". Defense maintains that this was demonstrably not a custodial interview and was, in fact, a performance review. This is further backed up by the fact that Mr. Castillo was given his Garrity warning before the interview - and he had signed it, alongside Captain Guanti - and was well aware of his rights. Mr. Castillo is well aware of how a use of force investigation goes, given that he has himself placed his subordinates on administrative leave for the same thing he was placed on administrative leave for. Which, if it pleases the court, we can back up with administrative records from the Department. Mr. Castillo knows that this is not a custodial interrogation, being the seasoned deputy that he is - or was.

 

The Plaintiff's argument three that defense has made this trial an obstacle from the start is also a gross obfuscation of the facts. Defense has readily provided all documents, volunteering documents even at the very beginning of this case, because it stands behind its sequence of decisions regarding Mr. Castillo. 

 

(( @Kotwica, @Fabi ))