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

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN AND ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Date: 02-07-2024
 

Order Modifying Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part

 

This Court, upon reviewing the motion filed by Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, and considering the arguments of counsel, hereby modifies the Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part issued on this date.

Modification:

The portion of the Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part requiring Sergeant Castillo to participate in a formal interview with the Internal Affairs Department is hereby WITHDRAWN.

Reasoning:

The Court acknowledges that the interview mandated by the Order may have already been conducted. Therefore, requiring a further interview would be redundant.
 

Remaining Orders:

All other provisions of the Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part, dated 02-07-2024, remain in full force and effect.
 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Superior Judge

 

@Levy @Michael

Edited July 2, 2024 by almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, we have fulfilled the Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part.

 

15 hours ago, almightybounter said:

Order to Show Cause Regarding Sergeant Castillo's Administrative Leave

 

This Court, upon reviewing the case and the arguments of counsel, has concerns regarding the administrative leave imposed on Sergeant Castillo following the events of June 26th, 2024.
 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall appear before this Court within THREE business days to show cause why Sergeant Castillo has been put on administrative leave.
 

The Sheriff's Department shall come prepared to address the following:

• The justification for placing Sergeant Castillo on administrative leave.
• The specific policy or regulation violated by Sergeant Castillo, if any.
• The details of the ongoing investigation, considering the REDACTED materials already provided.
• Whether the administrative leave constitutes retaliation for Sergeant Castillo asserting his rights during the field interview.

A copy of this Order shall be served on the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department at least TWO days before the hearing date.

 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

 

 

Addressing the justification for placing Sergeant Castillo on administrative leave.

 

Your honour, the justification for placing Stefan Castillo on Administrative Leave was the fact he discharged his firearm in the line of duty. While not strictly enforced, it is common practice in every department in the United States to place a peace officer on administrative leave when they discharge their firearm, especially if they strike another person. This is not a disciplinary measure, and Deputy Castillo was not deprived of his pay or departmental benefit eligibility during the duration of his administrative leave.

 

As per the Department's Manual of Policy and Procedure, which Mr. Castillo is thoroughly acquainted with as an experienced peace officer, discipline is defined as the following:

 

Quote

3-01/010.10 METHODS OF DISCIPLINE

The following methods of discipline may take place within the Department:

• Verbal Warning;
• Written Reprimand;
• Suspension (Employee is forbidden from conducting duties for a period of time);
• Reduction or Bonus Removal (Employee's civil service title is reduced);
• Discharge (Employee is no longer hired by the department).

 

Mr. Castillo was not disciplined as per the Department's definitions.

 

Further, the Internal Affairs Bureau reserves the right to place an individual on administrative leave for any investigation when it comes to use of force. The Department member was placed on it due to the fact no clear facts were presented to us, therefore we had to separate the Department member from their duty weapon and service until we figured out what happened. This was a peace officer-involved shooting in which a civilian was struck by a bullet, fired from a government-issued firearm. This is the kind of thing that demands concentration and effort to make sure all the facts are correct, and to protect Mr. Castillo from the court of public opinion.

 

Concerning the specific policy or regulation violated by Sergeant Castillo, if any.

 

Mr. Castillo was not determined to have violated any specific policy or regulation before the administrative leave was enacted. Administrative leave is not punitive or disciplinary in nature so this would not have happened even if Mr. Castillo had been determined to have violated a specific policy or regulation. Tell me - administrative leave includes full pay and benefits. Would a person being disciplined be awarded their full pay and benefits?

 

Concerning the details of the ongoing investigation, considering the REDACTED materials already provided.

 

"The details" have all been forwarded to the court and to Plaintiff as per the motion to compel that was accepted in part. The Sheriff's Department is prepared to talk about anything included in that material more specifically if asked.

 

On whether or not the administrative leave constitutes retaliation for Sergeant Castillo asserting his rights during the field interview.

 

The Use of Force field interview is not a disciplinary interview and is merely a background investigation into why something happened that is then used to determine if an internal investigation is even necessary. Use of Force field interviews are not part of an administrative or criminal investigation against a peace officer that is being interviewed, and is instead a tool to determine the narrative of the use of force. Mr. Castillo was not afforded a Garrity warning during this use of force field interview because Mr. Castillo was at no point under threat of incrimination as a result of this field interview.

 

The process would have been for use of force investigators to interview Mr. Castillo, paint a background picture, and then either recommend or not recommend that an internal investigation be opened. Mr. Castillo's refusal to assist law enforcement in a lawful enquiry into the use of force by a government officer against a citizen of this state prompted the internal investigation to be commissioned, and as previously explained, the Internal Affairs Bureau may place an individual on administrative leave for any active investigation when it comes to use of force.

 

Mr. Castillo incorrectly assumed that the fact-gathering, background-painting field interview was an administrative investigation against Mr. Castillo, and refused to cooperate with a lawful law enforcement investigation, and as such an administrative investigation was commissioned. After all, your honour, what active peace officer actively tries to block a lawful investigation? Especially based on rights that he is not even afforded, such as the Garrity rights, because it was not an administrative investigation on Mr. Castillo and there was no threat of Mr. Castillo being incriminated through this use of force field interview.

 

In Mr. Castillo's follow up interview, where he was afforded his Garrity rights because there was now an administrative investigation on Mr. Castillo, it is made clear that investigators are still just trying to paint that background picture, that narrative on what actually happened.

 

I want to reiterate this. Mr. Castillo himself answered that the use of force field interview at the hospital, and I'm quoting direct from the transcript here, "this wasn't during any official investigation." Mr. Castillo was fully aware that there was no official investigation underway, and thus knew that he was not under threat of incrimination, and thus the Garrity rights did not apply during the use of force investigation. Mr. Castillo still intentionally blocked a lawful investigation into the use of force by a government officer against a citizen of the state. This is why Mr. Castillo was placed on administrative leave, for the now active administrative investigation into Mr. Castillo's use of force, not as retaliation for him refusing to cooperate with a use of force interview.

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Date: 03-07-2024

 

This Court has reviewed the arguments presented by both parties regarding Sergeant Castillo's administrative leave and the recent development that Sergeant Castillo is no longer on leave.
 

While Sergeant Castillo's current status is no longer one of administrative leave, the Court finds it necessary to clarify the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department's justification for its administrative leave policy, particularly in relation to use-of-force incidents.

This clarification is essential to ensure the Department's procedures comply with relevant legal guidelines and fair treatment of deputies.
 

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department shall appear before this Court within THREE business days to address the following:

• How the department's administrative leave policy aligns with the distinction between administrative leave and disciplinary actions outlined in the department's Manual of Policy and Procedure (MPP) Section 3-01/010.10.
• The specific procedures and timelines in place for administrative leave, particularly after use-of-force incidents.
• Whether Sergeant Castillo's rights were violated during the initial field interview in regards of asking for legal assistance.

A copy of this Order shall be served on the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department at least TWO days before the hearing date.
 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Judge

 

@Michael @Levy

[ImperiumXVII]

How the department's administrative leave policy aligns with the distinction between administrative leave and disciplinary actions outlined in the department's Manual of Policy and Procedure (MPP) Section 3-01/010.10.

 

Administrative leave, your honour, is a type of leave in which the employee retains their full pay and benefits. The Sheriff's Department does not differ from this definition. The closest relevant disciplinary action from the MPP is a suspension, which is where an employee is forbidden from conducting their duties for a period of time. Mr. Castillo was not in fact forbidden from conducting his duties by the Department, but was instead placed on leave.

 

Mr. Castillo was told that he needed to surrender his firearm, and this is why the administrative leave was enacted. Mr. Castillo was more than welcome to contact the Internal Affairs Bureau to see what duties he could perform that do not require the use of a firearm, but instead opted to ride out his paid leave without asking if such a thing could be arranged.

 

The specific procedures and timelines in place for administrative leave, particularly after use-of-force incidents.

 

Administrative leave generally lasts until a use of force investigation is concluded, however may be concluded earlier based on a number of factors as and when department management determines that administrative leave is no longer necessary. In this case, Mr. Castillo was afforded the courtesy of concluding the administrative leave early while an executive use of force review committee was set up, as a commitment to Mr. Castillo that the Sheriff's Department does not treat its employees unfairly.

 

The procedure for placing a person on administrative leave has been explained already. The Internal Affairs Bureau may place any employee on administrative leave over use of force incidents. This is entirely discretionary and at the will of department management and the Internal Affairs Bureau based on whether or not the investigating officer feels there is a necessity. This could be for reasons such as to protect the affected deputy from public opinion or the opinion of fellow deputies, to gather evidence or guarantee that evidence cannot be unintentionally disturbed, and to prepare for an upcoming administrative investigation where it is required that the affected deputy does not have access to a firearm.

 

In this case, Mr. Castillo was placed on administrative leave in preparation for an upcoming administrative investigation, and due to the nature - use of force by a government officer - it was deemed necessary that Mr. Castillo not retain his service firearm so that the factors of the incident could be preserved as best they could in order to guarantee a fair and undisturbed investigation into an incident where a citizen of the state was shot by a government officer.

Whether Sergeant Castillo's rights were violated during the initial field interview in regards of asking for legal assistance.

 

Forgive me your honour, but as I have already explained, the field interview was not incriminating and had no possibility of being incriminating, hence Mr. Castillo not being given a Garrity warning or a Miranda warning. Mr. Castillo had no right to legal assistance during the field interview because he was not under threat of any legal repercussions, or any departmental action based on Mr. Castillo's performance, and thus neither Miranda nor Garrity applied.

 

 

 

And forgive me your honour, but should the Plaintiff not be asking these questions in trial?

 

@almightybounter @Levy

[almightybounter]

"These are certainly questions that the court finds relevant to understanding the situation. As the Judge, it's my responsibility to ensure a thorough examination of the facts presented by both sides."

 

"Moving on and having addressed the previous motions, are there any remaining issues either side wishes to raise before opening statements?"

@Levy @Michael

Edited July 3, 2024 by almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

No, your honour.

[almightybounter]

"Plaintiff?" @Levy @ScubaStef

[ScubaStef]

"I do have some concerns that I would like to raise, your honor." @almightybounter

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, now is not the time to be "raising concerns", we've complied with the motions given to us - if Mr. Castillo wants to dispute the evidence that his own attorney demanded that we submit, he needs to do that during trial.

[almightybounter]

8 hours ago, ScubaStef said:

"I do have some concerns that I would like to raise, your honor." @almightybounter

"Mister Castillo, I appreciate your desire to raise these concerns personally. However, it's important to remember that complex legal matters are often best addressed by an attorney who can navigate the intricacies of court procedures and legal arguments."

"While you have the right to self-representation, it can be a challenging process. Ensuring all your arguments are presented effectively and following proper legal protocol can be difficult without legal expertise."

"If your concerns require a formal motion, please submit it to the court for review before we proceed."

"If your concerns relate to matters best addressed during trial, such as the evidence or arguments, I encourage you to raise them during your opening statement or cross-examination."

 

@Michael @ScubaStef

[ImperiumXVII]

Your honour, I think that's a cue to move to trial.

[almightybounter]

"Sergeant Castillo and Attorney Levy, we have addressed all the motions presented before the court. Is the Plaintiff prepared to proceed with opening statements?"

 

@ScubaStef @Levy

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

Stefan Castillo, Plaintiff,

v.

Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Date: 08-07-2024
 

 

This Court is in receipt of a request from Attorney Ari Levy to withdraw from representing Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, in this case. A trial date has been set, and the Court is nearing the commencement of the trial proceedings.
 

Attorney Levy's desire to withdraw from representation raises concerns about the Plaintiff's ability to proceed effectively at trial.

The Plaintiff has the right to be represented by legal counsel of his choosing. However, he also has the right to proceed pro se (self-represented) if he so chooses.
 

Order to Show Cause

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Attorney Ari Levy appear before this Court within twenty-four (24) hours to show cause why his withdrawal request should be granted.
 

Notice to Plaintiff

Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, is hereby notified of the following:

1. Attorney Ari Levy's request to withdraw from representing him in this case.
2. The potential consequences of Attorney Levy's withdrawal, including the complexities of representing oneself in a legal proceeding.
3. His right to object to Attorney Levy's withdrawal.
4. His right to seek new legal representation.
5. His right to proceed pro se (self-represented) if he chooses not to secure new legal counsel.

The Court strongly recommends that Plaintiff seek new legal representation given the complexities of this case and the importance of effective legal representation for a fair trial.

 

A copy of this Order shall be served on Attorney Ari Levy and the Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, via certified mail at their last known addresses.
 

SO ORDERED.

Martin Hockenbeyer

Superior Judge

[ImperiumXVII]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Sophie Thyne
 

MOTION TO DISMISS

_______________________________________________
 

Defence is requesting that The Court dismisses this case due to no cause of action existing.

 

Plaintiff's total lack of evidence even after compelling a confidential, ongoing investigative file from Defence - which has jeopardised a lawful inquiry into the non-fatal shooting of a black man with merely a baseball bat by a peace officer - and the fact that Plaintiff's own attorney no longer sees merit in pursuing this case, and that Plaintiff has not responded to the 24 hours given by the court, should show His Honor Judge Hockenbeyer that there is no cause of action for this suit to be brought against Defence and as such should be dismissed without further delay. Plaintiff had the entirety of the current phase of court - which has taken 10 days as of this motion - to produce any kind of evidence that would support Plaintiff's case, and they have produced exactly nothing even after needlessly compromising a lawful investigation.
 

_______________________________________________

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 9th day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ SOPHIE THYNE

Sophie Thyne

[almightybounter]

"Given the seriousness of this motion, we will defer a decision until the Plaintiff has had an opportunity to respond. Sergeant Castillo, the Defense is requesting dismissal of your case. Do you wish to file a written response to this motion?"

@ScubaStef

Edited July 9, 2024 by almightybounter