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

[ScubaStef]

(( I'm having some family issues IRL that I need to handle before I can get back to this. Is it possible to put it on pause while I get things taken care of? ))
@almightybounter @Michael

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald Wright
 

MOTION TO MODIFY COUNSEL

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the plaintiff requests this honorable court to approve a modification of counsel and permission for Donald Wright, an attorney barred and licensed in the San Fierro courts the privilege of representation on a temporary license.

 

_______________________________________________

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 10th day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald Wright

Donald J. Wright

Edited July 10, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
 

STEFAN CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO MODIFY COUNSEL

---

This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion to Modify Counsel. Upon consideration of the motion, the Court finds that:

1. The Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, has requested a modification of counsel.
2. The Plaintiff seeks to have Donald Wright, an attorney barred and licensed in the San Fierro courts, represent him on a temporary license.
3. Attorney Donald Wright has affirmed, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained in the motion is truthful to the best of his knowledge.
4. Granting the motion would not cause undue delay or prejudice to any party involved in the case.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Modify Counsel is GRANTED.
2. Donald Wright is hereby permitted to represent the Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, in this case on a temporary license.
3. Donald Wright shall be granted the same privileges and responsibilities as any attorney duly licensed to practice in the courts of San Andreas for the duration of his representation in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Hockenbeyer
Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge of San Andreas

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald Wright
 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the Plaintiff's move for Summary Judgment.

 

A plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment if two factors are met, (1) there is no dispute of material fact; and (2) if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

The defense moves for summary judgment based off of the illegal detention of Mister Castillo as stated by opposing counsel, namely:
(1) "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."

(2) "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. "

(3) 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.
 

The Plaintiff raises to the court that even the Defense acknowledges this detention was unlawful. The court is asked to ponder two questions in applying the reasonable person standard based off of the question of detention and freedom to leave. (1) Would a reasonable person who is approached after a shooting and questioned by law enforcement officers believe that they are free to leave? (2) Was Mister Castillo treated differently than a citizen who was being investigated for a potential shooting? If so, what rights would be afforded to that citizen? Is Mister Castillo less of a citizen because his job requires him to wear a badge? The lack of informing Mister Castillo of his Miranda Warning and Garrity Warning during an officer involved shooting does violate his rights, and the Sheriff's Department by pleading the above raises two separate violations of which Mister Castillo is entitled to judgment. Here, Mister Castillo was effectively detained for a shooting, was questioned related to a shooting that could have resulted in both administrative and criminal incrimination he was entitled to an attorney to be present as during this "investigation" the Sheriff's Department was actively investigating whether there was grounds for a criminal charges or administrative leave as stated by Sheriff's Department counsel: "[t]he 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. "

 

This statement by opposing counsel highlights that there was an investigation that the Sheriff's Department was conducting, the Sheriff's Department cannot have it both way by saying Mister Castillo was not under threat of incrimination after the field interview but that the discussion was to determine whether or not an investigation should be open, the term incrimination expands beyond mere criminal incrimination but also covers administrative incrimination, we argue that Mister Castillo was under reasonable fear of both criminal and administrative incrimination.  This investigation could have (and did result) in administrative punishment, with the potential of Mister Castillo losing his job, under the threat of losing his job coercion is a significant issue for this court to consider whether Mister Castillo had reasonable fears. If the court finds he did have reasonable fears for the loss of his job the court must find that the Sheriff's Department violated his Garrity Warning.

 

Point three raises another substantial question whether the Sheriff's Department had a legal right to detain Mister Castillo and prevent his freedom to travel. If there was no official investigation, why was he questioned, and detained for an investigation? If the court accepts this argument law enforcement officials could patrol the city, detaining both citizens and law enforcement officials under the guise of a non-official investigation. If there is a non-official investigation, is that still not an investigation which entitles protection? The plaintiff cautions the court to the dangerous precedent the Sheriff's Department is attempting to establish.

 

 

 

_______________________________________________

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 10th day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright

Edited July 10, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS
 

STEFAN CASTILLO,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,

Defendant.
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

ORDER ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS

---

This matter is before the Court on two motions: the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Court has thoroughly reviewed the submissions, including arguments and supporting documents presented by both parties.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

The Plaintiff, Stefan Castillo, argues for summary judgment on the grounds that there is no dispute of material fact and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The key points raised by the Plaintiff are as follows:

• Unlawful Detention and Lack of Warnings: Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, conducted an unlawful detention of Mr. Castillo without providing Miranda or Garrity warnings, during a use of force field interview following an officer-involved shooting.

• Reasonable Person Standard: Plaintiff contends that a reasonable person in Mr. Castillo's position would not believe they were free to leave during the questioning. Furthermore, Plaintiff argues that Mr. Castillo should have been afforded the same rights as any citizen under investigation for a shooting.

• Fear of Incrimination: The Plaintiff argues that Mr. Castillo was under a reasonable fear of both criminal and administrative incrimination, which justified the need for Garrity warnings during the field interview.

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

The Defendant, Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, seeks to dismiss the case on the following grounds:

• Lack of Cause of Action: The Defendant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to present sufficient evidence to support his claims, even after being given access to a confidential, ongoing investigative file.
• No Merit in Pursuing the Case: The Defendant highlights that the Plaintiff's attorney initially saw no merit in the case, and that the Plaintiff did not respond within the 24-hour period granted by the Court.
   

In evaluating the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court considers the precedent set by Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), which established that public employees cannot be compelled to incriminate themselves during investigatory interviews conducted by their employers. This protection extends to administrative as well as criminal proceedings. The Court also considers Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which requires that individuals be informed of their rights during custodial interrogations.
 

The Plaintiff has provided substantial arguments suggesting that Mr. Castillo's rights under Garrity were violated due to the lack of warnings provided during the use of force field interview. The fact that the Defendant acknowledges the purpose of the interview was to potentially recommend an investigation supports the claim that Mr. Castillo was under a reasonable threat of administrative incrimination.
 

Regarding the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court acknowledges the argument concerning the Plaintiff's lack of response and the potential compromise of an ongoing investigation. However, the Court must also ensure that the fundamental rights of individuals are not overshadowed by procedural deficiencies.

Court’s Decision

After careful consideration, the Court rules as follows:

• Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment: The Court finds that there are significant issues of material fact concerning the nature of Mr. Castillo's administrative detention and the adequacy of warnings provided during the interview. These issues warrant a full hearing rather than a summary judgment at this stage. Therefore, the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED.
   
• Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss: While the Plaintiff has faced challenges in presenting evidence, the allegations concerning potential rights violations are serious and require further examination. As such, the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
   

The Court hereby orders that this case proceed to trial to resolve the outstanding factual disputes and ensure a fair determination of the claims presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Hockenbeyer
Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge of San Andreas

@Kotwica @Michael

Edited July 10, 2024 by almightybounter

[Kotwica]

Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department
 

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001

Prepared by: Donald Wright
 

FORMAL OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

_______________________________________________
 

Comes now, the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration.

The plaintiff respectfully requests reconsideration on the grounds that the moving party entitled to summary judgment if two factors are met, (1) there is no genuine dispute of material fact; and (2) if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56.

 

While the plaintiff acknowledges that this honorable court would like this case to move forward to trial, the plaintiff's believe that this court is bound to provide summary judgment on the basis that both sides agree to the genuine material facts, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to judgment as a matter of law based off of plain evidence agreed upon in this court. This honorable court as the trier of fact has all material facts and representation it requires to return a judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff there humbly requests reconsideration of the denial for summary judgment.

_______________________________________________

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 10th day of July, 2024 by:

 

/s/ Donald J. Wright

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

STEFAN CASTILLO,
Plaintiff,

v.

LOS SANTOS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.

Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001
 

DENIAL OF FORMAL OBJECTION AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
 

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration regarding the denial of summary judgment. The Plaintiff argues that summary judgment should have been granted because there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, citing Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 56.

The Plaintiff contends that both parties agree on the genuine material facts and that the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment based on plain evidence already before the Court. Specifically, the Plaintiff disputes that the administrative leave was solely due to refusal to participate in a field interview.
 

In response, the Defendant cites the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Manual of Policy and Procedures (MPP), Section 3-01/010.10, which outlines various methods of discipline within the Department, including suspension as a disciplinary measure when warranted:

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).

 

Upon review of the arguments and evidence presented, the Court finds that significant issues requiring factual determination remain unresolved. Specifically, there are material disputes regarding the circumstances leading to Mr. Castillo's administrative leave and the adequacy of warnings provided during the investigative interview, which necessitate a thorough examination at trial.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff's formal objection and request for reconsideration of the denial of summary judgment is DENIED.
 

SO ORDERED.
 

Dated this 10th day of July, 2024.

/s/ Hockenbeyer
Honorable Martin Hockenbeyer
Superior Court Judge of San Andreas

[Kotwica]

"The plaintiff is prepared to move forward with opening statements, the plaintiff requests the court acknowledge our formal objection and as new counsel I would like to add additional witnesses if permitted. Namely Sergeant Crawford."

Edited July 10, 2024 by Kotwica

[almightybounter]

"I have reviewed your request to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness in this case. Sergeant Crawford, as head of the Internal Affairs Division of the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department, is central to several allegations and claims put forth by the Plaintiff.
 

Given the significance of Sergeant Crawford's role and the potential relevance of her testimony to the issues at hand, the court finds it appropriate to grant the Plaintiff's request to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness.
 

However, both parties are reminded of their obligations under the rules of evidence and procedural rules governing witness testimony. Sergeant Crawford's testimony should be directly relevant to the claims and defenses raised in this case. Additionally, the Plaintiff is instructed to coordinate with the court and opposing counsel regarding the logistics of Sergeant Crawford's testimony, including scheduling.
 

Accordingly, the Plaintiff is granted permission to add Sergeant Elise Crawford as a witness. Please proceed with the necessary arrangements and inform the court of any further developments."

Edited July 10, 2024 by almightybounter

[Kotwica]

"Your honor, opposing counsel, may it please the court.

My name is Donald Wright, I represent the interest of the plaintiff Mister Stefan Castillo in this trial. The question before this court is not a new question, rather a question that has been affirmed time and time again -that any person in custody has the right to effective legal counsel- this is the law established in Miranda v. Arizona, Garrity v. New Jersey, and Berghuis  v. Thompkins. A fundamental point that the Supreme Court has reiterated time and time again is that when an individual is detained, in order to prevent coercion and to assure that the rights of a citizen is protected that they are to be advised of the rights they possess. In this case, the Sheriff's Department has deviated from that understanding and has muddied the water of what is a lawful detention and whether an employee can be retaliated against when they ask for legal representation.

 

The facts of this case are familiar to this court, and I will not focus on what has already been addressed. The plaintiffs have a genuine concern in the investigation, whether there was a proper ground to detain Mister Castillo, and what rights he was deprived in that detention. Any other individual not wearing a badge would have been read their Miranda Rights prior to any questioning when detained if it was a criminal investigation, or a Garrity Warning if it was administrative. 

 

However, the retaliation of the Sheriff's Department openly admitted (albeit with "paid leave") is squarely the problem at question. The Sheriff's Department in this situation wished to compel testimony of Mister Castillo after performing an initial "use of force investigation." Compelling ones speech under the threat of administrative or criminal punishment is by definition coercion. Coercion was the same question that the United States Supreme Court addressed in Kastigar v. United States. This case is distinct from Kastigar as the Supreme Court only granted the compulsion because the witness was given immunity. Rather, what it appears happened here is that the Sheriff's Department requested a quid pro quo that Mister Castillo waive his rights in order to maintain his position within the Sheriff's Department.

 

The Supreme Court held in Garrity v. New Jersey:
"[We held in] Slochower v. Board of Education, 350 U. S. 551, that a public school teacher could not be discharged merely because he had invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination when questioned by a congressional committee: "The privilege against self-incrimination would be reduced to a hollow mockery if its exercise could be taken as equivalent either to a confession of guilt or a conclusive presumption of perjury. . . ." The privilege serves to protect the innocent who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circumstances." Id. at 350 U. S. 557-558. We conclude that policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights."

 

Here we have a Sheriff's Department watering down the rights of a law enforcement officer who punished him for simply asserting what he is entitled to under this Constitution and the plethora of cases that have followed. If this court determines that a law enforcement agency can punish any law enforcement officer for invoking a right where there is potential of criminal prosecution this court would stand in square opposition to the Supreme Court and make a hollow mockery of the privilege against self-incrimination.

 

This court must take into account that the Sheriff's Department has made multiple separate statements about the type of investigation, whether it was official or unofficial, and whether it could have been used in criminal proceedings or not. Opposing counsel states that they couldn't use it in a criminal investigation, and that it was unofficial.. However, the Internal Affairs Sergeant conducting this interview identified and I quote:

"We during Use of Force investigation ascertain whether or not we launch an admin or criminal or use of force case file." Break in time...

"When we respond to IAB activations we are technically in the sense of the word investigating whether or not we wanna make it into a case file. So, again: Think wisely about how you wanna put that answer." 

This case presents nothing new to this court, or any court in the country. What we have is a department that has fallen out of line with the Constitutional protections afforded to citizens. We have an Internal Affairs Sergeant who made combative argumentative statements and affirmed that there was still a potential of criminal and administrative incrimination. We do not believe that there are any further questions of this court due to the established precedent by so many courts in the United States and the overwhelmingly clear and definitive opinions provided again and again.

 

Thank you."

"Your honor, at this time I would also like to move to remove the attorney fees, I will represent my client pro bono."

 

Edited July 10, 2024 by Kotwica

[ImperiumXVII]

"Thank you, counsellor. Might I say, mightily honourable of you to represent your client pro bono - I respect your commitment to what you believe is justice.

 

Plaintiff makes some emotional points and throws around words like "coercion" and "constitutional protections", and if Plaintiff's case had any merit when it came to such emotive buzzwords, defence might agree. But Plaintiff's case is built entirely on the opinion of a seasoned, experienced law enforcement officer who is trying to absolve his own personal guilt over the shooting of a black citizen of this state who was never even near a gun, let alone had one on him, when he was shot by Mr. Castillo.

 

If you don't know of Mr. Castillo, he is a seasoned and well-respected deputy sheriff with the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department. He is probably one of the more experienced deputies within the department, having served for years in the department's most elite divisions. Mr. Castillo, then, is well aware of the inalienable rights of our state's citizens and is well aware of what actually constitutes being detained. Or at least we, as members of the Los Santos community, would hope so? Surely such a seasoned veteran of the department knows what being detained is? Mr. Castillo knew that he was not the subject of any official investigation and was never told that he was being detained. Mr. Castillo knows, as an experienced and tenured peace officer, that he was not detained. Most average citizens are aware of the phrase, "am I being detained?" And yet Mr. Castillo somehow forgot to ask this important question in establishing the facts of his situation? Perhaps that's because he knew he wasn't being detained. At any rate, if he had asked the answer would have been a resounding no.

 

You'll observe that Plaintiff has repeatedly argued that the evidence that they need to prove their case will definitely be found in "the files"! Keep that in the backs of your minds, folks - Mr. Castillo doesn't actually have any evidence that he was treated anything less than what every citizen should be. Mr. Castillo's case exists solely because he was treated equally to every other member of the Los Santos community, which he feels is unfair, as we will demonstrate.

 

The counsellor is correct - the law affords protection under the Fifth Amendment against incriminating one's self and the Supreme Court is absolutely right that to not extend this to administrative procedures would be a hollow mockery of the privilege. Mr. Castillo is fully aware that he was never under any kind of official investigation, he knew that he was not under threat of any kind of punitive measures, whether administrative or criminal in nature, and thus he knows that his unbreakable Fifth Amendment privilege did not apply here. Mr. Castillo, a seasoned law enforcement officer, was not read his Miranda rights or his Garrity rights, and so Mr. Castillo knew that he was not under any threat of criminal or administration punishment. Mr. Castillo, despite knowing that he was not under any threat of punishment, blocked, impeded and stalled a mere background investigation into the shooting of a black man who did not have a gun on him. 

 

Opposing counsel quotes Garrity v. New Jersey merely as a tactic to confuse the facts - the initial background investigation was never subject to the rights afforded by Garrity v. New Jersey. Opposing counsel brings up Kastigar and correctly points out that Mr. Castillo was not granted immunity in exchange for his testimony. What opposing counsel gets wrong, though, is that Mr. Castillo's testimony was not actually sought by the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department in the initial background investigation. Nothing that Mr. Castillo said - or rather, refused to say - was to be considered testimony. It was merely a background check on what happened in the area. IAB investigators are, after all, not omnipotent and can't see everything that happens in the city. Mr. Castillo knows, as a seasoned, very experienced peace officer, exactly what testimony actually is - or at least, the citizens of Los Santos would hope he does - and knows that what he was being asked for was not his testimony.

 

Thank you, your honour."

[almightybounter]

“Counselors, pleasure ensure that all witnesses are sworn in and that all evidence presented is clearly marked and submitted to the court.”

 

”Mr. Wright, please call your first witness and proceed with your case-in-chief.”

[Kotwica]

* Donald nods as Sophie finishes her sentence, stepping out of the way for her to walk to her seat from podium before stepping to the podium, his elderly smile raises his bifocaled top bar glasses. Donald wobbles to the podium before placing a yellow notepad onto it. *

"Opposing counsel, thank you for your kind comment. Your honor, as I have never stood before you in your courtroom before do you have a preference on utilization of the well of the court and approaching witnesses?"
 

[almightybounter]

“Thank you, Mr. Wright. Welcome to my courtroom. In terms of procedure, please adhere to the following:

 

You are permitted to utilize the well of the court, but please do so respectfully and avoid any unnecessary movements that might disrupt the proceedings.

 

When presenting exhibits or evidence, please ensure they are properly marked and that opposing counsel has had an opportunity to review them.

Maintain professionalism at all times, addressing the court and witnesses respectfully.

 

If you have any specific needs or require clarification on any procedures during the trial, do not hesitate to ask.

 

You may proceed, Mr. Wright.”

[Kotwica]

“Thank you your honor, the plaintiff asks this honorable court to summon Captain Guanti to the stand.”