25-LSC-04109 – Final Order – Gloria Mendoza v. The Los Santos Police Department, et al.

[Kotwica]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case Name: Glorida Mendoza v. The Los Santos Police Department, The Los Santos Sheriff's Department, The San Andreas Department of Corrections, and any other law enforcement agency within the State of San Andreas.
 

Plaintiff Attorney: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET

_______________________________________________

 

1. Check one box below that best describes this case:

 

Personal Torts

[ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact

[ ] False imprisonment

[ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Deprivation of rights under color of law

 

Negligent Torts

[ ] Breach of duty

[ ] Negligent infliction of emotional distress

[ ] Professional or Medical Negligence

 

Property Torts

[ ] Trespassing or Conversion

[ ] Nuisance

[ ] Theft

[ ] Detainder

 

Dignitary Torts

[ ] Defamation (Slander or Libel)

[ ] Invasion of privacy

[ ] Breach of confidence

[ ] Abuse of process

[ ] Malicious prosecution

[ ] Alienation of affections

 

Business Torts

[ ] Fraud

[ ] Tortious interference

[ ] Conspiracy

[ ] Restraint of trade

[ ] Passing off

 

Contracts

[ ] Breach of Contract

[ ] Collections

 

Judicial Review

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Business License

[ ] Denial or Revocation of Firearms License

 

Other

[X] Declaratory Judgment/Declaratory Relief

 

2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.

• N/A, declaratory 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 5 day of April, 2025 by:

 

/S/ Gloria Mendoza

Gloria Mendoza

Plaintiff

 

/S/ Juan Tzompaxtle
Juan Tzompaxtle

Attorney for Plaintiff

[Kotwica]

Gloria Mendoza v. The Los Santos Police Department, The Los Santos Sheriff's Department, The San Andreas Department of Corrections, and any other law enforcement agency within the State of San Andreas.

 

Case Number: YY-XNNN

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle

 

CIVIL CASE BRIEF FOR PLAINTIFF

_______________________________________________

 

Argument

1. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of citizens to assemble, protect the freedom of press, and protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Courts of these United States have long concerned themselves with attempts by the government to chill the rights of citizens through intimidation. The law enforcement agencies within the State of San Andreas have taken advantage of the lack of precedent established by this Court on the topic of "obstruction of justice" when law enforcement officers are faced with a member of the public recording them.

 

2. On March 25th, 2025, Ms. Mendoza, was lawfully driving on a public roadway to the Idlewood Gas Station. During this drive, she lawfully parked her vehicle, dismounted the vehicle, and proceeded to a public sidewalk where she noticed a large crowd of people being detained. Ms. Mendoza decided to record the interaction, and states she was at minimum fifty feet from the scene, when a uniformed law enforcement officer, Officer Love approached her and asked what she was doing. Ms. Mendoza informed Officer Love that she was watching and filming. Officer Love requested that Ms. Mendoza leave the scene. Ms. Mendoza stated that she was over fifty feet from the incident, Officer Love persisted and threatened Ms. Mendoza stating if she did not leave "she would join them" (referring to the detained individuals).

 

3. The Supreme Court has held that public sidewalks, even those surrounding the Supreme Court building are a "Traditional Public Forum" See generally United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983). A traditional public forum receives the highest level of scrutiny when analyzing the governments action, the deference being given to the citizen. See Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989).
 

4. The First Circuit has clearly established that videotaping police carrying out their duties in public is constitutional in Gilk v. Cunnife, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011). "The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative." Id. The right of a citizen to film their government and dissiminate that information is clearly affirmed throughout the opinion in Glik.

 

The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966). Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because it is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’ “ First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n. 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966)). This is particularly true of law enforcement officials, who are granted substantial discretion that may be misused to deprive individuals of their liberties. Cf. Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1035–36 (1991) (observing that “[t]he public has an interest in [the] responsible exercise” of the discretion granted police and prosecutors). Ensuring the public's right to gather information about their officials not only aids in the uncovering of abuses, see id. at 1034–35 (recognizing a core First Amendment interest in “the dissemination of information relating to alleged governmental misconduct”), but also may have a salutary effect on the functioning of government more generally, see Press–Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1, 8 (1986) (noting that “many governmental processes operate best under public scrutiny”).

 

5. The law enforcement agencies of San Andreas have long ran wild with the idea that any citizen, videotaping any law enforcement officer, at anytime, can be detained or arrested. This has chilled the First Amendment, has prevented news outlets both official and unofficial from flourishing in the City of Los Santos -- and has resulted in the wrongful detention, or diminishment in the free exercise of the First Amendment -- for far too long.

 

6. This declaratory judgment comes after the Los Santos Police Department's Internal Affairs Group has determined that "the incident [of which Ms. Mendoza retained me] did not occur." This declaratory relief seeks to enjoin the law enforcement agencies throughout the furthest jurisdiction of this court from ever depriving citizens of their constitutional rights when recording law enforcement officers.

 

7. This declaratory judgment will resolve the controversy of this case, and establish a precedent allowing Ms. Mendoza, and other citizens, if any law enforcement officer chooses to act in a manner inconsistent with the federal precedent, and order of this court.

 

8. The plaintiff's prayer is that this court to impose a defined test for determining "obstruction" -- by defining a proximity, if one is appropriate at all, consistent with federal precedent -- of which a citizen can exercise their First Amendment rights in public by videotaping and audio recording without fear of unlawful arrest or detainment, and to adopt the First Circuit opinion that violating this test -- if the court deems one appropriate -- is grounds for defeating sovereign immunity claims against the law enforcement officer and agency.

...

 

Exhibits

1. Video recording of the distance of Ms. Mendoza from the scene

2. Statement from the Los Santos Police Department stating that the event did not occur.

...

 

Witness List

No witnesses are required or requested.

 

_______________________________________________

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 5th day of April, 2025 by:

 

/s/ Juan Tzompaxtle

Juan Tzompaxtle

Edited April 5 by Kotwica

[Tungsten]

** The case is accepted by the clerk of court and assigned docket number 25-LSC-04109.

(( All further docket updates and scheduling will take place on Discord. Additional briefs, attachments, documents, and the final decision may be posted here.
See the following thread on the County discord: https://discord.com/channels/887354427378380891/1358172776908980264 ))

[JustSid]

 

.

 

Edited April 6 by JustSid

[JustSid]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS

COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS

COUNTERARGUMENT TO PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL COMPLAINT

Submitted by: Alexander Cornelius Braithwaite IV
District Attorney | County of Los Santos
Case No.: 25-LSC-04109

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Preliminary Statement:

This is a case regarding a declaratory judgment brought by the Plaintiff, Gloria Mendoza, where she requests the Court to formally adjudicate that her alleged encounter with a police officer was a violation of her First and Fourth Amendment rights. Plaintiff also requests the Court to impose judicial standards that would restrict law enforcement discretion in future encounters with civilians recording police while in public spaces.

The complaint, though emotionally compelling and calling forth powerful constitutional principles, is essentially flawed both factually and legally. It lacks definite charges against all but a few of the parties named, misuses constitutional precedent, ignores jurisdictional realities, and seeks an expansive declaratory judgment outside the function of the Court and the aim of the Declaratory Judgment Act.

 

• The defence contends the following:

1. The Plaintiff's account is uncorroborated and self-contradictory.
2. There is no factual basis to make the Los Santos Sheriff's Department and San Andreas Department of Corrections, or "any other law enforcement agency," defendants.
3. Plaintiff misapplies First Circuit precedent in a Ninth Circuit state (California), where this issue remains unresolved.
4. The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory order without legal injury sufficient to warrant such relief.
5. The Plaintiff seeks to redefine and narrow the definition of "obstruction" so as to detract from public safety and be beyond judicial authority.

 

• Clarifications and Omissions:

1. The incident reported occurred on March 25, 2025, near the Idlewood Gas Station in a highly documented crime area of ambushes of police officers and gang activity.
2. Plaintiff Mendoza walked up to what she described as a "large group of detained individuals," and admits that she did so with no knowledge of the situation or of any imminent threats to officer safety.
3. She asserts that Officer Love instructed her to move and warned that if she did not, she would "join them." The LSPD Internal Affairs unit has found no indication that this incident occurred.

 

• Improper Inclusion of Non Involved Agencies:

The Plaintiff names:

• The Los Santos Sheriff’s Department (LSSD),

• The San Andreas Department of Corrections (SADOC), and

• “Any other law enforcement agency within the State of San Andreas”.

This is patently improper. Neither the LSSD nor SADOC were present at the location or involved in any aspect of the alleged incident. There are no factual allegations whatsoever supporting any claim against these entities.

Under San Andreas Code of Civil Procedure § 430.30(e) and (f), the Defence demurs as to these Defendants on the following grounds:

• (e) The Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against these agencies.

• (f) The pleading is uncertain, ambiguous, and unintelligible regarding these agencies’ alleged involvement.

Such overbroad naming of government agencies without factual basis is prejudicial, wasteful of judicial resources, and unjustly burdens public institutions with unnecessary litigation.

 

• Misapplication of First Amendment Doctrine: 

Plaintiff refers to a series of cases — United States v. Grace, Glik v. Cunniffe, Mills v. Alabama, Gentile v. State Bar of Nevada — in support of her First Amendment right to film the police. While said cases are indeed supportive of the public's interest in scrutiny, their invocation here is selective, out of context, and most critically, non-binding within the jurisdiction of San Andreas, which is aligned with that of the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit has not finally determined whether or not there is a First Amendment right to videotape police officers in public. Certain district courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that there could be such a right, but these holdings are not settled appellate precedent and must not be treated as such.

Moreover, when public safety itself is threatened, courts have routinely discovered a governmental interest in officer safety and maintaining order, even in public settings.

 

• Officer Safety and discretion in High-Risk areas:

It is taken for granted in constitutional law that First Amendment rights are never absolute. Reasonable time, place, and manner regulations are permitted, particularly in dangerous or fluid circumstances in which the police must make split-second judgments.

Idlewood and the surrounding areas are typical sites for officer ambushes, shootings, and civilian interference. Officers are instructed to manage perimeters and limit bystander interference for their own safety and the safety of others. Even taking Plaintiff's allegations at face value, the officer's request that she move away from an active detention scene is reasonable and does not constitute a First Amendment violation.

• Plaintiff’s Lack of Legal Injury:

The Plaintiff is not seeking monetary damages, nor does she allege any concrete harm or constitutional deprivation. She was not arrested, detained, or charged. The Plaintiff’s request for declaratory relief is therefore speculative and fails to meet the standard for Article III standing, as she has not demonstrated:

1. An actual legal injury,
2. A threat of future harm, or
3. A real and immediate controversy.

Her petition attempts to manufacture precedent through judicial fiat, without the presence of a real legal conflict. The role of the court is not to issue abstract declarations of policy, but to resolve live controversies with tangible injuries.

• Improper Use of Declaratory Judgment:

The relief requested by the Plaintiff would bypass police discretion, establish confusing and potentially dangerous proximity standards for bystanders, and invite future suits based on misinterpreted encounters. 

Courts cannot issue blanket prescriptions on behalf of all law enforcement agencies in a state through a single declaratory judgment based upon a disputed and unverified incident. The judiciary is a reactive institution, not a legislative one.

 

• In Conclusion:

This case lacks factual basis, jurisdictional alignment, legal injury, and justiciability. It is a misguided attempt to secure precedent through abstract grievance, and in doing so, it drags uninvolved public agencies and servants into litigation at public expense.

The Defence respectfully requests the following:

Dismissal with prejudice of all claims against LSSD, SADOC, and “all other agencies” under CCP § 430.30(e) and (f);

Denial of the declaratory judgment on grounds of insufficient injury and improper legal foundation;

That this Court uphold law enforcement discretion in preserving public safety under existing constitutional standards.

 

----------------------------------

 

Respectfully submitted,
Alexander Cornelius Braithwaite IV
Office of the District Attorney | County of Los Santos
State of San Andreas
April 6, 2025

 

[Tungsten]

** The docket is closed for further updates by the Clerk of Courts and the status is changed to PENDING REVIEW.

[Tungsten]

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS
COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS, CIVIL DIVISION

 

Case No. 25-LSC-04109

In the Matter of Gloria Mendoza v. Los Santos Police Department, Los Santos Sheriff's Department, San Andreas Department of Corrections

_____________________________________________________________________________

OPINION AND ORDER delivered by Judge Florence Weathers-Peterson of the Superior Court
 

Syllabus

 

Plaintiff submitted a petition under the Declaratory Judgment Act requesting declaratory judgment against the named defendants for alleged constitutional rights violations.
 

On March 25th, 2025, Plaintiff Gloria Mendoza lawfully parked and proceeded to a public sidewalk upon seeing a large group of people detained in the Idlewood area. She began to record the interaction, endorsing afterward that she was approximately fifty feet away from the scene. Plaintiff endorses that she was approached by Officer Love of the Los Santos Police Department who asked what Ms. Mendoza was doing, to which she replied that she was recording the scene. Plaintiff further endorses that she was then instructed by Officer Love to leave the scene and, after a brief verbal dispute, Officer Love implied a threat of arrest by making a statement to the effect of "[Mendoza] would join them [if she did not leave the area]". The evidence presented in the petition for declaratory judgment includes a video that shows only part of the encounter. (( OOC NOTE: Screenshots of the exact actions taken or words said are required as OOC evidence in order for a video to be roleplayed. )) Plaintiff asserts that "law enforcement agencies of San Andreas have long ran wild with the idea that any citizen, videotaping any law enforcement officer, at anytime, can be detained or arrested" and that this has "chilled the First Amendment" by "prevent[ing] news outlets both official and unofficial from flourishing in the City of Los Santos" and "has resulted in the wrongful detention, or diminishment in the free exercise of the First Amendment". Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the Los Santos Police Department Internal Affairs Group and received a disposition that "the reported event did not occur".

Plaintiff argues that the alleged threat of arrest for recording in public is a violation of the first amendment, citing Gilk v. Cunnife, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011), and United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983). Plaintiff further contends that this court is implored to apply a strict scrutiny test under Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989), with deference being given to the citizen video recording an officer's duties whilst within a traditional public forum. Plaintiff argues that the gathering of information about public officials is a constitutionally-protected activity under the first amendment, citing Mills v. Alabama; 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966); First Nat'l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n. 11; Cf. Gentile v. State Bar of Nev.; 501 U.S. 1030, 1035–36 (1991), and; Press–Enter. Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 at 8 (1986). Plaintiff does not argue that the fourth amendment is implicated.

Applying precedent, Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief in the form of an order of this court enjoining all law enforcement agencies within the jurisdiction of this court from deprivation of first amendment rights in the manner presupposed. Further, Plaintiff wishes this court to establish precedent in San Andreas jurisprudence by establishing a test for what constitutes "obstruction", presumably as it pertains to the crime of Obstruction of Justice as defined in § 610 of the San Andreas Penal Code. Plaintiff believes that receiving both of these in declaratory relief will "resolve the controversy of this case".

In reply, the three named defendant agencies (collectively "Defendant") claims that Plaintiff's narrative of the incident is "is uncorroborated and self-contradictory", and that there is no cause of action against the Los Santos Sheriff's Department or the San Andreas Department of Corrections. Defendant contends that there is no legal injury warranting declaratory relief and that to establish a test for obstruction as requested would be beyond this court's authority. Defendant argues that the incident occurred in a high-crime area involving a "large group of detained individuals" and that Plaintiff did not have knowledge of any active threats to officer safety that may be present. Defendant endorses the conclusion of the Los Santos Police Department's Internal Affairs Group.

 

Plaintiff submits a motion for demurrer of the named defendants Los Santos Sheriff's Department and San Andreas Department of Corrections on the grounds that they were neither present nor involved in the situation and that, under Rule 430.10(e) and (f) (( OOC NOTE: this reference is corrected due to an OOC note via DM after the topic was locked )), the pleadings do not substantiate a cause of action against these defendants and that the pleadings against such defendants is uncertain due to this lack of presence or involvement. Plaintiff errantly argues that this court is not bound by precedent arising out of Grace, Mills, and Gentile but correctly states that this court is not bound by precedent set in Glik. Plaintiff argues that courts have discovered a governmental interest in maintaining public order, implying that this court should apply a rational basis test to determine whether actions taken by officers is proscribed. Finally, Plaintiff argues that there is no legal injury, threat of future harm, or any real or immediate controversy, requesting dismissal with prejudice of the underlying action.

 

Analysis

This court begins with an analysis of the evidence to determine whether further analysis is required. In requesting declaratory judgment in this matter, Plaintiff must show clear and convincing evidence that the events in question occurred. Plaintiff has submitted incomplete video evidence to substantiate this claim and request for declaratory relief, and presumably did so as well when submitting a complaint to the Los Santos Police Department's Internal Affairs Group. Without a complete video account or some other substantiation of the event, the Plaintiff has failed to meet their burden of clear and convincing evidence. Therefore, no further analysis is required. This court finds that there is no clear and convincing evidence that the events in question occurred. This court is unable to ascertain whether or not the events occurred. It would be inappropriate for this court to issue declaratory relief for a claim that is, according to the evidentiary record, hypothetical.

(( It is long-standing OOC precedent that any use of "video evidence" in court proceedings requires a full set of screenshots that show the entire event, not just select portions. Here, we cannot just assume the truth of a matter based on an emote that says "records the detainment" – we must have some form of confirming evidence such as a chatlog, other screenshots/video, etc. This is not a rule that I am now establishing or have recently established, it is one that has existed since as early as 2012 to my knowledge but probably earlier. Above, during the syllabus, it is said in character by the court that the video is incomplete – that is the presumption to be made in character when there is no further screenshots to tell us what is seen. After all, video recordings in this way are unsupported by the script and therefore considered NPC in a way unless both parties agree to a set of facts or there is screenshot/video evidence to show what happened. ))

 

Order

This court finds that the requisite burden of proof has not been satisfied and therefore no ruling can be made on the issue. The petition is dismissed without prejudice so that the Plaintiff may resubmit a petition at a future date.

 

---

/s/ FLORENCE WEATHERS-PETERSON

Florence Weathers-Peterson

Superior Court Judge, County of Los Santos

 

ENTERED: April 6th, 2025 at 22:05