25-LSC-05121 - Tzompaxtle v. Los Santos Police Department

[Tungsten]

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION   Case Name: JUAN TZOMPAXTLE v. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT Plaintiff Attorney: Jacob E. Rabinowitz   CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET _______________________________________________   1. Check one box below that best describes this case:   Personal Torts [ ] Assault, battery, or unlawful contact [X] False imprisonment [ ] Intentional infliction of emotional distress [X] 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   2. List any damages sustained or fees accrued. Include billing rate for attorneys, expert witnesses, etc.   Compensatory damages in the amount of $50,000, broken down as follows: Remuneration for billable hours not able to be logged due to the imprisonment of Plaintiff, an attorney who represents clients in multiple actions before this court.   Special damages in the amount of $150,000, broken down as follows: Billing rate for services rendered by the law firm Tzompaxtle Rabinowitz & Barbieri LLP, at $50,000 per billable day, preemptively estimated at approximately 3 billable days, totaling to $150,000.   Additional prayer for relief: Declaratory relief adjudging the facial unconstitutionality of San Andreas Vehicle Code § 502. Reversal and remand of all criminal charges in the underlying action People of the State of San Andreas v. Juan Tzompaxtle.     _______________________________________________ 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 2nd day of May, 2025 by:   /S/ JACOB E. RABINOWITZ Jacob E. Rabinowitz Attorney for Plaintiff Signing on behalf of self and plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle

[Tungsten]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     JUAN TZOMPAXTLE,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-05121 ───────────── CIVIL COMPLAINT AND PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS ─────────────   Jacob E. Rabinowitz, State Bar No. 820510100 [email protected]   Attorney for Defendant JUAN TZOMPAXTLE

Introduction 1. Plaintiff ᅠᅠJuan Tzompaxtle, defendant in the underlying action People of the State of San Andreas v. Juan Tzompaxtle, hereby petitions this court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to Rule 4.551.   Jurisdiction   ᅠᅠ2. This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and under Rule 4.551.   Parties   3. Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle is an individual who resides in the County of Los Santos in the State of San Andreas.   4. Defendant Los Santos Police Department is a municipal corporation headquartered at 1 Pershing Square in Los Santos, San Andreas.   Facts   ᅠᅠ5. In the late hours of May 3rd, 2025, at a time before the sun had officially set, officers of the Los Santos Police Department engaged in a traffic stop of Plaintiff.   6. Defendant's officers informed Plaintiff that the reason for the traffic stop was driving without the use of headlights during the hours between sunset and sunrise, an infraction pursuant to San Andreas Vehicle Code § 502 ("VC 502"). Plaintiff concedes that the street lights were activated at the time of the traffic stop.   7. Plaintiff was issued citations for both allegedly driving without the use of headlights and operating a vehicle without automotive insurance as required by San Andreas Vehicle Code § 301 ("VC 301"). Plaintiff was also advised by the officer to turn his vehicle's headlights on.   8. A short time after the traffic stop had ended Plaintiff was once again pulled over by the same officer, again at a time before the sun had officially set but while the street lamps were activated. This time, however he was arrested for Obstruction of Justice, a misdemeanor pursuant to San Andreas Penal Code § 610(b) ("PC 610(b)").   9. The officer explained to Plaintiff at the time of arrest that he was being arrested for a failure to obey a lawful order. Plaintiff presumes the lawful order was the officer's prior advisement to turn on the headlights.   10. Plaintiff was transported to the state prison and placed into the custody of the San Andreas Department of Corrections for a misdemeanor offense.   VC 509 is Vague and Ambiguous   11. The rule of lenity, otherwise known as the statute of strict construction, requires that when any statute or regulation is vague or ambiguous, the court should apply it in a way that is most favorable to the defendant in a criminal action.   12. VC 509 is vague and ambiguous because it relies on two conflicting states. First, it states that when the street lamps are activated a person must drive using their headlights. Second, it states that headlights must be activated between sunset and sunrise.   13. Plaintiff interpreted VC 509 to mean that both conditions must be present – the street lamps must be activated and the sun must have set. Logically, it does not make sense to activate one's vehicle headlights at a time while there are still adequate lighting conditions to operate a motor vehicle safely. The purpose of VC 509 is clearly to enable safe operation of motor vehicles, not to create grounds for arbitrary traffic stops by peace officers.   An Order to Activate Headlights is Not a Lawful Order   14. A "lawful order" is any order that is sufficiently underpinned and readily citable by a statute or regulation, though an officer need not cite the statute or regulation at the time of the order.   15. If an order given by a peace officer is not sufficiently underpinned by such a statute or regulation, it is not a lawful order. The mere fact that a peace officer gives an order does not inherently make that order a "lawful order". If this were true, we would certainly live in a police state wherein peace officers could arbitrarily order any person to do any thing under threat of arrest, regardless of the legality of the action they are ordering the person to perform.   16. PC 610(b) states one single element of a presumably general intent crime: "A person [must fail] to comply with a peace officer's lawful orders". The clear requirement is that there must be a lawful order that a person fails to comply with. If there is no lawful order, the person is not required to comply with it and therefore failure to comply with that order cannot be a violation of PC 610(b).   VC 502 is an Infraction, Not a Misdemeanor   17. Violation of VC 502 is an infraction offense which is independently punishable by a citation. To cite a person for the offense of failing to use their headlights then subsequently arrest them shortly thereafter for Obstruction is to effectively elevate VC 502 to the level of a misdemeanor despite it being defined as an infraction in the laws of this state.   18. If, for example, a person were cited for Speeding, an infraction under San Andreas Vehicle Code § 401, then later is pulled over for Speeding again, we would not expect a person to then be arrested for Obstruction of Justice. Rather, we would expect that person to once again be cited for Speeding. The clearly-defined punishment for Speeding is a citation, not arrest.   19. To charge a person with Obstruction of Justice for a repeated vehicular offense is to enable an officer to re-write any infraction into a misdemeanor. This vests additional powers to the Executive branch of government, to which the officer's enforcement powers belong, that typically belong to the Legislative branch of government. This foremost violates the separation of powers doctrine on which this entire country's governance is based.   Prayer for Relief   ᅠᅠ20. Plaintiff prays for reversal of all underlying criminal charges relevant to this complaint.   21. If reversal is not granted, Plaintiff then prays for a Writ of Habeas Corpus mandating that the Los Santos Police Department present any and all evidence supporting the relevant arrest for Obstruction of Justice, including the officer's affidavit of arrest and any DICV footage of both traffic stops and the subsequent arrest.   22. If reversal of the underlying criminal charges is granted, Plaintiff prays for compensatory damages for the time he spent imprisoned. Since is is employed as an attorney and actively representing multiple clients in multiple cases of record before this court, and he was imprisoned, he was unable to log billable hours against such clients. Plaintiff's typical rate per billable day is $50,000 as defined by policies of the Tzompaxtle, Rabinowitz, and Barbieri law firm. Plaintiff was deprived of the ability to bill for 3 total days spread between his cases and therefore deprived of $150,000 in income.   23. If reversal of the underlying criminal charges is granted, Plaintiff prays for declaratory relief clarifying VC 502's ambiguous language and for an order that the Los Santos Police Department both distribute a memorandum notifying all officers of this clarification and provide proof of such distribution to this court.   24. If reversal of the underlying criminal charges is granted, Plaintiff prays for special damages in the amount of $100,000 in reasonable attorney fees for two billable days of work at a rate of $50,000 per billable day, as defined by policies of the Tzompaxtle, Rabinowitz, and Barbieri law firm.   DATED:  May 03, 2025   Respectfully Submitted,       /s/ Jacob E. Rabinowitz                                                       Jacob E. Rabinowitz                                                                                     Attorney for Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle

[Tungsten]

** Service of Process is provided.

 

((

))

[Justitiae]

** The court filing is accepted and the clerk assigns docket number 25-LSC-05121; the Honorable Francis J. Stoessel, Presiding

[Justitiae]

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS     JUAN TZOMPAXTLE,   Plaintiff,                                   v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT,   Defendant.                         Case No. 25-LSC-05121    ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

ᅠᅠ  Based upon Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle's ("Petitioner") Complaint and Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the Court hereby orders as follows:   ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ᅠᅠ  To Defendant the Los Santos Police Department: ᅠᅠ  Based upon the verified complaint filed in this action, you are ordered to appear, to show cause why the following relief should not be granted: ᅠᅠ  (1) Issuance of a writ of habeas corpus directing Defendant to produce all evidence supporting the arrest of Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle under Penal Code section 610(b), including: ᅠᅠ        a. The arresting officer's affidavit of arrest; ᅠᅠ        b. Any digital digital in-car video ("DICV") or body camera footage of the May 3, ᅠᅠ        2025 traffic stops and arrest; ᅠᅠ  (2) Declaratory relief clarifying the meaning of Vehicle Code section 502, including whether it requires use of headlights when street lamps are illuminated, irrespective of official sunset time. ᅠᅠ  (3) Any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.   ᅠᅠ  This Order to Show Cause and supporting papers shall be served on Defendant no later than May 10, 2025. Proof of such service shall be filed and delivered to the Court no later than May 12, 2025. Any reply papers shall be filed and served by Defendant on Plaintiff by no later than May 14, 2025.   ᅠᅠ    IT IS SO ORDERED.   DATED:  May 04, 2025                                    By:                  /s/ Francis J. Stoessel                                                     THE HONORABLE FRANCIS J. STOESSEL                                    Presiding Judge of the Superior Court,                                    State of San Andreas, County of Los Santos

Edited May 4 by Justitiae

[Kotwica]

Tzompaxtle v. Los Santos Police Department

Case Number: 25-LSC-05121

Prepared by: Juan Tzompaxtle
 

MOTION FOR DISMISSAL OF CRIMINAL CHARGES, VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL.

_______________________________________________
 

The defendant in this case, the Los Santos Police Department who brought the aforementioned illegal charges against me failed to respond timely (and within the timeline established by this court). I request that the criminal charges be dealt with on their merits in the below-mentioned argument. However, for the purpose of appeal and further lawsuits, I also claim that my rights to a speedy trial have been violated by the same named defendants.

The Plaintiff, pro hac vica requests this court to dismiss the aforementioned charges as they are facially unlawful. As counsel pled, the San Andreas Vehicle Code 502 ("driving without headlights") provides that a police agency "shall issue an infraction." It is unequivocally unlawful for a law enforcement agency to decide to charge "obstruction of justice" for a repeat offense of driving without headlights.

The legislative branch of San Andreas identifies two circumstances where obstruction of justice can occur.
(1) 610(a) a person who shows a clear and motivated attempt to prevent or delay a state employee from conducting their duties. Officer Bates was not prevented or delayed in conducting his duties. Officer Bates disengaged after the initial traffic stop, patrolled around the city, and only after 10-15 minutes reengaged with me north of Pershing Square. Officer Bates chose at that time to violate my constitutional rights by arresting me for a vehicle infraction. The fact that Officer Bates chose to pursue criminal charges, and even engage in a separate traffic stop is within his "officer discretion." Officer Bates initiated the traffic stop thereby invalidating any argument that he was prevented from conducting his duties. 

If the court decides otherwise, any person at any time could be arrested for a previous offense they committed however slight it is because at some point they were "put on notice."

(2) 610(b) a person who fails to comply with a peace officer's lawful orders is also not applicable in this case for the reasons aforementioned in the complaint paragraphs 14-16. The legislator of this state never intended for 610(b) to be utilized to prevent infractions. Additionally, there is no history or tradition in the United States that any legislative body would permit the use of a criminal charge to effectuate compliance with traffic infractions. The last sentence in the argument against the applicability of 610(a) also applies here. 

The plaintiff encourages the court to examine the constitutionality of 610(b) on the grounds of adequate notice. 

This request for the dismissal of criminal charges is not intended to have an impact on the arguments of the constitutionality of driving without headlights as pled in the complaint or civil damages against the LSPD and Officer Bates and Knox.

 

_______________________________________________

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 13 day of May, 2025 by:

 

/s/ JUAN TZOMPAXTLE
Juan Tzompaxtle

 

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     TZOMPAXTLE,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-05121 ───────────── DEFENDANT'S OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ─────────────   Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1578 Station Ave, 2nd Floor Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 179-9901   Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS     I.       INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. II.      JURISDICTION................................................................................................................ III.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................ IV.     LEGAL STANDARD........................................................................................................ V.     LEGAL ARGUMENT.........................................................................................................          A.      LSPD Has Fully Complied with the Court's Directive............................................ B.      Vehicle Code § 502 Is Clear and Requires No Interpretation...................................          C.      Penal Code § 601 (b) Authorizes the Arrest.............................................................          D.      Plaintiff's Habeas and Speedy-Trial Claims Are Inappropriate Here....................... E.      Judicial Economy Favors Quashing or Deeming the OSC Satisfied....................... VI.    CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................       I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") by and through counsel, respectfully submits this Opposition to the order to Show Cause issued by this Court on May 4, 2025. In that Order, Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle seeks two distinct forms of relief: (1) the immediate production of all evidentiary materials supporting Plaintiff's arrest under Penal Code § 610 (b), including the arrest affidavit and in-car recordings; and (2) declaratory relief interpreting Vehicle Code § 502's requirements for headlight usage. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, LSPD has satisfied the Court's discovery directive by providing the Declaration of Sergeant Travis Bates (Exhibit A) and the exhibits identified below. Moreover, the relevant statutes, Vehicle Code § 502 and Penal Code § 610 (b), both speak with sufficient clarity under well-established precedent, and Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief is neither necessary nor appropriate. Finally, Plaintiff's extended foray into habeas and speedy-trial arguments exceeds the scope of this civil proceeding and falls squarely outside LSPD's authority. For these reasons the Court should deem the OSC satisfied, quash it, and deny any further relief.   II.      JURISDICTION ᅠᅠ  This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and 42 U.S.C § 1983.   III.       FACTUAL BACKGROUND ᅠᅠ  1. First Traffic Stop (May 3, 2025)  On May 3, 2025, at approximately 21:30 hours, shortly after street lamps had been activated, Sergeant Travis Bates (serial #41082) observed a white Burrito (license plate 9XER151) traveling without headlights in violation of Vehicle Code § 502. Recognizing the public-safety hazard, he safely conducted a traffic stop at the intersection of Main and Hill. 2. Citation and Verbal order Sergeant Bates approached the driver, identified himself as an LSPD Sergeant, and requested license and proof of insurance. After confirming the vehicle lacked insurance (VC 301) and headlights (VC 502), he issued citations for both infractions. Before releasing the driver, he clearly communicated a lawful directive: Quote "Get your vehicle insured, and put your headlights on. If you do not turn them on, I will pull you over again, and arrest you." This warning established unequivocal notice of requirement. 3. Second Traffic Stop & Arrest (May 3, 2025) Approximately ten minutes later, in the area of Central Street near Station, Sergeant Bates observed the same Burrito still operating without headlights despite ongoing street-lamp illumination. He initiated a second stop, reminded Plaintiff of the prior order, and, upon Plaintiff's willful refusal, effected an arrest under Penal Code § 610 (b) for failure to obey a lawful order. Lieutenant Sebastian Knox provided assistance during the arrest/ 4. Evidentiary Record The entirety of both stops and the arrest was captured on Sergeant Bate's in-car digital video (DICV) system. The recordings document: a. Street lamps clearly activated b. Absence of vehicle headlights c. Citations being issued d. The verbal directive and Plaintiff's refusal ("I do not need them. Thank you for the advice though".) e. The subsequent detention and arrest process. All footage and the transcript are stored with an unbroken chain of custody and available for the Court's review.   IV.      LEGAL STANDARD ᅠᅠ  An Order to Show Cause is not a fishing expedition; it compels the production of specified evidence only where the moving party demonstrates a particularized need and relevance to the claims or defenses (Doe v. Superior Court). When evidentiary materials are already in hand and the underlying legal issues are clear, additional relief is unwarranted. The Court's inherent authority to manage discovery must be balanced against the interests of efficiency, finality, and equitable administration of justice.   V.      LEGAL ARGUMENT ᅠᅠ  A. LSPD Has Fully Complied with the Court's Directive LSPD has produced the exact materials enumerated in the OSC: 1. Exhibit A Declaration of Sergeant Travis Bates, detailing qualifications, training, and firsthand observations. 2. Exhibit B DICV footage of both traffic stops. 3. Exhibit C The sworn arrest affidavit under PC 610 (b) 4. Exhibit D Verbatim transcript of the DICV audio recordings.    These exhibits even though delayed indisputable satisfy the OSC's requirement to produce the arrest affidavit and video evidence. Plaintiff's demand for additional production is moot.   B. Vehicle Code § 502 Is Clear and Requires No Interpretaion 1. Plain-Text Clarity  Section 502 provides Quote 502. Driving Without use of Headlights A person operation a motor vehicle during darkness, defined as when street lamps are activated (between sunset and sunrise) or in adverse weather conditions with low visibility (e.g. rain, fog, snow), without using headlights shall be issued an infraction of $230.   This dual-prong definition leaves no room for conflicting interpretations: "darkness" encompasses both the temporal window of sunset to sunrise and the objective condition of illuminated street lamps or adverse weather.   2. Precedent Support Dual-Prong Statutes San Andreas courts have routinely upheld statutes with layered requirements where each serves the Legislature's safety objectives (People v. Smith); (People v. Jones).   3. Public Safety Rationale The inclusion of street-lamp activation as an independent trigger reflects a common-sense approach to roadside safety: Officers and drivers rely on visible lighting conditions, not abstract sunset times.   C. Penal Code § 601 (b) Authorizes the Arrest 1. Statutory Language  PC 610 (b) provides Quote 610. Obstruction of Justice (a) A person who shows a clear and motivated attempt to prevent or delay a state employee from conducting their duties is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of 6 hours, with parole eligible after 25 minutes. (b) A person who fails to comply with a peace officer's lawful orders is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a sentence of 4 hours, with parole eligible after 15 minutes.   2. Lawful Order Established Sergeant Bates' directive to turn on headlights was grounded in VC 502 and communicated with precision. Under well-settled law, a verbal command based on statutory authority constitutes a "lawful order" (People v. Wilson).     3. Willful Non-Compliance Plaintiff's refusal, after being afforded notice and opportunity, met the threshold for willful defiance, justifying arrest. This is not a case of ambiguous discretion but of deliberate choice.   D. Plaintiff's Habeas and Speedy-Trial Claims Are Inappropriate Here Plaintiff's Show Cause expansive prayer seeks reversal of criminal charges via writ of habeas corpus and speedy-trial relief. Such remedies lie exclusively within the criminal process and are typically pursued by a defendant in custody against the prosecuting agency.  LSPD, as one of the enforcing arms of law, lacks authority to dismiss or expedite prosecutions, a role reserved for the District Attorney's Office or the Court in a criminal proceeding.   E. Judicial Economy Favors Quashing or Deeming the OSC Satisfied Requiring further production or any declaratory ruling would waste judicial resources and unfairly burden LSPD and the Court. All responsive materials are before the Court, and the legal questions presented are straightforward. In the interest of judicial economy and finality, the Court should quash the complaint or simply deem LSPD in full compliance.     VI.      CONCLUSION ᅠᅠ  For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Los Santos Police Department respectfully requests that this Court: 1. DEEM the Order to Show Cause satisfied or quash it in its entirety; 2. DENY any request for declaratory relief regarding Vehicle Code § 502; and 3. DISMISS Plaintiff's habeas and speedy-trial claims for lack of standing and jurisdiction     DATED:  May 17, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT   EXHIBIT A   Spoiler May 14, 2025 TO: Chief Counsel, Legal Affairs Section FROM: Sergeant Bates SUBJECT: Affidavit in regards to the Tzompaxtle situation I, Sergeant Travis Bates, declare under penalty of perjury as follows: Position and Qualifications I am a sworn Sergeant with the Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD"), serial number #41082, assigned to the Victoria Area Patrol. I have over 6 years of experience in law enforcement. My training includes the San Andreas POST-certified Officer Courses and LSPD's in-service modules. Statutory Text - Vehicle Code § 502 Vehicle Code § 502 states: "A person operating a motor vehicle during darkness, defined as when street lamps are activated (between sunset and sunrise) or in adverse weather conditions with low visibility (e.g. rain, fog, snow), without using headlights shall be issued an infraction of $230" First Traffic Stop (May 3. 2025) At approximately 2130 on May 3, 2025, while on patrol near Pershing Square, I observed a White Burrito (9XER151) driving without headlights illuminated despite street lamps being active. I initiated a traffic stop at the intersection of Main and Hill. Citations and Verbal Order I approached the driver's window, identified myself, and requested license and proof of insurance. I issued citations for: Vehicle Code § 502 (no headlights when street lamps activated); and Vehicle Code § 301 (no proof of insurance on person) Before releasing him, I gave a clear, verbal directive: Travis Bates says: Get your vehicle insured, and put your headlights on. Travis Bates says: If you do not turn them on, I will pull you over again, and arrest you. Interim After issuing the citations and confirming the driver understood, I cleared the stop and resumed patrol. I notified dispatch of the two infractions and my verbal order. Second Traffic Stop & Arrest In the area of Central street cross of Station, I again saw the same vehicle traveling without headlights under the same street-lamp conditions. I conducted a second stop. The driver refused to comply with my prior directive. Believing his non-compliance to be intentional, and pursuant to Penal Code § 610(b), I placed him under arrest for failure to obey a lawful order. Video Evidence My patrol vehicle is equipped with digital in-car video ("DICV). Those recordings clearly show: The headlights of vehicle 9XER151 being off despite the overhead lights being on. Two citations issued on Main Street Jaun Tzompaxtle stating, "I do not need them. Thank you for the advice though." Travis Bates stating, "You do need them. If you do not turn them on, I will pull you over again, and arrest you." The same vehicle, 9XER151, with headlights off on the area of Central street. The arrest being conducted. The original footage is stored in LSPD's Evidence Vault, chain-of-custody intact, and is available for the Courts' inspection. Statutory Clarity Vehicle Code § 502 is crystal-clear: once "darkness" as defined by active street lamps exists, headlights must be used. There is no ambiguity to interpret; the dual definition simply ensures both automatic street lighting and poor-weather scenarios are covered. Purpose of This Affidavit This affidavit is provided in response to the Court's May 4, 2025, Order compelling cause in Juan Tzompaxtle v. Los Santos Police Department, Case No. 25-LSC-05121. The statements herein are based on my official duties and knowledge of training protocols within the LSPD. I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of San Andreas that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 9th of May, 2025, in Los Santos, San Andreas. Travis Bates TRAVIS BATES, Police Sergeant I Watch Supervisor Victoria Area Patrol EXHIBIT B (( Can be sent via PMs )) EXHIBIT C   Spoiler May 17, 2025 TO: Chief Counsel, Legal Affairs Section FROM: Sergeant Bates SUBJECT: Arrest Affidavit — Juan Tzompaxtle I, Sergeant Travis Bates, having been duly sworn, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of San Andreas that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief: On May 3, 2025, at approximately 2130 hours, while on routine patrol in the vicinity of Main Street and Hill Street, I observed a white Burrito bearing license plate 9XER151 traveling without headlights illuminated, despite active street lamps, in violation of Vehicle Code § 502 I initiated a traffic stop and approached the driver's side window. I identified myself verbally as "Sergeant Travis Bates of the Los Santos Police Department". I requested the driver's license and proof of insurance. Upon review, the operator, later identified as Juan Tzompaxtle, had no headlights (Vehicle Code § 502) and no proof of insurance in possession (Vehicle Code § 301). I issued citations for both violations. Prior to releasing Mr. Tzompaxtle from the first stop, I issued a lawful order stating: "Get your vehicle insured, and put your headlights on. If you do not turn them on, I will pull you over again, and arrest you". Mr. Tzompaxtle willfully refused to comply with my lawful directive to turn on his headlights, stating, "I do not need them. Thank you for the advice though," thereby demonstrating a deliberate refusal to obey. I then cleared the stop and resumed patrol. Approximately 30 minutes later, while on patrol near Central Street at Station Avenue, I observed the same white Burrito traveling without headlights under the same street-lamp conditions. I conducted a second traffic stop. I again approached Mr. Tzompaxtle, reminded him of my prior lawful order to activate his vehicle's headlights, and requested compliance. Based on the foregoing facts and my training and experience, I had probable cause to believe that Mr. Tzompaxtle committed a misdemeanor violation of Penal Code § 610 (b) by willfully refusing to obey a lawful order of a peace officer. Accordingly, I place him under arrest. Lieutenant Sebastian Knox (Serial #41324) assisted with the arrest and initial search incident to arrest Mr. Tzompaxtle was informed of his Miranda rights and transported to the Los Santos Station for booking. All actions described herein were recorded on my in-car digital video (DICV). The recordings are stored in the Evidence Vault under chain of custody and are available for review. Executed on this 6th of May, 2025, in Los Santos, San Andreas. Travis Bates TRAVIS BATES, Police Sergeant I Watch Supervisor Victoria Area Patrol EXHIBIT D (( Can be sent via PMs ))

Edited May 17 by elgreco

[elgreco]

** Proof of Service updated via E-File **

((

))

Edited May 17 by elgreco

[elgreco]

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF SAN ANDREAS COUNTY OF LOS SANTOS CIVIL DIVISION     TZOMPAXTLE,   Plaintiff,           v.         LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT   Defendants.                                                   Case No. 25-LSC-05121 ───────────── NOTICE OF EX PARTE APPLICATION AND MOTION ─────────────   Ibraheem A. Davis, State Bar No. 081000067 [email protected] 1578 Station Ave, 2nd Floor Los Santos, San Andreas 90071 179-9901   Attorney for Defendant LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS     I.       INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................. II.      JURISDICTION................................................................................................................ III.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................ IV.     LEGAL ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................          A.      Authority of Relief.................................................................................................... B.      There is Good Cause and No Prejudice....................................................................          C.      Substantial Compliance and Judicial Economy....................................................... V.    CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................     PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Los Santos Police Department ("LSPD") will and hereby does apply ex parte to the Honorable Francis J. Stoessel on May 19, 2025, (or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard), for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 473 (d) and the Court's inherent authority, granting relief nunc pro tunc from the service deadline of May 10, 2025, and the proof-of-service deadline of May 12, 2025, as set forth in this Court's Order to Show Cause dated May 4, 2025. This Application is brought on the grounds of inadvertent calendaring error, excusable neglect, and absence of prejudice to Plaintiff, and is based on this Notice, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Declaration of Chief Counsel, and the entire record in this action.   MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES   I.       INTRODUCTION ᅠᅠ  Defendant LSPD respectfully requests that the Court exercise its equitable powers and statutory authority under CCP § 473 (d) to excuse and sanitize the late service and late proof of service of LSPD's Opposition to the OSC. Due to an internal calendaring oversight, the Opposition and supporting exhibits, though fully prepared by the requisite deadline, were not served or filed until May 17, 2025. This brief delay has not prejudiced Plaintiff. Accordingly LSPD seeks an order deeming service of the Opposition and exhibits timely as of May 10, 2025, and deeming the Proof of Service timely as of May 12, 2025. Such relief serves the interests of justice by avoiding hyper-technical forfeiture and focusing the litigation on the substantive issues.   II.      JURISDICTION ᅠᅠ  This Court has jurisdiction under the San Andreas Constitution and the Code of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10 and 42 U.S.C § 1983.     III.     FACTUAL BACKGROUND ᅠᅠ  1. On May 4, 2025, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Defendant to serve its Opposition to the OSC and supporting papers by May 10, 2025, and to file Proof of Service by May 12, 2025. 2. LSPD's counsel timely completed drafting of the Opposition brief, the Declaration of Sgt. Bates, and all supporting exhibits by no later than May 10, 2025. 3. An inadvertent administrative calendaring error caused counsel to overlook the service and proof deadlines. As a result, no documents were served or filed by the respective deadlines. 4. Upon discovering the rror on May 17, 2025, LSPD's counsel immediately served the Opposition package, including the ex parte application, on Plaintiff's counsel and is now filing the necessary Proof of Service. 5. Plaintiff has received all materials, has not requested continuance and has suffered no prejudice or tactical disadvantage due to the five-day delay in service.     III.    LEGAL ARGUMENT ᅠᅠ  A. Authority of Relief CCP § 473 (d) authorized the Court to relieve a party from procedural default cause by inadvertent mistake or excusable neglect. Courts routinely grant relief where a part demonstrates a clerical or calendaring mistake and absence of prejudice to the opposing party (Bank of America v. Ross (1984)) Here, counsel's error was inadvertent and not motivated by bad faith or intentional disregard of the Court's mandates. B. There Is Good Cause and No Prejudice Good cause for relief exists when the failure to serve or file timely was the result of inadvertent clerical error. Courts consider whether the delay prejudiced the opposing party; in this case, Plaintiff has had full access to all Opposition materials since May 17, 2025, and has not indicated any inability to respond or adverse impact on preparation. Under these circumstances, equitable considerataions weigh in favor of granting relief. C. Substantial Compliance and Judicial Economy LSPD substantially complied with the OSC by preparing all required filings and exhibits by the deadlines, and by promptly serving them upon discovery of the oversight. Enforcing a harsh sanction for such minimal delay would waste judicial resources and distract from the core merits, namely, the clarity of Vehicle Code § 502, and the validity of Sgt. Bates' lawful order under PC § 610 (b). An order granting relief promotes judicial efficinecy and respects the parties' substantive rights.   III.    LEGAL ARGUMENT WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court: 1. GRANT relief under CCP § 473 (d) nunc pro tunc, treating service of LSPD's Opposition to the Order to Show Cause as timely on May 10, 2025; 2. DEEM the Proof of Service timely filed nunc pro tunc on May 12, 2025; 3. EXTEND or re-set any deadlines for replies or further briefing at the Court's discretion; and 4. GRANT such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.   DATED:  May 17, 2025                                                          By:       /s/ Ibraheem A. Davis                                                       Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT (( ATTACHED DECLARATION)) I, Ibraheem A. Davis, Chief Counsel for the Los Santos Police Department, declare under penalty of perjury: 1. The Legal Affairs Section ("LAS") prepared and finalized the Opposition to the Order to Show Cause and all supporting exhibits by May 10, 2025. 2. Due to an inadvertent calendaring oversight within my officer's case management system, the documents were not served or filed until May 17, 2025. 3. I immediately took corrective action by serving the materials on Plaintiff's counsel and preparing the instant ex parte application. 4. To my knowledge, Plaintiff has received all filings and suffered no prejudice. 5. I respectfully request that the Court exercise its discretion and grant relief pursuant to CCP § 473 (d). Executed on May 17, 2025, at Los Santos, San Andreas.   Ibraheem A. Davis                                                                                     Chief Counsel                                                                        LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT

[Tungsten]

Subject:  Order to Show Cause; Deadline Exceeded; Motion for Summary Judgment

To: Francis Stoessel <[email protected]>
From: [email protected]

CC: [email protected]

The parties have exchanged motions and briefs enough to make the point of what we are trying to achieve here. The Los Santos Police Department has unfortunately breached the terms of your order to show cause and filed their response three days late. This has resulted in further denial of Mr. Tzompaxtle's right to a fair and speedy trial. We respectfully request that, for all of the reasons previously filed, your honor reject the recent briefs that were filed late and issue summary judgment as there is no genuine dispute of material fact – only legal argumentation.

Respectfully,

JACOB E. RABINOWITZ

Attorney for Plaintiff Juan Tzompaxtle

Tzompaxtle, Rabinowitz, and Barbieri LLP

 

[n0de101]

(( As per the recent announcement from LFM, courts are being placed on an indefinite hold effective immediately. As such all ongoing court proceedings are being terminated. ))