Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Michael last won the day on April 11

Michael had the most liked content!

About Michael

  • Birthday 09/19/1996

Staff Position

  • Head of Staff

Connect With Me

  • Discord
  • Ingame Name

Recent Profile Visitors

7,232 profile views

Michael's Achievements


Veteran (13/14)



  1. Your honor, Captain Guanti did not say that he performed any administrative interviews as part of Internal Affairs Bureau - it is completely reasonable that a Captain in charge of a tactical unit would know what the procedures for an administrative investigation are. As far as I am aware - and this court is aware - Captain Guanti is not privy to Internal Affairs Bureau procedures. The question is entirely based on his role as a Captain and a commander of a department unit.
  2. Hello!! It's Sunday again so we're here with another game update! This one doesn't add a whole lot in the way of script features but is more focused on QOL and bug fixes. - Added 200% booster to exp gain in happy hours between 7pm and 11pm - Adds beginning of drug paraphernalia furniture items (glass bongs) - Adds more detailed logging around player damages - Adds the ability to /leavegun a camera - Adds current entrance fee to business info printout for restaurants - Fixes a server crash that happened when a brief network disconnect was experienced - Fixes an issue where offline admin jails put a player into regular prison - Fixes an issue that prevented offline admin jails from working at all - Fixes property auction winners not being automatically awarded the property on auction end - Fixes an issue that caused restaurants to spawn money to players when the type was changed - Fixes to the poker system that caused poker games to freeze - Fixes a crash in /tpda when selecting the Blueberry distribution hub We are still focusing on what you voted for on the Roadmap - Los Santos Roleplay (ls-rp.com) and we expect to see some of that come to fruition soon! We will also be announcing staff reinstatements & new testers at the end of the month in our Community Update so look out for that!
  3. Your honor, Captain Guanti has performed 25 administrative interviews himself. He knows what the correct procedure is for performing one, I would hope. Thus question seven is not calling for speculation. Question nine also does not call for speculation - Captain Guanti has performed 25 administrative interviews and he would know first hand if the subjects of these interviews have felt tense during their interview. Captain Guanti has first hand knowledge of whether or not people that have broken the department's rules have seemed tense. And your honor, allow me to rephrase question 10. Was Mr. Castillo on administrative leave during the interview by the Internal Affairs Bureau?
  4. "Your honor, we object to the following answer. This is speculative. Captain Guanti is guessing." ** Sophie Thyne awaits a response from Judge Hockenbeyer. ** "Thank you, your honor. Q1: Are you currently assigned to, or work in the Internal Affairs Bureau in any capacity? Q2: Were any of these administrative interviews related to the use of force by an employee? Q3: Were any of these administrative interview subjects placed on administrative leave at any point before, during, or after the interview for a reason related to use of force by the employee? Q4: Do you know for certain that a one-way mirror was installed in the room or are you simply making an inferrence? Q5: Given that you were sat closest to the door, did you feel that the investigators were in a position to prevent you from leaving at any time? Q6: Were the investigators acting in a way that would make the average person in the street feel tense? Q7: Is it standard procedure for the subject of an investigation to be allowed to carry a firearm when meeting with investigators? Q8: Is it standard procedure for a peace officer to carry a firearm in their own place of work? Q9: Would you say that it is reasonable for an employee who has broken the rules to feel tense when being interviewed by their managers? Q10: Were you on administrative leave during the interview by the Internal Affairs Bureau? Q11: (Follow-up if yes) Are employees on administrative leave reasonably allowed to carry their issued firearm? (( Only to be asked if the earlier objection is overruled. )) Q12: Were you or Mr. Castillo, at any point during the interview, physically prevented from leaving by investigators or other physical blockages, for example furniture or locks? Q13: Did you or Mr. Castillo, at any point during the interview, ask if you could leave?
  5. "Your honour, we object to questions thirteen through eighteen on the grounds that they are immaterial to the case being tried here. The case being brought before the court is whether or not Mr. Castillo's Garrity rights were violated. Anything after Mr. Castillo signed the Garrity warning and was placed on notice that he was under investigation is not relevant to the claims surrounding the initial field interview."
  6. "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."
  7. Stefan Castillo v. Los Santos County Sheriff's Department Case Number: LCS-CV-2024-001 Prepared by: Sophie Thyne MOTION TO DISMISS _______________________________________________ Defence is requesting that The Court dismisses this case due to no cause of action existing. Plaintiff's total lack of evidence even after compelling a confidential, ongoing investigative file from Defence - which has jeopardised a lawful inquiry into the non-fatal shooting of a black man with merely a baseball bat by a peace officer - and the fact that Plaintiff's own attorney no longer sees merit in pursuing this case, and that Plaintiff has not responded to the 24 hours given by the court, should show His Honor Judge Hockenbeyer that there is no cause of action for this suit to be brought against Defence and as such should be dismissed without further delay. Plaintiff had the entirety of the current phase of court - which has taken 10 days as of this motion - to produce any kind of evidence that would support Plaintiff's case, and they have produced exactly nothing even after needlessly compromising a lawful investigation. _______________________________________________ Certification. The undersigned swears or affirms, under penalty of perjury, that the information contained herein is truthful to the best of his knowledge. Sworn this 9th day of July, 2024 by: /s/ SOPHIE THYNE Sophie Thyne
  8. Your honour, now is not the time to be "raising concerns", we've complied with the motions given to us - if Mr. Castillo wants to dispute the evidence that his own attorney demanded that we submit, he needs to do that during trial.
  9. How the department's administrative leave policy aligns with the distinction between administrative leave and disciplinary actions outlined in the department's Manual of Policy and Procedure (MPP) Section 3-01/010.10. Administrative leave, your honour, is a type of leave in which the employee retains their full pay and benefits. The Sheriff's Department does not differ from this definition. The closest relevant disciplinary action from the MPP is a suspension, which is where an employee is forbidden from conducting their duties for a period of time. Mr. Castillo was not in fact forbidden from conducting his duties by the Department, but was instead placed on leave. Mr. Castillo was told that he needed to surrender his firearm, and this is why the administrative leave was enacted. Mr. Castillo was more than welcome to contact the Internal Affairs Bureau to see what duties he could perform that do not require the use of a firearm, but instead opted to ride out his paid leave without asking if such a thing could be arranged. The specific procedures and timelines in place for administrative leave, particularly after use-of-force incidents. Administrative leave generally lasts until a use of force investigation is concluded, however may be concluded earlier based on a number of factors as and when department management determines that administrative leave is no longer necessary. In this case, Mr. Castillo was afforded the courtesy of concluding the administrative leave early while an executive use of force review committee was set up, as a commitment to Mr. Castillo that the Sheriff's Department does not treat its employees unfairly. The procedure for placing a person on administrative leave has been explained already. The Internal Affairs Bureau may place any employee on administrative leave over use of force incidents. This is entirely discretionary and at the will of department management and the Internal Affairs Bureau based on whether or not the investigating officer feels there is a necessity. This could be for reasons such as to protect the affected deputy from public opinion or the opinion of fellow deputies, to gather evidence or guarantee that evidence cannot be unintentionally disturbed, and to prepare for an upcoming administrative investigation where it is required that the affected deputy does not have access to a firearm. In this case, Mr. Castillo was placed on administrative leave in preparation for an upcoming administrative investigation, and due to the nature - use of force by a government officer - it was deemed necessary that Mr. Castillo not retain his service firearm so that the factors of the incident could be preserved as best they could in order to guarantee a fair and undisturbed investigation into an incident where a citizen of the state was shot by a government officer. Whether Sergeant Castillo's rights were violated during the initial field interview in regards of asking for legal assistance. Forgive me your honour, but as I have already explained, the field interview was not incriminating and had no possibility of being incriminating, hence Mr. Castillo not being given a Garrity warning or a Miranda warning. Mr. Castillo had no right to legal assistance during the field interview because he was not under threat of any legal repercussions, or any departmental action based on Mr. Castillo's performance, and thus neither Miranda nor Garrity applied. And forgive me your honour, but should the Plaintiff not be asking these questions in trial? @almightybounter @Levy
  10. Your honour, we have fulfilled the Order Granting Motion to Compel in Part. Addressing the justification for placing Sergeant Castillo on administrative leave. Your honour, the justification for placing Stefan Castillo on Administrative Leave was the fact he discharged his firearm in the line of duty. While not strictly enforced, it is common practice in every department in the United States to place a peace officer on administrative leave when they discharge their firearm, especially if they strike another person. This is not a disciplinary measure, and Deputy Castillo was not deprived of his pay or departmental benefit eligibility during the duration of his administrative leave. As per the Department's Manual of Policy and Procedure, which Mr. Castillo is thoroughly acquainted with as an experienced peace officer, discipline is defined as the following: Mr. Castillo was not disciplined as per the Department's definitions. Further, the Internal Affairs Bureau reserves the right to place an individual on administrative leave for any investigation when it comes to use of force. The Department member was placed on it due to the fact no clear facts were presented to us, therefore we had to separate the Department member from their duty weapon and service until we figured out what happened. This was a peace officer-involved shooting in which a civilian was struck by a bullet, fired from a government-issued firearm. This is the kind of thing that demands concentration and effort to make sure all the facts are correct, and to protect Mr. Castillo from the court of public opinion. Concerning the specific policy or regulation violated by Sergeant Castillo, if any. Mr. Castillo was not determined to have violated any specific policy or regulation before the administrative leave was enacted. Administrative leave is not punitive or disciplinary in nature so this would not have happened even if Mr. Castillo had been determined to have violated a specific policy or regulation. Tell me - administrative leave includes full pay and benefits. Would a person being disciplined be awarded their full pay and benefits? Concerning the details of the ongoing investigation, considering the REDACTED materials already provided. "The details" have all been forwarded to the court and to Plaintiff as per the motion to compel that was accepted in part. The Sheriff's Department is prepared to talk about anything included in that material more specifically if asked. On whether or not the administrative leave constitutes retaliation for Sergeant Castillo asserting his rights during the field interview. The Use of Force field interview is not a disciplinary interview and is merely a background investigation into why something happened that is then used to determine if an internal investigation is even necessary. Use of Force field interviews are not part of an administrative or criminal investigation against a peace officer that is being interviewed, and is instead a tool to determine the narrative of the use of force. Mr. Castillo was not afforded a Garrity warning during this use of force field interview because Mr. Castillo was at no point under threat of incrimination as a result of this field interview. The process would have been for use of force investigators to interview Mr. Castillo, paint a background picture, and then either recommend or not recommend that an internal investigation be opened. Mr. Castillo's refusal to assist law enforcement in a lawful enquiry into the use of force by a government officer against a citizen of this state prompted the internal investigation to be commissioned, and as previously explained, the Internal Affairs Bureau may place an individual on administrative leave for any active investigation when it comes to use of force. Mr. Castillo incorrectly assumed that the fact-gathering, background-painting field interview was an administrative investigation against Mr. Castillo, and refused to cooperate with a lawful law enforcement investigation, and as such an administrative investigation was commissioned. After all, your honour, what active peace officer actively tries to block a lawful investigation? Especially based on rights that he is not even afforded, such as the Garrity rights, because it was not an administrative investigation on Mr. Castillo and there was no threat of Mr. Castillo being incriminated through this use of force field interview. In Mr. Castillo's follow up interview, where he was afforded his Garrity rights because there was now an administrative investigation on Mr. Castillo, it is made clear that investigators are still just trying to paint that background picture, that narrative on what actually happened. I want to reiterate this. Mr. Castillo himself answered that the use of force field interview at the hospital, and I'm quoting direct from the transcript here, "this wasn't during any official investigation." Mr. Castillo was fully aware that there was no official investigation underway, and thus knew that he was not under threat of incrimination, and thus the Garrity rights did not apply during the use of force investigation. Mr. Castillo still intentionally blocked a lawful investigation into the use of force by a government officer against a citizen of the state. This is why Mr. Castillo was placed on administrative leave, for the now active administrative investigation into Mr. Castillo's use of force, not as retaliation for him refusing to cooperate with a use of force interview.
  11. Your honour, more "we believe" and no "we have evidence that suggests..." talk here. The plaintiff's motion to compel is not based on any kind of fact, but mere belief, and should be rejected.
  12. Your honour, mere "belief" is not enough to compel a private - no, confidential - file of an active investigation on a member of the department that is also currently actively serving. To compel this file would place the administrative investigation's integrity in jeopardy at a time when it needs to be as fair, un-rushed and thorough as possible to make sure that plaintiff Stefan Castillo is treated fairly and equally under the law. To intentionally disrupt Mr. Castillo's investigation now could be detrimental to Mr. Castillo. Further, can the plaintiff actually provide anything more than "we believe" that what they are seeking is in this case file? Otherwise what stops me from requesting Mr. Castillo's bank statements on the off-chance that there might be something related to his performance as a peace officer? @almightybounter
  13. Good morning, Sophie Thyne for the Los Santos Police Department. I will be representing the Los Santos County Sheriff's Department in this case due to staffing shortages.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.