Department of Justice
Mr Chris Gomez
PO Box 1522,
City of Los Santos, LS, 9000
Thank you for contacting the Department with regards to a police complaint. We have since completed our internal investigations, as well as interviewing relevant individuals in the Los Santos Police Department.
Under Freedom of Information laws (Civil Rights Act), we will be providing you with a response on your complaint in full. However for the protection of a current Police operation, no materials will be supplied with the response.
In our response we will address the following concerns:
a. Reasonable grounds for arrest, detainment and search of individuals
b. Whether a warrant was issued for the search
c. Whether a police report was submitted for corporate corruption related offences
d. Whether Commisioner of LSPD has the right to order this operation
e. Whether LSPD operations were in violation of property rights
f. Whether the Captain of the LSPD City Division had committed manslaughter
g. Whether LSPD has the right to suspend the operations of a registered business in Los Santos, and the right to freeze assets.
h. Whether the convicted (or complainant in this case), was charged in accordance with the relevant Acts of law.
i. Whether Civil Rights Act was violated on the grounds for refusing a legal representative
j. Whether the Captain of the LSPD City Division has acted unprofessionally.
Firstly, the test for reasonable grounds involves whether they're in an area of known criminal hotpost, whether they have personally witnessed a criminal activity, whether they are at a crime scene or whether they have received a tip off from a third party. For the purpose of this case, the department received a finalised police report at 0225hrs today. The report indicates that it was an undercover police operation involving a third party civilian recording first-hand evidence. Therefore we have determined that there were reasonable grounds for police actions, including, but are not limited to searching suspects, and any accomplices or in accompany of suspects, as well as their vehicles.
Therefore, we can conclude that a warrant was also not required for the searches if the searches were carried out in accordance with s4 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act, and as such, no warrants were issued by the Department of Justice. There has also been no reports of any properties being searched nor any material evidence being seized from the scene.
With regards to the application of s13 of the said act, the Commissioner of Police has the authority to order an investigation into a registered company and its executives. And in accordance with the same section, LSPD is required to provide a police report at the earliest opportunity with all evidence attached to the Department of Justice. As mentioned above, the Department received a police report as mandated by the law within a reasonable timeframe from the LSPD, as well as any evidence that supports such claims.
The current application of s10 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act concerns private properties. As the property is owned by the Crown in right of the State of Los Santos, the land and the building is considered public property, and therefore s10 in its current state does not apply. We have since forwarded this feedback to the State Parliament in hopes that an amendment of s10 will be passed to cover police procedures with public properties, to ensure their operations shall cause minimal disruptions to the general public.
After questioning of individuals involved, and received relevant evidence such as camera footage of the scene, we have also determined that Mr Arnold Rimmer was not in fact killed at the scene, but rather, knocked out by police officers with the use of a taser, as the civilian was uncooperative to police instructions, and have gotten too close in proximity to the officer attempting to operate a police taser. Their actions are justified under s15 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act.
The LSPD has no rights under any legislations to prohibit a business from operating, nor the ability to freeze or seize assets without a search warrant issued. However they did not intend to close the dealership, but rather, they intended to prevent any disruptions and delays to their operations by the general public while they were investigating a crime scene and in search for any additional evidence that may assist the case, in order to restore the dealership to normal operations as soon as practicable. The Department of Justice has since issued a notice to the Captain of the LSPD City Division to be careful on the use of words or actions that may reflect poorly on the image of the LSPD.
The convicted was proven by evidence supplied in the police report to have received and was in possession of marked notes exceeding $50,001. Under s1 of Crime and Corruption Act, the convicted was lawfully prosecuted for the offence, and subsequently received the maximum fine as permitted by the Crimes Act and received 20 months imprisonment, as noted by your letter.
The LSPD had refused a number of legal representative including yourself (Mr Gomez) and Mr Brian Stewart on the grounds that the two legal representatives had misrepresented themselves as a legal practitioner (claiming lawyer and solicitor respectively), but failed to provide the relevant qualification to support such claims. As the Police station was a secured/restricted area, the police force have the right to refuse entry or disperse any civilians in the area on the grounds for its protection and security, including but not limited to from fights, shooting, identity fraud, etc. The Captain of the LSPD City Division has since been notified of the Government's stance on the relevant provision of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act, as a clarification that:
"s6 of the Act provides a suspect the right to a legal representative, who does not have to be a legal practitioner, with the purpose to assist the suspect such as to provide legal advise, to provide comfort or to witness police questioning/interviews to ensure the suspect received a fair treatment and was not questioned under duress."
Finally, the Captain of the LSPD City Division has admitted to the unprofessional wording used when prompted for a warrant, and has agreed to be careful with his actions as it may reflect poorly on the LSPD as a whole. The Department of Justice has since issued a written notice to the Captain, and will also advise Commissioner of LSPD of the complaint outcome.
In summary, we have found that:
a. There were reasonable grounds for an arrest and search of any individuals involved;
b. A warrant was not required for the search as it was carried out in accordance with s4 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act;
c. A police report was submitted to Department of Justice within a reasonable timeframe;
d. The Commissioner of LSPD has the right to order this investigation under s13 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act;
e. LSPD did not violate s10 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act during this operation;
f. The Captain acted in accordance with s15 of the Police Force (Judicial Procedures) Act when dealing with the uncooperative citizen;
g. The LSPD did not suspend the operation of the business, however have been advised on the wording to be used in order to not cause confusion;
h. Mr. David Pronto was charged in accordance with s1 of the Crime and Corruptions Act;
i. There were no violation of the Civil Rights Act for refusing a legal representative on the grounds that the said legal representative had misrepresented their profession and failed to provide identifications to prove their claims, in a restricted area; and,
j. The Captain of LSPD City Division had indeed acted unprofessionally with the wording used during a confrontation and has since been reprimanded.
This complaint is therefore resolved, and a copy has been forwarded to the LSPD Commissioner's Office. If you're unsatisfied with the outcome you're welcome to appeal.
Department of Justice