DK
Does the training guide mention whether or not a suspect needs to run away to constitute a proper pursuit?
What is Emerald’s rank within the legal state/MoJ?
Is their position responsible for changing the ambiguity of section 11 of the Criminal Code?
Is it their responsibility to find a universal interpretation of the law?


BeezerGeezer
Who was the owner of the plot at the time of the event?
Was the plaintiff an official owner of the farm at the time of the event?
Why did you let Robideman2 live on your farm?
Were you aware of his extensive criminal record, while sheltering him?

Objection Relevance
The following questions are irrelevant
Why did you let Robideman2 live on your farm?
Were you aware of his extensive criminal record, while sheltering him?
Is it their responsibility to find a universal interpretation of the law?

Sustained in part. The Court will allow the last question for now. The witnesses are directed to answer the rest of the Defense’s questions.

@Bezzergeezer @DK3458

RealHanuta said:

DK
Does the training guide mention whether or not a suspect needs to run away to constitute a proper pursuit?
What is Emerald’s rank within the legal state/MoJ?
Is their position responsible for changing the ambiguity of section 11 of the Criminal Code?
Is it their responsibility to find a universal interpretation of the law?

Click to expand...

Does the training guide mention whether or not a suspect needs to run away to constitute a proper pursuit?

No

What is Emerald’s rank within the legal state/MoJ?

Police Officer

Is their position responsible for changing the ambiguity of section 11 of the Criminal Code?

Police Officers are not responsible for making or changing policies or the law.

Is it their responsibility to find a universal interpretation of the law?

No, that would be the job of a judge, Id imagine

Who was the owner of the plot at the time of the event?

I was renting the plot from MUD at time of the event.

Was the plaintiff an official owner of the farm at the time of the event?

The plaintiff was a worker and a shareholder of the company.

Objection, Your Honour, Unresponsive Answer

Bezzergeezer said:

The plaintiff was a worker and a shareholder of the company.

Click to expand...

The Defense askd that the Witness clarifies whether or not the plaintiff was an official owner of the plot.

Should this Objection be overruled, I ask that Your Honour let's me rephrase the question.

I’ll allow you to rephrase the question

Thank you, Your Honour

Mr BeezerGeezer:
Was the plaintiff a registered owner or tenant of the plot at the time of the event?

Robidemon2 was not a tenant or owner of the plot, he was a member of the plot.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for your time. The Plaintiff now has 48 hours to present a closing statement.

Closing Statement
During this case there has been one prevailing factor that has been presented in all of the MOJs dealings, that is confusion. At the start of the altercation as shown by the opening filing MR DK said that "When you have an active arrest warrant" police can enter your property. Mr Hanuta made the same statement in the response to the initial complaint, alleging the very same thing and even contending the qualification of the farm plot as "private property". Later on Mr Emerald the arresting officer said that an arrest warrant was not enough thus defying Mr Brehmers statement and General DKs. The MOJ has also attempted to argue that my arrest constituted a "pursuit", as per the cambridge dictionary pursuit is "the act of following someone or something to try to catch him, her, or it" defense council has unsuccesfully argued that a pursuit can occur without the "following" part.

Plaintiff believes this conditional was added in order to give officers the opportunity to arrest a suspect "fleeing" into private property not to give officers the opportunity to enter private property under the premise of a pursuit. As previously said Plaintiff also believes that . Mr Anthony.org's statement concurrs with my belief that there is a large tree line besides the property, I think this would not have made me visible. None of the conditionals were met for my arrest to occur and like I have previously said

While the act does say that "The Ministry of Justice must obtain a warrant before entering or searching private property" I think its important to analyze what the intent of the language is. A warrant is the quintessential protection the individual has to overzealous government officials, and when reading this criminal code the language seems to me to be trying to achieve just that. The word that points at this the most is "searching", when looking at the constitution we see that one of the many rights given to the citizens of Azalea is the right against "unreasonable search and seizure". A warrant exists to protect said right this warrant is called a search warrant where once again we see that key word feature, "A court order authorizing law enforcement to search a specific location...". An arrest warrant would never be able to protect the citizen's constitutional right thus the existence of the search warrant, one which I think the criminal code act expressly references by its use of the word search in Section 11(d). Even looking at the caveats attached we see this theory be reinforced:

When consent has been given by the property owner or occupant.

In cases of emergency, where there is an immediate threat to life, safety, or property.

When the property is in plain view, and the search or seizure is related to a crime being committed in the presence of law enforcement.

When pursuing a suspect who has fled into the property.

When authorized by a valid court order for a specific investigation or operation.


It is abundantly clear that every single one of the conditionals are there to point at cases where a search is no longer "unreasonable", words like "pursue", "emergency", and consent all point to this fact. If the conditionals try to address this constitutional protection would it be too much to assume that the warrant in question is the one that aims to do the exact same thing?

Law enforcement has wrongly interpreted the criminal code act and has violated the rights afforded to Plaintiff by the constitution.

Thank you. The Defense has 48 hours to provide a closing statement. The Court sincerely apologies for the delay, I am finishing up finals.

Your Honor, the Minister of Justice appears to be currently occupied with real world circumstances.

As such, I am requesting to be added as counsel for the Defendant, and I am requesting a 72 hour extension so that I can review the case and get up to speed.

Your Honour,

I sincerely apologise for not responding to the case. The last week has been a though one for me due to illness and IRL occupation. Now, I am available again and will finish the case.

I request another extension of 48 hours to finish up the closing statement so that I can deliver it tomorrow afternoon, Middle European Standard Time.

Thank you for your understanding.

Your Honour,
The plaintiff accuses the defense to be confused, yet it is him to which this applies. Emerald never once stated that, against the perception of the defense, an arrest warrant would be insufficient, which would also constitute improper opinion and therefore a statement that is irrelevant to the taking of evidence. And to add to their confusion, the plaintiff tries to substantiate their view with vague dictionary definitions and overanalysation of single words in addition to a rather questionable perception of our constitutional rights.

But see, your Honour, it is so very simple. Let’s pretend the court gives in to the plaintiff’s claims and drops all charges publicly for everyone to see. Many people will probably not care but I can tell your Honour, who does care: the criminals. Mischievous people will see this judgement and understand that in order to escape law enforcement they would have to merely hide on a more or less invisible property with their fellow mates and pretend to work there or some other stuff. They would just need to find a friend who owns a property and lets them live there - not even be part of the tenancy agreement - and we can not get to them. Your Honour call me crazy or pessimistic but it is realistic that we soon live in a reality in which law enforcement has ultimately been undermined should the plaintiff’s filing be sustained. I can only repeat myself, we cannot let this madness be unleashed upon our legal state.

Our constitution protects us from government overreach that is true, and the criminal code does this as well. Yet, it is noticeable that the Criminal Code does not define which warrant is needed which could be accidental but to me seems intentional given the importance of a clear definition. No author of the criminal code would have wanted such an ambiguity on such an important matter, which is why I believe section 11 of the criminal code is written in this way not to give way for interpretation but because both warrants - arrest warrant and search warrant - are liable to constitute a legal entering of property.

I also agree with the Plaintiff on the matter, that protection from unreasonable search and seizure is a very important constitutional right. Yet it is also important to note that this protection has its limit. What makes an unreasonable search and seizure reasonable can be found in the criminal code, as the Plaintiff has already laid out. I have already spoken at length about this in my opening statement, but I would like to add one thing: I believe that there are situations, in which these protections can not be upheld for an individual. For example, if somebody’s actions are clearly directed against the constitution and the rule of law like taking somebody’s life or robbing and therefore disregard their fundamental rights as well. If not to catch a dangerous criminal, when else is this protection no longer reasonable?

And I intentionally used the word “dangerous”, because, Your Honour, you have to know that during this trial, the plaintiff’s criminal record included multiple theft and murder charges. They were not merely a little offender but full blown criminal but we couldn’t do anything against it. And they knew that as long as this case was going on and as long as they continued to stay on their little farm, we would not do anything. As long as they held onto their plan, they could undermine public safety as long as they wanted without the interference of the police. Our legal state grants our citizens protection of property but also has the obligation to guarantee freedom and security. Now it is up to Your Honour to decide, which principle prevails.

I believe that it must be the latter.

COURT OPINION

I hereby rule in favor of the government of the Azalea Isles. The basis of this ruling comes from a few standout points:

The Criminal Code states “The Ministry of Justice must obtain a warrant before entering or searching private property”, but does not specify the type. The Court could draw the conclusion that to enter the property the officer needs to hold a valid arrest warrant (assuming the entry is to execute an arrest), but to search the property the officer needs to hold a valid search warrant (assuming entry is to search through the property for evidence collection).

Furthermore, the law does not delve into the specifics of an arrest warrant and what permissions one would grant. The addition of arrest warrants into the criminal justice system is a recent development, one that is still being refined.

Since there is not a conflicting definition in the criminal code, the Court interprets a private property as one that is not government owned. The farm plots, specifically the one in question, was rented from the government, as stated by Mr. Geezer. Whether future written clarification on property types and lessor/lessee agreements would be helpful is up to the government.

Additionally, the Court can agree with the Defendant in that a farm plot, being that it is a field generally unobstructed by walls used for commercial purposes, differs from other plots. Had the property in question been a residential plot, and especially if the arrest took place inside the house, the Court would have approached the situation differently, given there’s more of a reasonable expectation of privacy that comes with R plots.

The Court can agree with the Plaintiff that this scenario would not fall under the caveat of pursuit needed for warrantless entry. The Defense did not seem to argue that the suspect was in an active pursuit, but rather was a more of a person of interest.

The caveats listed in section 11(d) of the criminal code only apply to warrantless entry. If there is no warrant, then the officer must obtain consent, clarify an emergency, meet the pursuit requirements, have a separate court order, or if the property is in plain view. If there is not a warrant present, the criminal code does not require one of these caveats to be met.

The Plaintiff argues that an arrest warrant is not sufficient enough for unreasonable search and seizure to become reasonable, and such executing a warrant would violate constitutional rights against the former. An arrest warrant is not a suspicion that a person may have committed a crime, it is treated as a truth given to officers that the person did commit that crime, and gives them the legal authority to arrest that person. Furthermore, an officer having a warrant in the first place appears to fall under reasonable search and seizure, considering it is not prohibited to execute one without meeting certain requirements (compared to warrantless entry, where a caveat must be met in order for it to be lawful).

Lastly, the officer(s) did not search through the owner’s belongings, which furthers the Court’s belief that the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure would not be breached in this scenario given a valid arrest warrant. The Plaintiff notes the repeated usage of the word “search” as a part of his arguments. The law defines a search warrant as a warrant to allowing officers to search a specific area for evidence related to a crime (inanimate objects), rather than an area for a person who committed the crime. Had the officer(s) entered the property, went through Mr. Geezer’s belongings in search for evidence to seize as a part of an ongoing investigation, or something similar outside of taking the Plaintiff into custody, the Court would have approached the situation differently.

COURT GUIDANCE

Moving forward, I strongly suggest lawmakers create a clear delineation between the warrants, their permissions, and when/where they are to be lawfully executed. I invite them to also turn to IRL procedures regarding similar scenarios. For example, requiring officers to obtain a search warrant in tandem with an arrest warrant to enter third party property, or open field policies for farms. Additionally, I urge the Minister of Justice to refine policies for MOJ employees as the current guide appears to create dissonance among procedures.

The District Court, or at least my presence within, will be out of session for an undetermined amount of time. If you made it this far, I want to thank all of you for this opportunity, whether you were a party in a case, a witness, the Supreme Court, or simply a viewer from the Isles. Thanks for challenging my thinking, for expanding my knowledge, and for the support and welcome criticism I have received throughout my time here.

Signed,
District Court Judge Fauz Wolfe