Acts & Doctrines
Accessory/Association Doctrine
The Accessory/Association doctrine, allows law enforcement officers to arrest all individuals involved in a crime and to charge them with the same offence. It allows prosecutors, to pursue the same punishments for offenders, regardless of the severity of their involvement within a crime.
The Accessory/Association Doctrine states "So long as an Accessory to the crime/associate to the crime, is partaking in the commission of a felony crime, they, as well as all involved in the commission of the crime, may be held accountable, in a legal sense, by facing the same charges."
In order for the Accessory/Association Doctrine to be viable for use, the offence being committed, by a party of individuals, must be felony class offences. The Accessory/Association Doctrine does not cover misdemeanor offences, neither does it cover infraction offences. There needs to be at least 1 felony offence committed, in order for the Accessory/Association Doctrine to be used. If a felony offence has been committed, the Accessory/Association Doctrine covers all other offences involved in the commission of the crime, weather that include further felony offences, misdemeanor offences or infractions. Additionally, the law enforcement officer, must be able to prove the accessories/associates involvement in the crime, in order to charge them with the same offences.
So long as 1 felony offence has been committed within the party, all other charges the most severe offender receives, are applicable to all Accessory/Associates within the party. This includes felonies, misdemeanors and infractions.
Example A: Suspect A is a getaway driver for an armed robbery crew, including Suspect B and Suspect C. At all times throughout the duration of the armed robbery, Suspect A remains in the car, anticipating the collection of Suspect B and Suspect C, in order to act as their getaway driver, to flee the scene of the crime. Suspect A collects Suspect B and Suspect C and flees the scene of the crime. They later crash into a tree, and all suspects are apprehended. As armed robbery {[2] 21 - Armed Robbery}, is a felony offence within the State of San Andreas, Suspect A, can be charged with the same offences as Suspect B and Suspect C, despite not partaking in the actual armed robbery. All Suspects involved would be charged with [2] 21 - Armed Robbery, as well as other respective offences, despite Suspect A not partaking in the actual armed robbery.
Example B: Suspect A illegally sells firearms. Suspect A sells an AR-15 to Suspect B. Suspect B uses said AR-15 to murder 3 police officers in an ambush. Seen as illegally selling a firearm {[8] 5 - Illegal Sale of Weapon} is a felony, Suspect A may also be charged with with 3 counts of capital murder {[1] 31 Capital Murder}, as the weapon he sold, was used in a triple murder. Without Suspect A selling said AR-15 to Suspect B, those law enforcement officers wouldn't have been gunned down with said AR-15.
Note: [1] 14 - Aiding and Abetting / Accessory to Crime shall only be applicable to misdemeanour offences. Felony offences shall not be covered under [1] 14 - Aiding and Abetting / Accessory to Crime, instead the Accessory/Association Doctrine covers felony association to a crime.
Attempted Violations Doctrine
The Attempted Violations Doctrine contains guidelines relating to the justification of the prosecution of attempts to violate certain laws.
This doctrine only applies to laws if all of the following conditions are met: 1) The law which the suspect attempted to violate does not have an existing attempt-to-commit charge and also does not include "attempt to commit" within the code itself. 2) The law which the suspect attempted to violate does not logically make sense when characterized by the term 'attempted.'
In the event of a suspect being apprehended for the act of merely attempting to violate a penal code, their sentence and other fines or penalties for said crime shall be half of what is codified in the violation itself.
Defensible Conditions and Citizen Protection Doctrine
The Self Defense doctrine contains guidelines relating to the justification and legality of the use of deadly force in the defense of one's own person, their property, or their surroundings by a civilian.
(1) - Stand Your Ground
An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is attacked in any place where the actor would have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use.
(2) - Castle Doctrine
An actor who is not engaged in a criminal activity, who is not in illegal possession of a firearm and who is within their residence or place of work the actor would have no duty to retreat and has the right to protect ones property and self and use force, including deadly force, if:
(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;
(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and
(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise presents a danger to the actor or other occupants of the residence or workplace.
(3) - Bystander Protection, Good Samaritans, and Citizen's Arrest
In accordance with Felony Vigilantism, "performing the duties of law enforcement without the legal authority to do so" is illegal; With this principle already established, it is legally recognized through this doctrine that civilians may intervene to protect the life and/or property of another civilian if they are bearing direct witness to a misdemeanor or felony involving the threat of violence or loss of property against said individual (this may also be referred to as a "Citizen's arrest" if the action-taken involved the act of preventing the suspect from leaving).
Duress by Threats
Shall absolve the defendant of criminal liability EXCEPT for crimes involving murder or homicide.
The condition of "Duress by Threats" shall be met if the defendant is BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT the victim of 421 - Threats to Participate in a Criminal Organization OR 108 - Criminal Threats (including threats against defendant's family / associates / friends) OR 501 - Extortion AND therefore as a result of being a victim of at least one of these aforementioned crimes, the defendant reasonably believed that their best course of action would be to commit a criminal offence at the implicit or explicit request / demand of the perpetrator.
Specifically, a reasonable person or, in the event of trial, a jury MUST conclude YES to both of the following statements for this defense to be valid:
(i) - Was the defendant reasonable in believing that they were being threatened with death or serious injury against themselves or others if they did not cooperate?
(ii) - Was the defendant reasonable in believing that they did NOT have a safe alternative choice or option to escape without bringing harm onto themselves or others?
Exigent Circumstance Doctrine
The Court has recognized the exigencies of the situation as an exception to the warrant requirement, which make the needs of law enforcement so compelling that the warrantless search is objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Exigent circumstances requires a court to examine whether an emergency justified a warrantless search in each particular case. The Court has identified several types of circumstances that give rise to an exigency sufficient to justify a warrantless search, including a search incident to arrest, law enforcement’s need to provide emergency aid, hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect, and the prevention of the imminent destruction of evidence. In situations absent dangerous and life-threatening circumstances, the Court recognizes that warrantless searches are permissible in circumstances where there is a compelling need for official action and no time to secure a warrant.
The Court has refused to adopt a categorical rule as to what circumstances constitutes an exigency and, instead, applies a case-by-case analysis dependent on all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. To determine whether exigent circumstances existed to justify a warrantless search, the Court looks to the totality of circumstances. In rendering emergency assistance, the officer must have an objectively reasonable basis for believing that an individual within the home was in need of immediate assistance. When the police, in executing a warrantless search, have not created the exigency in question, the Court has held that such warrantless entry to prevent the destruction of evidence is reasonable and thus allowed. In contrast, the Court in Johnson v. United States rejected the government’s claim that exigent circumstances justified a warrantless search of an individual’s home. In Johnson, the police gained entry into the suspect’s home after a demand under color of office. The Court, in rejecting the government’s claim that the search was conducted because of the opium smell in the room, held that the government offered no reason for not obtaining a search warrant except the inconvenience to the officers and some slight delay necessary to prepare papers and present the evidence to a magistrate. The Court reasoned that these are never very convincing reasons and, in these circumstances, certainly are not enough to by-pass the constitutional requirement. No suspect was fleeing or likely to take flight. The search was of permanent premises, not of a movable vehicle. No evidence or contraband was threatened with removal or destruction, except perhaps the fumes which the Court supposed in time would disappear.
In terms of determining the reasonableness for the police to proceed without a warrant when they are in hot pursuit of a suspect, the Court has held that, in such circumstances, the need to act quickly . . . is even greater . . . while the intrusion is much less. For example, the Court has held that the Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to delay in the course of an investigation if to do so would gravely endanger their lives or the lives of others. In Lange v. California, the Court reiterated that the exigent circumstances exception is generally applied on a case-by-case basis, and declined to hold that pursuing a misdemeanor suspect categorically qualifies as an exigent circumstance exception to the warrant requirement.
Fleeing Suspect Doctrine
Within this document are the guidelines and specifics regarding lethal force against a fleeing suspect as well as when an officer has the authority and legal immunity to do so.
Within the State of San Andreas it shall be legal and the action itself if founded true shall grant legal immunity to an officer of the law who on duty, that uses lethal force against a suspect who is fleeing from law enforcement, under the specific circumstance that such suspect provides without a reasonable doubt an imminent threat to the life of the officer, or the life of others such as a citizen.
Should an officer determine and incite the use of lethal force upon a fleeing suspect and the circumstances regarding the use of lethal force are founded to be just in nature, said officer shall be found not guilty within a court of law and granted legal immunity regarding such a charge that, may revolve around the use of lethal force against a fleeing suspect.
Information Security Act
Documents, information, and knowledge pertaining to procedures, guidelines, and technology for and/or about national security, military operations, state secrets, and general government operations are generally considered types of classified information.
Information is classified and unclassified depending on the perceived risk and importance determined at the discretion of those charged with handling the information.
"Classified Information" refers to any information classified at a level of "SECRET" or higher.
Access to classified information is strictly controlled and granted by the highest level of government only to those who need it on an as-needed and need-to-know basis.
Degrees of Information Classification
Public - Public information; information that was never classified and is deemed non-sensitive.
Unclassified - Public information; information that was classified at some point in the past and has since been declassified.
Confidential - Protected information controlled by government entities; primarily for municipal and public government systems such as DMV information, criminal records, health records, and bank records. Generally related to information with personal identifiable information (PII) that is restricted to only those respective citizens as well as government or private employees tasked with engaging in work tasks involving such information (e.g. Police officers, lawyers, doctors, etc.).
Secret - Sensitive information such as (examples) military records/technology, sensitive diplomatic communications, etc.
Beyond Secret - The nature of the organization of the classification system beyond the classification of "Secret" is classified.
Judicial and Law Enforcement Authority
Authority
The Department of Justice hereby grants the personnel employed as law enforcement officers by the agencies listed to act under the color of law with the authority to detain under reasonable suspicion and/or arrest/charge under probable cause for the offences contained within this document. The Department of Justice, as the granter of this authority, reserves the right to revoke or suspend these powers should it deem necessary. Relating to authority, the Assimilative Crimes Act adds: The enforcement authority of federal officials shall encompass all local, state, and federal laws. Additionally, state or local offences may be prosecuted in the event of their commission within federal land, property, or buildings located within the boundaries of the state or municipal authority. The personnel employed by these agencies, specifically to act in a law enforcement capacity, are granted the privilege to carry firearms at all times except when travelling aboard a commercial airliner unless specifically required for the commission of their duty.
Local/Municipal and State Law Enforcement Agencies
Los Santos Metro Police Department, Blaine County Sheriff's Office, San Andreas State Police, San Andreas Airport Authority (SAAA), University Police (ULSA).
Federal Law Enforcement Agencies (Local and Federal Authority)
United States Marshals Service (USMS), United States Department of Justice (Prosecutor's Office, Attorney General), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Guard and Military Police.
Special Allowance Agencies
Department of Corrections - For the transportation and incarceration of convicted criminals.
San Andreas Fire Rescue | Fire Marshals - For the investigation of arson and chemical hazard laws.
Civil Liability Immunity (Qualified Immunity)
Law enforcement officers who perform acts during the course of their official duty may not be held civilly liable for damages which result from violations of criminal law or civil rights abuses. The officer may still be held criminally liable for their actions.
Emergency High Crime Census Act
The Directors by emergency decree or simple majority vote, may declare an area a "High Crime Zone" based on objective and quantifiable evidence.
The "High Crime Zone" in question would have to be marked by a higher incidence of particularized criminal activity than other areas of the jurisdiction.
The Zone at issue would have to be tailored to a specific geographic location and limited to a recent temporal finding of criminal activity.
There would have to be a demonstrated nexus between the knowledge about the defined Zone and the reasonableness of the observations in that Zone.
The High Crime Census Act shall authorize Federal Agencies & Task Forces to perform Law Enforcement activity with the specific goal of reducing the level of crime in the Zone.
Should a crime be committed within the areas outlined below, that further leave the areas outlined below, the Federal Agencies & Task Forces policing these areas may continue to pursue individuals involved in the crime with the sole purpose of apprehending each suspect.
High Crime Zones:
Davis (Postals 836 through 850 inclusive)
Extradition and International Agreements
San Andreas law enforcement shall honor international extradition and arrest warrant / detention requests originating from INTERPOL or the International Criminal Court (ICC). An INTERPOL "Red Notice" is an Arrest Warrant originating from and seeking extradition to another country.
Warrants originating from Russia, Cuba, Cayo Perico, North Korea, China, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Bhutan, Venezuela, Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya, Sudan, or Belarus will not be honored or automatically enforced. Only a Government Director may authorize a warrant originating from these countries to be enforced due to diplomatic and political reasons.
Whether or not the authorities of Cayo Perico may choose to honor a warrant issued by the San Andreas government depends upon the attitude of the current ruling authority of the island and may change with different leadership.
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
Extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) provides the government authority to exercise its enforcement capabilities beyond its boundaries-proper in certain cases. The Department of Homeland Security shall be primarily responsible for ETJ enforcement.
The United States affirms that the following offences shall be prosecuted if they occur in the following extraterritorial circumstances:
Any Chapter 2 Violent Crime which occurs in international waters (outside the jurisdiction of any other nation) on: any vessel owned or operated by a San Andreas citizen / San Andreas registered entity OR when the offence is committed by or against a San Andreas citizen / San Andreas registered entity.
Any Chapter 2 Violent Crime which occurs in open airspace (outside the jurisdiction of any other nation) on: any aircraft owned or operated by a San Andreas citizen / San Andreas registered entity when the offence is committed by or against a San Andreas citizen / San Andreas registered entity.
Any of the following offences committed anywhere in the world in a manner such that it affects the operations of the San Andreas Government or the safety of its citizens: Terrorism, Espionage, Forgery, Counterfeiting, Fraud (or Conspiracy), Trafficking, Smuggling, Kidnapping, Extortion, Racketeering (and it's involved sub-offences only when presented alongside a racketeering charge).
Probable Cause & Reasonable Suspicion Doctrine
Within this Document are the guidelines regarding the concept of “Probable Cause” needed in order for an officer to make an arrest, detain a subject, or perform a search and/or seizure AND the concept of "Reasonable Suspicion" needed in order for an officer to detain a person pertaining to an ongoing investigation and frisk them.
Probable Cause (Arrestable Offences)
The reasonable suspicion, supported by totality of circumstance, indicating that a person attempted to or successfully committed an arrestable offense would grant probable cause.
The confession or insinuation to the idea, fact, or knowledge indicating that a person attempted to or successfully committed an arrestable offense would grant probable cause.
Probable Cause (Non-Arrestable Offences)
The reasonable suspicion, supported by totality of circumstance, indicating that a person attempted to or successfully committed a non-arrestable offense (such as while driving) would grant probable cause to stop them, or their vehicle (including detaining and identifying the occupants). Probable cause to stop a person for a non-arrestable offence is not the same as probable cause sufficient to search a person, or their vehicle's contents and its passengers. This type of search and seizure would require probable cause of an arrestable offence.
Reasonable Suspicion (Detention pending investigation)
Involvement in a Crime - The condition during which a "reasonable person" (or "reasonable officer") may suspect a person of committing, attempting to commit, or going to commit a arrestable offence based on totality of circumstance would grant reasonable suspicion.
Roadblocks and Checkpoints
Drivers may be stopped without cause if the methods with which it occurs are through checkpoints which stop all or most drivers in a seemingly systematic or random fashion without discretion and is for the purpose of investigating driving licenses, checking for drivers under the influence, or inspecting citizenship if performed by Federal agents.
Legality
Probable cause is a stronger legal standard than reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is a weaker legal standard than probable cause and does not afford the same privileges as probable cause (such as search and arrest) but does allow for frisking/pat-downs which may result in a discovery developing into probable cause; similarly probable cause enacted for non-arrestable offences may result in probable cause related to arrestable offences. Assuming the above requirements are met an officer has the authority granted by the state to further institute a more in depth investigation on the person(s) in which they had initially began their findings on, Should it be found an officer instituted or continued an in depth investigation on such an individual in which probable cause “was not” legitimately founded by the standards held within this document, such officer(s), and or department (depending on circumstances) may be subject to extreme reprimand through the legal systems instituted and set in place by the authorities of the Judicial system, and any evidence, charges, or information founded against a person(s) who was affected by such an illegitimate probable cause claim shall be disregarded and subject to be unusable in a court of law as an effect of their rights being infringed upon (Fruit of Poisonous Tree).
Concealed Carry Safety Act
This act gives rights to citizens of San Andreas to conceal a handgun on their person or in their vehicle through means of defensing themselves or others.
This act restricts the weapons permitted to be concealed carried to standard semi-automatic or revolver handguns.
The weapons forbidden to be carried and must be stored locked and secured with the ammo separate unless within a private domicile or gun range:
Short barreled rifles (to include traditionally rifle type weapons that are "pistols".
Short Barreled shotguns.
Full length rifles or shotguns.
Hunting or sniper rifles.
Any class 2 weapon that is owned legally by an ATF certified weapon dealer.
Law Enforcement Halo Doctrine
This bill Prohibits the harassment of any Identifiable Police Officer or First Responder who is actively performing His/Her Job.
This law pertains to any person who has received a verbal warning not to approach an officer; and who approaches with the intent to interfere with their official duties, threaten with physical harm, or harass the officer/s present at the scene.
If warned by a first responder, any person who does not represent a Government/State Agency must remove themselves from the scene; or back off up to 25 feet. Failing to do this after receiving a SINGLE warning will give Law Enforcement the right to charge an Offender with Obstruction.
"Wayne Jenkins" Doctrine
A.K.A. the Corruption of Law Enforcment Doctrine.
This doctrine establishes the protocol for identifying and designating the appropriate law enforcement agency responsible for conducting the arrest of a law enforcement officer accused of committing crimes while on duty. The doctrine is designed to ensure that investigations and arrests of law enforcement officers are conducted impartially, transparently, and in accordance with applicable laws.
1. Overview
When a law enforcement officer is suspected of committing a criminal act while performing their duties, it is essential to establish clear guidelines for arrest procedures. This ensures the integrity of the justice system and maintains public confidence in law enforcement agencies.
The following principles shall govern which agency is responsible for conducting the arrest, based on the nature of the crime committed.
2. Arrests for State Crimes
If the crime allegedly committed by a law enforcement officer falls under the State Crimes Code—which includes violations of state law such as theft, assault, or misconduct while in office—the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will assume responsibility for conducting the arrest.
This decision is based on the need for an independent, impartial federal agency to handle potential conflicts of interest, especially where local or state agencies may be perceived as compromised or unable to conduct an unbiased investigation.
The United States Marshals Service will be tasked with:
Investigating the alleged crime
Coordinating with state or local law enforcement agencies where necessary
Ensuring the officer’s rights are respected during the process
Executing the arrest with appropriate support and resources
3. Arrests for Federal Crimes
If the crime allegedly committed by the officer involves violations of federal law—such as corruption, civil rights violations, trafficking in illegal substances, or other federal offenses—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will be designated to conduct the investigation and arrest.
This designation ensures that:
Federal agencies are responsible for enforcement of federal laws, which are often more complex or high-profile in nature.
The FBI can leverage its specialized investigative capabilities, including expertise in public corruption, organized crime, and complex financial crimes.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation will be responsible for:
Investigating the crime, including gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, and building a case
Working with other federal, state, or local agencies to ensure a comprehensive investigation
Executing the arrest and handling any related legal proceedings
4. Considerations for Cross-Jurisdictional Arrests
In some cases, a law enforcement officer may have committed a crime that violates both state and federal law. In these instances, both the United States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation may collaborate to determine which agency will take the lead on the arrest, depending on:
The nature of the crime (whether state or federal law predominates)
Jurisdictional considerations
Any specific requirements or circumstances that necessitate the involvement of both agencies (e.g., the officer’s conduct impacting both state and federal interests)
In certain high-profile cases or those involving multiple jurisdictions, the decision may be made jointly, with each agency contributing resources and expertise as needed.
5. Conflict of Interest
In cases where the law enforcement officer accused of committing a crime is a member of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) or the United States Marshals Service (USMS), a potential conflict of interest arises due to the nature of the agency involved. To ensure that investigations and arrests remain impartial and to maintain public trust in the justice system, the agency that is not implicated in the crime will be responsible for conducting the investigation and arrest.
This applies regardless of whether the alleged crime falls under state, federal, or even jurisdictional boundaries. The principle of separation of duties is crucial in these instances, as it prevents any appearance of bias or undue influence in the investigation of the officer's actions.
Key Guidelines for Conflict of Interest:
If an FBI agent is suspected of committing a crime, the United States Marshals Service (USMS) will assume responsibility for the investigation and arrest.
Conversely, if a United States Marshal is suspected of criminal conduct, the FBI will take over the investigation and arrest.
In cases where the alleged crime may be cross-jurisdictional (e.g., state, federal), the non-involved agency will conduct the investigation and arrest, regardless of which jurisdiction is primarily responsible for the offense.
This protocol helps to ensure that:
Investigations are conducted impartially without potential biases due to personal or institutional relationships within the implicated agency.
Public confidence in the justice system is maintained, especially in high-profile cases involving federal officers.
Proper oversight is upheld in cases where sensitive law enforcement actions or potential misconduct are being examined.
In cases of conflict, both agencies (FBI and USMS) are expected to cooperate fully and share relevant information to ensure a swift, thorough, and impartial investigation. The agency conducting the investigation will be expected to follow the same rigorous protocols and standards of conduct as it would for any other law enforcement officer or citizen under investigation.t
6. Transparency and Accountability
It is imperative that the process remains transparent to ensure public trust in law enforcement, particularly when one of its own is involved in criminal behavior. To this end:
All investigations will be conducted with due process, and oversight will be provided by an independent review body, where applicable.
Law enforcement agencies involved will provide regular updates to relevant oversight bodies and, where appropriate, the public.
7. Conclusion
The arrest of law enforcement officers for criminal conduct requires a delicate balance of legal and ethical considerations. By clearly delineating which agencies are responsible based on the nature of the crime, this doctrine ensures that the investigation and arrest are carried out impartially, without conflicts of interest, and in adherence to both state and federal law.
The United States Marshals Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have been selected based on their respective capabilities and their ability to operate independently of local or state law enforcement agencies. All agencies involved must uphold the principles of justice and due process, ensuring that law enforcement officers, like any other citizens, are held accountable for their actions.
Sentencing Threshold Act
This act, as mandated by the Supreme Courts of San Andreas, establishes the sentencing thresholds that differentiate misdemeanors from felonies within the jurisdiction of San Andreas. These thresholds are designed to provide clarity and consistency in the legal system, ensuring that sentences correspond to the severity of the offense committed.
Sentencing Thresholds:
Misdemeanor Offenses
Sentencing Range: 0 seconds to 749 seconds
Description: Offenses classified as misdemeanors are considered less severe violations of the law. These typically include minor infractions or crimes that do not pose significant harm to individuals or society. Sentences within this range are intended to reflect the lower severity of such offenses.
Felony Offenses
Sentencing Range: 750 seconds to 2000 seconds
Description: Felonies are more serious crimes, often involving significant harm to individuals, property, or society as a whole. Sentences within this range are indicative of the gravity of these offenses and serve as a deterrent and a means of justice for the affected parties.
Purpose and Implementation:
The thresholds outlined in this act aim to maintain consistency in legal proceedings and sentencing across the state of San Andreas.
They serve as a guideline for judicial and law enforcement officials in determining the appropriate classification and corresponding punishment for offenses.
Last updated