TS
STATE OF RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
ZACHCASISBEAST )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DOCKET NO. RSC-CV-367
Presiding Judge. frostbleed
Petitioner
v.
XJVMMA
Respondent
DEFENDANT’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
The State of Ridgeway, while representing the Respondent, xJvmma, file this brief in opposition
to the writ of habeas corpus, while urging this court to DENY the writ.
INTRODUCTION
The Petitioner in this matter, is incorrect throughout his allegations regarding the arrest that
transpired on the 8th of May 2022. This brief in opposition will clarify why the court should deny the
requested relief and should uphold the arrest in the light of the facts. The Petitioner acted outside the
bounds of the law, and then he was subsequently arrested by the Respondent. The Petitioner was
correctly arrested for Failure to Identify (§ 2.05).
ARGUMENT
The Petitioner was pulled over by the Respondent, xJvmma, a Palmer Police Department
employee, near the intersection of Laguna Avenue and Palmer Boulevard on May 8th, 2022. The
Respondent observed the Petitioner and witnessed the Respondent committing numerous traffic
infractions. The Respondent then responded accordingly by initiating a traffic stop. It has long been held
that once an officer has initiated a traffic stop on an individual, that individual is detained for the
purposes of the situation. Officers may choose to detain an individual based upon probable cause, or
reasonable suspicion. See Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015). An officer may choose to
also ask and probe the suspect with investigative questions during the suspect’s detainment. See
Kolender v. Lawson¸ 461 U.S. 352 (1983). These also include lawful demands and questions from the
officer. The Petitioner is incorrect in his contention that the Respondent’s response was a mere
statement; it was a lawful demand. The Respondent was well within her rights as a law enforcement
officer to demand the Petitioner to provide her with identification that is neither falsified nor fictitious.
For one to be arrested for “Failure to Identify (§ 2.05),” one must have “[f]ail[ed] to present
identification to a peace officer after having be[en] lawfully detained.” The Petitioner was lawfully
detained by the Respondent in accordance with the standard of proof necessary prior to an officer
conducting a traffic stop. The Respondent observed the Petitioner prior to detaining him. She had
observed him commit numerous traffic infractions. See Petitioner’s Exhibit A; see also Respondent’s
Affidavit. The Respondent had probable cause to initiate a traffic stop on the Petitioner and from that
moment the Petitioner was lawfully detained. From that point on, the Respondent asked for the
Petitioner’s identification a numerous number of times and demanded the Petitioner to present his
identification prior to being arrested. Any reasonable person would have understood the officer’s
statements to be requests or demands of identification. The Petitioner failed to comply with the officer’s
lawful demands, and thus committed a transgression for failing to provide identification to the
Respondent after he was lawfully detained. The Petitioner misconstrued the Officer’s demands as simple
statements. There is a distinction between the two. A “statement” in this context is defined as
“something that someone says or writes officially, or an action done to express an opinion.” See
Statement, Cambridge Online Dictionary (2022). A “demand” is defined as “a strong request,” while its
verb form is referred to as “ask[ing] for something forcefully, in a way that shows that you do not expect
to be refused.” See Demand, Cambridge Online Dictionary (2022). The Respondent in the matter did
indeed make a strong request when she said “Identification” via the in-game chat system. She also did
indeed, demand that the Petitioner provide his identification. Therefore, the Respondent did not make a
mere statement, rather she made a firm demand. Even if it was a mere statement, if the Respondent
clearly indicated that she was seeking identification, which she was, and a reasonable person would have
understood that to be true, the statute still applies. In this case, it applies wholeheartedly. No amount of
semantical gymnastics will enable the Petitioner to claim that a reasonable law-abiding person would
have known what the officer was seeking and complied with it. The claim brought forth by the Petitioner
is absurd and cannot be allowed to remove a justified arrest. Would the Petitioner have brought this
claim if the Officer had changed her punctuation? Is the difference between a question mark and a
period really going to make the difference in how someone understands what the officer was asking for?
The Petitioner clearly understood what the law enforcement officer was asking for, and any reasonable
person would have understood and complied with the Respondent’s requests. The Petitioner is trying to
fruitlessly find a way to backtrack against his mistake.
The abovementioned points and contentions satisfy the necessary elements for an individual to
be arrested for “Failure to Identify (§ 2.05).” The Petitioner was lawfully detained by the Respondent as
she proceeded with a typical traffic stop since she had witnessed the Petitioner commit numerous traffic
infractions. The Respondent demanded that the Petitioner provide identification, and he had failed to do
so. The Petitioner cannot expect to nullify the charge by complying with the Respondent’s demands
after he has been cuffed and put into the back of the Officer’s vehicle. Regardless of whether the initial
messages were tagged, the Respondent demanded one last time prior to arresting the individual and
transporting him to the nearest booking area. The Petitioner cannot expect to avoid criminal liability by
claiming that he was typing to another message, and when he blatantly ignored the lawful demands of
the Respondent. Nor can he expect to avoid criminal liability by basing his claims upon the punctuation
or the lack thereof in the Respondent’s demand. With all the elements satisfied for one to be arrested for
“Failure to Identify (§ 2.05),” we ask that this Court affirms the Respondent’s decision to arrest the
Petitioner.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, we ask that this court DENIES the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: May 17th, 2022 TURNTABLE5000
Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
