RIDGEWAY SUPERIOR COURT
REMOVELUNGS,
Petitioner,
v.
ETHHAQN,
Respondent.
Case No. RSC-CV-494
STATE RESPONDENT’S BRIEF IN
OPPOSITION
STATE’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
The State of Ridgeway hereby files this brief in opposition in the above named matter
consistent with 1 R. Stat. § 135.
INTRODUCTION
On June 24th, 2022 Officer Ethhaqn arrested the Removelungs, a well-known criminal
with over 120 records to his name, for brandishing and firing his firearm within Palmer City
Limits. The Respondent’s reasoned analysis of the situation gave ample basis for the arrest to
take place. Petitioner’s inability to demonstrate either a lack of probable cause, or to prove actual
innocence forestalls their ability to obtain requested relief. The petition should be denied.
ARGUMENT
The first inquiry this court should turn to in deciding this question is “whether the police
were legally entitled to make that arrest.” In Re Zachisbeast, RSC-CV-367 (2022). An officer is
entitled to make an arrest when “the police either had a judicial warrant ordering an arrest, or the
police had probable cause that a crime was committed.” Id. If the officer did have probable
cause, the second quiriry is whether the Petitioner can demonstrate actual innocence. In order to
do this, it is his burden to “establish[] facts that make the prospect of a hypothetical conviction
on the charges virtually impossible.” Id. In this way, “a reasonable and well-informed jury could
not convict the petitioner in a hypothetical trial if they were aware of those facts, and those facts
were admissible evidence.” Id.
I. OFFICER ETHHAQN HAD PROBABLE CAUSE.
The Officer’s sworn statement decides this case. On June 24th, 2022, while he was inside
the Palmer Police Department Headquarters, he heard shots coming from outside of the Palmer
Police Department building. Having previously been outside, he had the opportunity to survey
who was out there, and knew that the Petitioner here was loitering just outside the building. As
an Officer, he is required to be observant of his surroundings especially when an individual has a
firearm. The Officer made careful note that Removelungs had a firearm as he does each time he
sees one.
After he had heard the shots, the Officer took a position inside the building where he
could see outside to keep an eye on the Petitioner. He determined that it was not best to attempt
to arrest the Petitioner at the time that the shots occurred because he deemed it too great a risk.
Having concluded that Removelungs was the individual who shot the firearm because he was the
only individual outside who also had a Salvo firearm, the Officer forthrightly determined that he
had probable cause to proceed with the arrest. And so, when the Petitioner took his firearm out a
second time, this time to reload, the Officer seized the opportunity to detain the Petitioner.
An individual commits brandishing when they “draw[] a firearm…in a rude, angry or
threatening manner.” 5 R.S.C § 5.04. An individual who fires a firearm within a city heavily
populated and inundated with frequent traffic fits squarely within this definition. The Officer had
probable cause to arrest the individual.
The Petitioner attempts to allege that the basis for the arrest was because of the
Petitioner’s decision to reload his firearm. But that is a misrepresentation. The basis of the arrest
was the reason the Petitioner needed to reload in the first place—because the firearm was
brandished and fired in the presence of other civilians.
II. PETITIONER FAILED TO PROVE ACTUAL INNOCENCE.
As to the second inquiry, Petitioner has failed to carry their burden. The evidence they
submit obscures the entire context of the arrest and purports to suggest that the Officer arrested
the Petitioner because the Petitioner reloaded his firearm. This was not the case. The evidence
they submit fails to demonstrate actual innocence because it does not sufficiently “establish[]
facts that make the prospect of a hypothetical conviction on the charges virtually impossible.” In
Re Zachisbeast, supra., at 1.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner failed to carry their heavy burden of proving that the Officer lacked probable
cause, or that the Petitioner is actually innocent. On this basis, the relief should be denied.
Date: July 16, 2022 CLIFFORD
Deputy Solicitor General
Department of Justice
Counsel of Record
