Ash Lǐ further rebuttal following.
Rags v. San Andreas:
The defense has shown a clear misunderstanding of Rags V San Andreas case law, pointing to lack of Probable Cause for an LEO to search an individual, which is extremely concerning as any person who's gone through a Bar Exam should know, Probable Cause being required for a search has many exceptions, Rags' case law being our States' most famous one, as it dissolves the burden of evidence down below the level of Reasonable Suspicion, to simply Reasonable Belief.
A case law that allows Park Rangers to search any individual they have a belief could be engaging in an activity such as fishing. Not Probable Cause, not Reasonable Suspicion, reasonable belief.
To be found on a boat in the middle of the ocean where Rangers patrol for that specific reason — fishermen and women, already rises to the level of reasonable belief that a suspect could in fact be engaging in the act of fishing, an activity regulated by the Park Rangers.
Injuries sustained:
Now the defense is claiming the suspect was severely injured prior to interaction with Law Enforcement. It is beyond kind for the Rangers to quickly go through the process of checking everyone on the boat as they prep for the transport and assistance of the injured individual.
Yet the medical record they provide as evidence shows zero mention of any injury other than water related ones. So was Mr Earl badly beaten and bruised in the middle of the ocean, high off his mind, or just high? The evidence supported by the plaintiff is contradictory to their own narrative, and to claim that certain strains of marijuana offer improvement over deterioration of one's abilities to function would be disputed by the defense's single sentence: "They're all illegal for a reason."
But that does matter little as the plaintiff claimed the search itself lacked Probable Cause, which is what made it illegal.
Once again, no probable cause is required for a search under Rags V S.A.
Also of note, the defense is confused about the plaintiff introducing evidence (medical report) only to then complain about its quality and discredit the medical service personnel who made it, AND saved Mr. Bobinson's life?
We believe the case presented does not meet the standard of merit and uphold our motion to have it dismissed, while of course being ready to argue against it in court, if it comes down to it.
respectfully submitted,
Annabelle Celestine, representing San Andreas Park Rangers
