Complaint Against FBI Special Agent Kowalski

[danigold]

Report against: Special Agent Kowalski

Name(s) of those reporting: Sally Slaughter on behalf of Homero Sanchez (Sup_)


Reasons: Negligence, failure to read the Miranda Rights properly, endangerment, misuse of equipment (firearms) and vandalism

Evidence:

Homero's POV

https://imgur.com/a/GbTfYLh

Sally's POV

https://imgur.com/a/n0VrJJE

2 videos of Kowalski exploding vehicles and being questioned

https://streamable.com/beoilk
https://streamable.com/dm177x
https://imgur.com/a/lYG5EIY

Other Details:
Today (25.9.2022) FBI Special Agent has broken several laws and part(s) of the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City.

We shall with the arrest of my client, Homero Sanchez, who was suspected and arrested for brandishing a firearm, and endangerment by Special Agent Kowalski and VCPD Officer Hazard.
My client immediately surrendered, and was cuffed and put into a police cruiser (without being read his Miranda Rights, mind you!). Kowalski then got into the drivers seat, and drove to WBPD, and upon arrival, Kowalski left my client without explanation in the back seat, handcuffed, without any windows open or AC running, in the Florida heat (which peaked at 32C degrees today!), for a total of 10 long minutes. As Kowalski returned 10 minutes later, my client, full of sweat from the heat and probably dehydrated, had to ask Kowalski for a cup of water to avoid dehydration (which can be seen in the evidence).

After getting his water, Mr. Sanchez asked for an attorney to be present in the investigation, and called me to WBPD, and upon my arrival, I've asked to have a few minutes alone with my sweaty client to get updated on the situation, and I found out, that my client was never read his Miranda Rights! Luckily he still knew he could call a lawyer to aid and represent him.
Then, once the interrogation began, with me, Homero, Kowalski and Hazard present, at 11:24, my client was finally read his Miranda Rights, a whole 33 minutes after his initial arrest and detainment.

After explaining the reason of the arrest, where Kowalski said my client endangered people by causing an explosion "in the vicinity where people were present", I questioned him how far away the closest person to the explosion was, which he could not answer.

When questioned on why my client was left in a hot car, Kowalski said "a call escalated to a point in which lives were in danger", and may I ask, were those lives more important than the life of my client? Which you endangered by locking him in a hot car, in the middle of the day? I'd call that pure negligence.
My Client's testimony is attached with this complaint at the bottom.


Furthermore, I have footage and pictures of Special Agent Kowalski, using his state issued MP5 by shooting it at several vehicles, causing them to be totaled (vandalism and misuse of government issued equipment), as someone is standing just about 5~ Meters from the area, endangering them, and even seeming to injure Kowalski himself! (Endangerment)
When asked why he did that, Kowalski said "Just a few vehicles obstructing the road [to] clear the traffic", and when asked why they couldn't have been safely towed, Kowalski gave the cold shoulder and left us with more questions than answers.


Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:

Greetings, this is citizen Homero Sanchez, and this is my testimony. As the complaint says, I was indeed left alone for a grueling 10 minutes inside the police car by Special Agent Kowalski while he left the scene for reasons unknown to me, I could have died of a heat stroke if they took any longer which is why as one of the exhibits shows I was asking for a cup of water which was granted afterwards thankfully, otherwise I would have landed in a hospital bed rather than a jail cell. I wasn't read my Miranda Rights upon the initial arrest, and had them read to me only after my attorney, Sally Slaughter questioned Agent Kowalski about it. Not to mention the fact that he seemed to be uncharacteristically rude towards my attorney for no reason I don't exactly get it.

Signed, Homero Sanchez

Isn't it also interesting how when Kowalski blows up vehicles allegedly to clear the road, its ok, but when my client does it for the same reason, he is prosecuted and jailed? Shouldn't the law enforcers be held to the same standard as everybody else?

[Kowalski.]

I'll start at minute one.

Regarding my own "endangerment", this was done, and rather evidently by the footage, during a time where no civilians were present in the immediate vicinity so as to potentially hurt anyone. The person gathering the footage was well back, within a pizza store until their convenient approach towards the scene in close proximity during the undertaking of the process, however even so, was clearly not hurt. Furthermore, while the shockwave did cause me to trip over, I certainly did not endanger my own life. Even if it did, if you've actually read the law, it clearly states to another. If I put myself at risk, it wouldn't be the most sensible move, however it would not be illegal as I am not jeopardizing anybody else's safety.

Furthermore, I did not address your questions as I am particularly busy and my job requires me to be on the move, frequently. It's pretty clear I suggested you could ask a police officer about vehicle towing. Sorry to have offended you, but you didn't get any special treatment.


As for your client:

It is indeed true that he was arrested for the same issue. Officer Hazard made the arrest and I was there to assist. Now, the main discernible difference is that your client did it in the middle of the road where people were present externally. Officer Hazard saw this as well, and was advised of a possible crime. He made the arrest, and this is evident by the fact he made the final decision regarding your client.

As for your client's arrest - he was escorted to the Washington Police Station and was obviously to be read his miranda rights. This is usually the responsibility of the arresting officer, however, as Officer Hazard is still learning how to improve his work, and commendably so, this may have been missed at the scene of the arrest, though I cannot confirm at this stage. Either way in case of any such situation, I reiterated your client's rights to him personally and on the record. I am well aware that your client has rights and I had no intention of violating them. Your client was made aware of his rights on-record prior to any official proceedings.

This is in accordance with the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City which indicates a suspect must be read their rights. All things considered, there were extenuating circumstances which resulted in myself and other officers responding to a high priority call. As a result of the chaos, it's possible details were missed at the initial scene, yes. However, at no stage did anyone seek to violate your client's rights and this is evident by the fact I clearly stated your client his rights.

In respect to the alleged negligence, I won't apologise for urgently rushing to back my comrades in a life-threatening situation. Your client was still outside a police station and I am not the only law enforcer in the state. It is hardly negligent for your client to be outside a police station where cops come and go frequently, where any officer could've come and taken your client inside.

((And come off it Dani, he was AFK for a period of time as well. Nobody stands around waiting for an AFK player. He was AFK in the cruiser too, for that matter.))

It is hardly negligent that I got your client a cup of water. It's true I had to leave, given the circumstances, I was forced to move rapidly to assist my fellow officers. I request Officer Hazard to corroborate my statement and reaffirm that I did indeed respond to a smuggling situation in which VCPD lives were at risk, as we worked together in the situation.

Your client's actions were in the vicinity of myself and Officer Hazard, hence why he felt it necessary to make the arrest, and I would support the officer's judgement, given that this was within a close external proximity to other people. Plus, it was in the middle of the road and not off to the side or away from traffic.

My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard. Furthermore I did not simply spray bullets, I also used a physical means of having the vehicles cleared. It's also rather arguable by your footage that you approached as this process was underway and put yourself at risk. Quite frankly, you endangered yourself by coming towards the scene knowing full well what was happening. Strikes me as rather convenient that you approached the scene in the middle of the process being undertaken only to then claim I endangered you.

Regards,
FBI Special Agent Kowalski.

[danigold]

Regarding my own "endangerment", this was done, and rather evidently by the footage, during a time where no civilians were present in the immediate vicinity so as to potentially hurt anyone. The person gathering the footage was well back, within a pizza store until their convenient approach towards the scene in close proximity during the undertaking of the process, however even so, was clearly not hurt. Furthermore, while the shockwave did cause me to trip over, I certainly did not endanger my own life. Even if it did, if you've actually read the law, it clearly states to another. If I put myself at risk, it wouldn't be the most sensible move, however it would not be illegal as I am not jeopardizing anybody else's safety.

So, "no civilians were present"? Is the person recording not a civilian? You can hear from the pre-video recording (logs) how they addressed the situation of you going ham on vehicles, after which she briefly ran inside the building for shelter.
Nobody said you endangered your own life, but you did endanger yourself, and the law doesn't have any statement as to what is "big endangerment or small endangerment"; point is, you shouldn't endanger people, and you hurting yourself just proves that what you did is dangerous and reckless.
And you did indeed put the footage taker's well being, jeopardizing their safety.

Furthermore, I did not address your questions as I am particularly busy and my job requires me to be on the move, frequently. It's pretty clear I suggested you could ask a police officer about vehicle towing. Sorry to have offended you, but you didn't get any special treatment.

Interesting how your job requires you to constantly be on the move, yet you did have the couple of minutes to go ballistic on vehicles, which are people's property.
Plus, conveniently, I did actually went ahead and asked another police officer afterwards on his thoughts regarding the situation, to which he told me that shooting and exploding cars is illegal, and if he was there he would've told you to immediately stop, as its his job.

As for your client's arrest - he was escorted to the Washington Police Station and was obviously to be read his miranda rights. This is usually the responsibility of the arresting officer, however, as Officer Hazard is still learning how to improve his work, and commendably so, this may have been missed at the scene of the arrest, though I cannot confirm at this stage. Either way in case of any such situation, I reiterated your client's rights to him personally and on the record. I am well aware that your client has rights and I had no intention of violating them. Your client was made aware of his rights on-record prior to any official proceedings.

Usually the responsibility of the arresting officer? You are blatantly throwing the blame unto a rookie, how disrespectful! Hazard tries his best and cares about his job, is eager to learn, yet you throw him under the bus. Also, if you were there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake (as is human to do), shouldn't you have corrected him, as the veteran?
How nice of you to "reiterate" something you've never iterated in the first place, and a whole 33 minutes (10 of which were spent in a hot car alone!) after the initial arrest, which according to the Law Enforcement Code, the Miranda Rights must be read to the suspect promptly. Is 33 minutes after the fact considered promptly? It says so in the Code, if only you knew someone ((maybe the person who wrote it)) to help you understand it.
Oh and by the way, there is one right which you have failed to bring up, the right to refuse to testify against yourself, as stated in the constitution.

This is in accordance with the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City which indicates a suspect must be read their rights. All things considered, there were extenuating circumstances which resulted in myself and other officers responding to a high priority call. As a result of the chaos, it's possible details were missed at the initial scene, yes. However, at no stage did anyone seek to violate your client's rights and this is evident by the fact I clearly stated your client his rights.

In respect to the alleged negligence, I won't apologise for urgently rushing to back my comrades in a life-threatening situation. Your client was still outside a police station and I am not the only law enforcer in the state. It is hardly negligent for your client to be outside a police station where cops come and go frequently, where any officer could've come and taken your client inside.

Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done.
Nobody's asking you to apologize for helping others, but you don't get to lock someone in a blistering hot vehicle outside; you should've taken at least the 5 extra seconds to escort him inside the department, could've cuffed him to a bench or something.
Also stating "some other cop could've seen him"? Again throwing the blame on other people? My client will be able to testify that during those 10 minutes he saw nobody pass.

Your client's actions were in the vicinity of myself and Officer Hazard, hence why he felt it necessary to make the arrest, and I would support the officer's judgement, given that this was within a close external proximity to other people. Plus, it was in the middle of the road and not off to the side or away from traffic.

Nobody is denying what my client did to get himself arrested and detained, and nobody is going after Hazard for initiating the arrest. This complaint is about what you did, and nobody else. Thats why in the complaint form I only put your name.
Oh and according to the footage, there was a person in proximity to the explosions you have made.

My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard. Furthermore I did not simply spray bullets, I also used a physical means of having the vehicles cleared. It's also rather arguable by your footage that you approached as this process was underway and put yourself at risk. Quite frankly, you endangered yourself by coming towards the scene knowing full well what was happening. Strikes me as rather convenient that you approached the scene in the middle of the process being undertaken only to then claim I endangered you.

Please provide us any evidence you have to prove us that you ensured nobody was in proximity. Regarding the alleged "tempered and reinforced glass" protecting the person who was filming, does that mean its also ok to shoot a cop because he is wearing a Kevlar vest? Doubt it.
I'm also thinking of requesting you to provide an eye test, considering the footage clearly shows the filmer arriving before you went crazy on the vehicles. Not to mention you didn't do any effort in clearing them away from your illegal escapade.


Oh and one more thing, you failed to try and cover up the fact that the cars you exploded and destroyed were peoples property, which counts as vandalism.. That's a charge, you know?

((oh and regarding that OOC line you added... What a weird defense. because you assume he went afk for some time (which he didn't, as he was talking in main chat during that time), its ok to RP negligence? Come off it, Kowalski.))

[Klaus]

Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:

They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.

[Ellis F.]

Mr. Homero Sanchez' testimony:

They will need to post this themselves, to prove legitimacy. This will not be taken into consideration otherwise.

Greetings, this is citizen Homero Sanchez, and this is my testimony. As the complaint says, I was indeed left alone for a grueling 10 minutes inside the police car by Special Agent Kowalski while he left the scene for reasons unknown to me, I could have died of a heat stroke if they took any longer which is why as one of the exhibits shows I was asking for a cup of water which was granted afterwards thankfully, otherwise I would have landed in a hospital bed rather than a jail cell. I wasn't read my Miranda Rights upon the initial arrest, and had them read to me only after my attorney, Sally Slaughter questioned Agent Kowalski about it. Not to mention the fact that he seemed to be uncharacteristically rude towards my attorney for no reason I don't exactly get it.

Signed, Homero Sanchez.

[Kowalski.]

Regarding my own "endangerment", this was done, and rather evidently by the footage, during a time where no civilians were present in the immediate vicinity so as to potentially hurt anyone. The person gathering the footage was well back, within a pizza store until their convenient approach towards the scene in close proximity during the undertaking of the process, however even so, was clearly not hurt. Furthermore, while the shockwave did cause me to trip over, I certainly did not endanger my own life. Even if it did, if you've actually read the law, it clearly states to another. If I put myself at risk, it wouldn't be the most sensible move, however it would not be illegal as I am not jeopardizing anybody else's safety.

So, "no civilians were present"? Is the person recording not a civilian? You can hear from the pre-video recording (logs) how they addressed the situation of you going ham on vehicles, after which she briefly ran inside the building for shelter.
Nobody said you endangered your own life, but you did endanger yourself, and the law doesn't have any statement as to what is "big endangerment or small endangerment"; point is, you shouldn't endanger people, and you hurting yourself just proves that what you did is dangerous and reckless.
And you did indeed put the footage taker's well being, jeopardizing their safety.

As cute as that is - your footage itself shows the person filming was already inside the building, only to come outside as I was clearing some vehicles. You also don't seem to know the law too well. My defence against the Endangerment claim has literally nothing to do with "big endangerment or small endangerment" but the fact that endangerment is a crime when it puts someone else at risk. For instance, if I were to put myself at risk by doing parkour along a skyscraper without a harness, I haven't actually broken the law, it would be plain stupidity. It's another story if I encouraged someone else to do it or something, however.

You really need to go read the law again.

Furthermore, I did not address your questions as I am particularly busy and my job requires me to be on the move, frequently. It's pretty clear I suggested you could ask a police officer about vehicle towing. Sorry to have offended you, but you didn't get any special treatment.

Interesting how your job requires you to constantly be on the move, yet you did have the couple of minutes to go ballistic on vehicles, which are people's property.
Plus, conveniently, I did actually went ahead and asked another police officer afterwards on his thoughts regarding the situation, to which he told me that shooting and exploding cars is illegal, and if he was there he would've told you to immediately stop, as its his job.

Congratulations on asking the same officer who arrested your client about a crime with little to no context about what's actually happening. I've already stated the following rather clearly:

My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard.

Then again - you clearly don't seem to read. The vehicles were a fire hazard and heavily damaged. So much as a spark from a collision and they could go up in flames. Plus, those vehicles were taken care of on the side of the road and away from a populated area. The person filming was inside the store until she decided it was a smart idea to come outside in the middle of it. Again, real convenient that you want to now accuse me of endangering her.

As for your client's arrest - he was escorted to the Washington Police Station and was obviously to be read his miranda rights. This is usually the responsibility of the arresting officer, however, as Officer Hazard is still learning how to improve his work, and commendably so, this may have been missed at the scene of the arrest, though I cannot confirm at this stage. Either way in case of any such situation, I reiterated your client's rights to him personally and on the record. I am well aware that your client has rights and I had no intention of violating them. Your client was made aware of his rights on-record prior to any official proceedings.

Usually the responsibility of the arresting officer? You are blatantly throwing the blame unto a rookie, how disrespectful! Hazard tries his best and cares about his job, is eager to learn, yet you throw him under the bus. Also, if you were there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake (as is human to do), shouldn't you have corrected him, as the veteran?
How nice of you to "reiterate" something you've never iterated in the first place, and a whole 33 minutes (10 of which were spent in a hot car alone!) after the initial arrest, which according to the Law Enforcement Code, the Miranda Rights must be read to the suspect promptly. Is 33 minutes after the fact considered promptly? It says so in the Code, if only you knew someone ((maybe the person who wrote it)) to help you understand it.
Oh and by the way, there is one right which you have failed to bring up, the right to refuse to testify against yourself, as stated in the constitution.

This just made me laugh, to be frank. I'm not throwing anyone under the bus, the facts are the facts. I said myself rather clearly that Officer Hazard is also seeking to learn and improve his quality of service, and commendably so. Yet you seem to ignore that or just have a problem reading. That's been established throughout this complaint. And for context, Officer Hazard isn't a rookie, he's an Officer.

Either way, your client was read his rights before any official proceedings occurred. I ensured that was done, on the record. As for your claims about me failing to bring up a right - this isn't a court, nor is an interrogation a court proceeding. There is no testifying under oath. You're an attorney, apparently - you should know that right applies in a court proceeding and you'd also be obliged to point it out to your client in preparation for their defence. It's also convenient you point it out now instead of then and there - sounds like you don't know the rights too well yourself. Every law enforcer has always read the miranda rights as follows, perhaps with slight wording differences:

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used as evidence against you. You have the right to have an attorney present. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed to you."

Either way, back to a point of relevance - your statement is just silly. I've already said before, there were extreme circumstances (yeah, life and death) behind the reason why I went to tend to a criminal situation. Your client was outside a police station. Officers come and go, I'm not the only law enforcer in the country.

As for "being there with an officer who is trying to learn, and he made a mistake", that is indeed the case. That's exactly why I read your client his rights before we began. Officer Hazard was handling the arrest, and I was there to assist. It's why I intervened during the interrogation to allow your client his say, as Officer Hazard was planning to escort him to the cells. Again - the Officer was clearly trying to learn and was getting familiar with the way the job works, hence I didn't chastise him over it but simply explained that your client had the right to defend himself as well. It's on the record.

This is in accordance with the Law Enforcement Code of Vice City which indicates a suspect must be read their rights. All things considered, there were extenuating circumstances which resulted in myself and other officers responding to a high priority call. As a result of the chaos, it's possible details were missed at the initial scene, yes. However, at no stage did anyone seek to violate your client's rights and this is evident by the fact I clearly stated your client his rights.

In respect to the alleged negligence, I won't apologise for urgently rushing to back my comrades in a life-threatening situation. Your client was still outside a police station and I am not the only law enforcer in the state. It is hardly negligent for your client to be outside a police station where cops come and go frequently, where any officer could've come and taken your client inside.

Again, must be read their rights PROMPTLY, which was failed to be done.
Nobody's asking you to apologize for helping others, but you don't get to lock someone in a blistering hot vehicle outside; you should've taken at least the 5 extra seconds to escort him inside the department, could've cuffed him to a bench or something.
Also stating "some other cop could've seen him"? Again throwing the blame on other people? My client will be able to testify that during those 10 minutes he saw nobody pass.

I don't know if you either can't read or just seek to ignore common sense. It's hardly blaming someone else by simply pointing out the fact your client was outside a police station. The fact that your client WAS outside a police station makes it rather clear that an officer could have assisted the suspect. As unfortunate as it was to have to leave your client, I had to respond to a call in which the lives of other officers were threatened. I don't regret the fact I responded to a situation in a bid to protect my fellow officers. I do regret that your client feels he was neglected, and that is also why I rather clearly gave him some water immediately upon my return.

Your client's actions were in the vicinity of myself and Officer Hazard, hence why he felt it necessary to make the arrest, and I would support the officer's judgement, given that this was within a close external proximity to other people. Plus, it was in the middle of the road and not off to the side or away from traffic.

Nobody is denying what my client did to get himself arrested and detained, and nobody is going after Hazard for initiating the arrest. This complaint is about what you did, and nobody else. Thats why in the complaint form I only put your name.
Oh and according to the footage, there was a person in proximity to the explosions you have made.

The footage shows the person "in proximity" endangered herself by coming toward the scene. She was inside a building until she stepped outside towards the proceeding taking place. It's common sense that you move away from danger, not towards it.

My actions are different in that I ensured no citizens were within such a proximity that may cause injury, given the pizza shop's building has tempered and reinforced glass, and was clearing the road for traffic as these vehicles were already heavily damaged and posed a risk by being there, as a fire hazard. Furthermore I did not simply spray bullets, I also used a physical means of having the vehicles cleared. It's also rather arguable by your footage that you approached as this process was underway and put yourself at risk. Quite frankly, you endangered yourself by coming towards the scene knowing full well what was happening. Strikes me as rather convenient that you approached the scene in the middle of the process being undertaken only to then claim I endangered you.

Please provide us any evidence you have to prove us that you ensured nobody was in proximity. Regarding the alleged "tempered and reinforced glass" protecting the person who was filming, does that mean its also ok to shoot a cop because he is wearing a Kevlar vest? Doubt it.
I'm also thinking of requesting you to provide an eye test, considering the footage clearly shows the filmer arriving before you went crazy on the vehicles. Not to mention you didn't do any effort in clearing them away from your illegal escapade.

The comparison you've just tried making is contextually different to this situation. It's illegal to commit an aggravated assault or attempted murder by firing at an officer.

The person behind the building's tempered glass was protected from what was happening, which also wasn't of a criminal nature as I was clearing a road of a fire hazard. I'm thinking you need the eye test because you're clearly not reading. I said rather clearly that the person filming went inside, and then came outside as I was clearing the road. Your evidence only corroborates that, as I didn't do anything while that person was outside.

Oh and one more thing, you failed to try and cover up the fact that the cars you exploded and destroyed were peoples property, which counts as vandalism.. That's a charge, you know?

Yeah, it might be, if the vehicles weren't already smashed up and posing a fire hazard. That's essentially what your client did, shooting an intact vehicle in the middle of the road. Me? I was clearing smashed-up vehicles that posed a safety risk. Anyone with half a brain would understand that. It's common sense, really. It is funny that you think I'm covering something up though.

((oh and regarding that OOC line you added... What a weird defense. because you assume he went afk for some time (which he didn't, as he was talking in main chat during that time), its ok to RP negligence? Come off it, Kowalski.))

((Oh so now you want to be a smart-arse? Stop talking out of your arse - he did go AFK, I left when he was AFK and he returned at some stage after I'd already left. Do you even read? I don't even know whether to cringe, laugh or cry at your stupidity half the time.))

[danigold]

Congratulations on asking the same officer who arrested your client about a crime with little to no context about what's actually happening.

Actually if you would bother to look at the timing of the pictures and evidence, you'd realize that question was asked before the arrest of my client.. I really think you might've not really look at the evidence I provided.

The vehicles were a fire hazard and heavily damaged. So much as a spark from a collision and they could go up in flames.

Evidence shows otherwise - the vehicles weren't even lightly smoking.

your client was read his rights before any official proceedings occurred

Irrelevant, the code says you have to do it promptly upon arrest, not right as you start the interrogation.

if I were to put myself at risk by doing parkour along a skyscraper without a harness, I haven't actually broken the law, it would be plain stupidity.

The comparison you've just tried making is contextually different to this situation. It's illegal to go on a public rampage upon civilian's vehicles, and exploding them.


I'll also not repeat how your excuse (or any, for that matter) for leaving my client, handcuffed, in a locked car in the middle of the day with no air circulation in a display of extreme negligence, is irrelevant.

The person behind the building's tempered glass was protected from what was happening.

You know, its interesting that you insist that the building has tempered glass (not that tempered glass would protect someone from an explosion anyways), because I went on the field and checked myself if the windows would protect someone from an explosion, and as you can see in the video provided here, where I performed a test with an ARPD officer to induce an explosion near the exact same windows in a safe manner (by clearing the area of civilians that shouldn't be there, and announcing the fire, plus we had an ambulance and medics on standby just in case), it is apparent that both the vehicle placed inside, and the trained professional on the other side of the window, were hit by the explosion through the so called "tempered bullet proof glass".
Observe: https://streamable.com/5e79qu

And to add on top of that, I also went ahead and questioned an owner of the Downtown branch of the Well Stacked Pizza Co. (Cillian Murphy) store regarding if the glass is tempered or explosion proof, and he said that his store's windows won't protect anyone from explosions, nor any other store of the same franchise.
Mister Murphy's answers: https://imgur.com/a/J49fknj



((Also I'd appreciate you avoid calling me a stupid smart-arse, you seem to be taking this roleplay very personally for some reason.))

[Nylezer]

Even though this is a complaint against a member of the FBI, I thought it would be right to make a statement regarding the VCPD.

If any of the officers that is apart of the VCPD has caused one or more civilians discomfort due to their actions or lack of, I would like to officially apologize for this inconvenience. I am open to pay for emotional and/or physical damage done by the VCPD, make sure to contact me through my email (Discord) if this is the case.

Furthermore, I want to point out that any action taken by a member of the FBI does not fall under our responsibility and we will distance ourselves from this behavior. After thoroughly reading through the complaint we've decided to issue a warning interally that all officers are required to be able to handle themselves when it comes to handling situations. Especially the Miranda Rights not being mentioned when they should have been, like you said, has been a very strong subject.

I hope you are in good health after what has happened to you and I wish you a fruitful life for the years to come.

To serve and protect,

VCPD Captain Arthur "Nylez" Williams

[Klaus]

Before I make a final conclusion on this report, I have a few questions for those involved:

VCPD Officer Hazard
1. Can explain your POV, focusing on the actions prior to 10:51 CET when you and FBI Special Agent Kowalski were involved in the traffic stop.
2. Why did you need to perform a traffic stop at all, if the crime happened prior?
3. Please elaborate on your charges of "Endangerment" and explain in detail why you believed Mr Sanchez's actions were dangerous.
4. Explain why the suspect you arrested, and therefore under your custody, ended up being left with the FBI?
5. Can you provide any recording (logs) from between 10:30 CET and 11:05 CET? Preferably any recording from the Police CB channel.

FBI Special Agent Kowalski
1. Why were you involved in the traffic stop, and why did you think the VCPD required FBI assistance?
2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?
3. Why did you escort the suspect, and not the arresting Officer?
4. Do you think it is ok to leave a suspect alone, without supervision?
5. Elaborate on the Code 1, that in your defence forced you to leave the suspect behind.

Homero Sanchez
1. ((Were you or were you not AFK at some point between 10:51 and 11:05 CET. I will check logs to make sure but I want to hear the truth from you ))

[Ellis F.]

Homero Sanchez
1. ((Were you or were you not AFK at some point between 10:51 and 11:05 CET. I will check logs to make sure but I want to hear the truth from you ))

((Yes I was afk for 1 full minute moments before arriving to WBPD as I had said right before then through /em I needed a minute))

[Kowalski.]

Greetings, I've argued my case and will only address questions from my superiors at this stage unless otherwise requested by those same superiors.

FBI Special Agent Kowalski
1. Why were you involved in the traffic stop, and why did you think the VCPD required FBI assistance?
2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?
3. Why did you escort the suspect, and not the arresting Officer?
4. Do you think it is ok to leave a suspect alone, without supervision?
5. Elaborate on the Code 1, that in your defence forced you to leave the suspect behind.

To answer your questions:

1.) My involvement was merely to guide and assist Officer Hazard in making an arrest. I'm aware he is still getting acquainted with certain things and so I looked to assist him so he might learn a thing or two as I was on standby and able to help, though ready to move if need be.

2.) I did not. If anything, I communicated the contrary. At the end of the interrogation of Mr. Sanchez, I specifically reiterated that any detainment or release of the suspect in custody was up to Officer Hazard as he was the arresting officer and the suspect was in his custody.

3.) Respectfully, a transportation of a suspect was not a takeover of the situation but an aid to a fellow officer. I had brought the cruiser over to assist Officer Hazard as he began his arrest. My reason for transporting the suspect was to aid the arresting officer.

4.) Under normal circumstances, not at all. If it weren't for the circumstances I stated, I would not have left the suspect. Only in an extreme circumstance such as the life or death of a fellow officer, for example, would this be justifiable.

5.) The situation was a smuggle voyage. Aside from obvious surveillance tasks in case a smuggler escaped, I saw that my fellow officers were in direct danger and I rushed to their aid. I was concerned for the life and safety of my colleagues. As a result, I do regret that Mr. Sanchez felt neglected and do apologize to him for any inconvenience or other disturbance caused. I did indeed also provide Mr. Sanchez with the water he requested, offered him a tea or coffee, which shows there was no malicious treatment of a suspect in custody. However I do stand by my decision to rush to assist my fellow officers as this was life or death, and indeed, the suspect was outside a police station where an officer could've also tended to the suspect at any moment as I'm not the only law enforcement operative in the state.

Regards,
Kowalski
FBI Special Agent.

[danigold]

2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?

2.) I did not. If anything, I communicated the contrary. At the end of the interrogation of Mr. Sanchez, I specifically reiterated that any detainment or release of the suspect in custody was up to Officer Hazard as he was the arresting officer and the suspect was in his custody.

I'm no expert in the secret lingo used between the FBI and VCPD, but I have these recordings of Hazard asking Kowalski through the police radio if he minds to "go ahead with it" and Kowalski replying with "aight", to which after Hazard has, and my client is alone with Kowalski.
Sounds a bit like one law enforcement official handing over the custody of a suspect to another law enforcement official.

Spoiler (Click to expand)

[Kowalski.]

2. Did you take custody of the suspect from VCPD Officer Hazard, and was this properly communicated?

2.) I did not. If anything, I communicated the contrary. At the end of the interrogation of Mr. Sanchez, I specifically reiterated that any detainment or release of the suspect in custody was up to Officer Hazard as he was the arresting officer and the suspect was in his custody.

I'm no expert in the secret lingo used between the FBI and VCPD, but I have these recordings of Hazard asking Kowalski through the police radio if he minds to "go ahead with it" and Kowalski replying with "aight", to which after Hazard has, and my client is alone with Kowalski.
Sounds a bit like one law enforcement official handing over the custody of a suspect to another law enforcement official.

Spoiler (Click to expand)

Regarding the claims of not reading miranda rights, it is evident that I instructed the arresting officer to read out those miranda rights by the following recording:



I instructed the arresting officer to do so as he was learning to navigate an arrest, as I've previously said, and I was there to assist him in doing so. Now while this order was unfortunately missed by Officer Hazard, I made sure to reiterate those rights as a result of the oversight on-scene. This was to ensure the suspect was still entitled to his civil rights as per the constitution. You said it yourself, Ms. Slaughter, people make mistakes. Officer Hazard made one as he is still learning to navigate an arrest, which is why I was there, to begin with.

Either way nothing you've said changes the fact that Officer Hazard made the calls as the arresting officer, which is clearly indicated here during the interrogation.



And just for the information of the command, I didn't take custody of the suspect but transported him to the station. I still would've waited for Officer Hazard. Other officers or agents can transport suspects as needed, however, it doesn't necessarily change the arresting officer or the person under whose custody a suspect is. Officer Hazard didn't do anything wrong by responding to another priority situation, and I transported the suspect.

Officer Hazard responded to a callout which then became more dangerous with lives on the line, including his own. When the stakes got as high as they did, that is when I responded in a bid to try and protect my comrades and of course ensure nobody escaped justice. As I said before, I regret that Mr. Sanchez felt neglected and do apologize to him for any inconvenience or disturbance caused. However, I would ask Mr. Sanchez to see my point of view and understand that the stakes were high and that I was looking to protect the lives of my fellow officers.

I do still deny any claims of vandalism and do wish to point out that while there was no smoke per se, the complainant cannot clearly discern the amount of damage to the vehicle nor can they actually mitigate the risks. The vehicles were smashed up, which the footage shows. As for the "controlled testing", I do wish to indicate that a shockwave was still likely to occur, though clearly it is shown by the footage that no glass broke. However, it is the person filming who came even closer and thus put themselves in danger by doing so. The person filming should've looked to move away from danger, not towards it.

Regards.

[danigold]

I instructed the arresting officer to do so as he was learning to navigate an arrest, as I've previously said, and I was there to assist him in doing so. Now while this order was unfortunately missed by Officer Hazard.

You were there during the whole time (except those 10 minutes in which you abandoned my client locked and handcuffed inside a hot car) yet you failed to make sure the Miranda Rights were promptly read to my client upon his arrest. You're still trying to throw the blame on Hazard it seems..

transported [Homero] to the station.

Yea you did, after which you promptly and negligently left him alone in a hot car.

I do still deny any claims of vandalism and do wish to point out that while there was no smoke per se, the complainant cannot clearly discern the amount of damage to the vehicle nor can they actually mitigate the risks. The vehicles were smashed up, which the footage shows.

So the complainant cannot clearly discern the amount of damage to the vehicles, yet you can? Are you a mechanic or something? How were you able to discern that despite not having any amount of smoke that the vehicles were a hazard to the people? Just because you see a car with a few lightly damaged parts you get to shoot them?

Are you aware that these vehicles could be fixed?
Are you aware that these vehicles are people's property, which you destroyed?
I went ahead and did yet another test to debunk your silly and made up excuses, in which I had a car's parts damaged, approximately to the same level of the vehicles in the initial evidence of you destroying people's property, and had it's condition expertly diagnosed and analyzed at a Pay'N'Spray, after which it was fixed to being brand new for the mere $150 ARD, the car's in the initial evidence of you causing explosions using people's property could have been safely towed, and could have been fixed, easily.
Test results: https://imgur.com/a/eEqZXHJ

You unnecessarily destroyed people's property, yet you claim no vandalism was done on your part? Please, take your own advice, and read the law.

[Hazard]

VCPD Officer Hazard

Greetings, this is Officer Hazard and I'm about to answer every question that is asked.

1. Can explain your POV, focusing on the actions prior to 10:51 CET when you and FBI Special Agent Kowalski were involved in the traffic stop.

- I pulled over Sup_ while we were having a discussion because he was moving away slowly and slowly. Basically the purpose of /pull-overing Sup_ was to not make him move away from the radio of the Police. After I was done, Kowalski and I was having discussion. After I was told by Kowalski to suspect Sup_ for the reason "Endangerment / Brandishing a firearm" I went near him, suspected him and then he immediately surrendered. After that as soon as Kowalski told me to read the gentleman(Sup_) his Miranda rights.. the smuggle happened. Since I was just half part of the investigation.. I asked the permission from Kowaski for the smuggle and went for it.

2. Why did you need to perform a traffic stop at all, if the crime happened prior?

- As I already said above, he was moving slowly and gradually away from us so I had to immediately stop him because I couldn't take a decision quickly.. I was still having a discussion while he was keep moving away.

3. Please elaborate on your charges of "Endangerment" and explain in detail why you believed Mr Sanchez's actions were dangerous.

- First of all, it is un-acceptable for civilians to shoot and comes under the crime "Public Endangerment" so it is forbidden for people to start shooting. In Sup_'s case, he was shooting the car on the road near Cherry Popers where people pass daily. There were two police officers present near the action which could've harmed them or either the people who pass through their vehicles on the road. It is considered a violation of law to open fire in the public.

4. Explain why the suspect you arrested, and therefore under your custody, ended up being left with the FBI?

- It wasn't actually my custody because I wasn't the one cuffing him and putting him in the car. I was told to but I asked the FBI to let me go for the smuggle work and handle the criminal if you can because we both issued the criminal suspection so it was the right of both, anyone could do the job so I simply asked him to do and I'll rather take care of the smuggle.

5. Can you provide any recording (logs) from between 10:30 CET and 11:05 CET? Preferably any recording from the Police CB channel.

- I have provided them below.

Spoiler (Click to expand)

[danigold]

I was told by Kowalski to suspect Sup_ for the reason "Endangerment / Brandishing a firearm".

Hey Kowalski, Why did you instruct Hazard to hand out the suspection if you believe it was due? Was that so in-case something goes wrong and you mess up like you did, you'd have a safety net so it would be easier for you to throw the blame over to someone else?
The plot sure thickens..

[Kowalski.]

I was told by Kowalski to suspect Sup_ for the reason "Endangerment / Brandishing a firearm".

Hey Kowalski, Why did you instruct Hazard to hand out the suspection if you believe it was due? Was that so in-case something goes wrong and you mess up like you did, you'd have a safety net so it would be easier for you to throw the blame over to someone else?
The plot sure thickens..

Cute, but no. I simply advised the officer of a potential crime and told him how I'd handle it.

Either way, this wasn't my arrest. I've made it clear in my previous statements.

I rest my case and will no longer respond to this complaint, awaiting a decision by the command.

[Klaus]

Sir Klaus takes a drag on his cigarette and looks at Kowalski. "Again?" he asks.

U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation Internal Affairs Division Greetings. Washington DC has appointed Chief of Staff Sir Klaus to evaluate this case, as there is currently no acting Director. The Bureau would like to begin by aplogising to those involved, on behalf of FBI Special Agent Kowalski. Despite the outcome of this complaint, we remain in support of the Special Agent and find him an integral part of what the FBI is trying to achieve in Vice City. Although mistakes have been made, despite these setbacks his commitment and hard work has not gone unnoticed. Although this may not be clear to the general public, the FBI have been able to fight back against organised crime with the help of FBI Special Agent Kowalski. We wanted to make this absolutely clear before evaluating this report. We begin with the evidence posted regarding the reported endangerment. Although SA Kowalski appears to have thought that there were no civilians present in the immediate vicinity, the evidence provided obviously proves SA Kowalski was wrong in his judgement. He should of checked the area more thoroughly before conducting controlled explosions, especially on a busy street such as this. A much safer option was have been to either get the vehicles towed, or move them safely before conducting a controlled explosion. Luckily no one was hurt, but this doesn't excuse the fact that his choices did in fact potentially endanger those around him. This is unacceptable. The reports for misuse of equipment and vandalism will be ignored, as abandoned vehicles, whether owned by the state or not, can be destroyed by Law Enforcement if deemed to be obstructing roads. Now, concerning the report for  failure to read the Miranda Rights properly, this depends on who the arresting Officer is at the scene. From evidence submitted, this appears to have been VCPD Officer Hazard. Although there does seem to have been some miscommunication between both SA and the VCPD Officer, it is by default the one who issues the arrest "/sus" who is the arresting Officer. It is therefore the responsibility of VCPD Officer Hazard to have read the Miranda Rights, and not of SA Kowalski. This doesn't however, clear the SA of any wrongdoing. Kowalski is experienced enough to have at least spotted this oversight and should have helped the Officer, as that was his reasoning for being present at the scene initially. Now, I do not think it is the FBI's job to be training VCPD Officer's, and for that I do not agree with Kowalski's idea of interfering with local police matters just to help train their new recruits. Officer Hazard has already passed the Academy, and is therefore trusted enough by his employers that he is capable of making an arrest when needed. FBI should not be involved in traffic stops that have no interest to FBI investigations. You have pulled the FBI into question for no purpose to the FBI themselves. I am disappointed that SA Kowalski was mixed up in local police matters, transporting a suspect that was not in his custody, to the police station. This should have been the job of the arresting Officer. FBI should be focusing their full attention always to their own duties. If Kowalski had done this initially, it would have not caused this mix up and miscommunication. Moving on to the matter of Negligence by leaving a suspect unattended. I will not accept any excuse that it is ok to leave a suspect unattended, wherever you are. SA Kowalski left the suspect handcuffed, inside a car, for a prolonged period. Now, despite it being out side the police station, you still failed to hand over the suspect to another Officer. This is why your excuse of him being left outside a police station is indeed false. No other police officer was aware of the suspect being left in the car. This is indeed negligence. Now you mentioned that you had to leave the suspect because of a "life or death" situation involving a SWAT raid on a drug smugglers boat. I cannot accept this as a good enough reason for an FBI agent to leave a suspect unattended to. It is not the job of FBI to be getting involved in SWAT raids. Yes you may have needed to be involved in some investigative means, but you should have dealt with the suspect first, either putting them into a holding cell (arrest) or letting them out on bail (let them off). In conclusion, Special Agent Kowalski is found to be guilty of Negligence and Endangerment. The Bureau find it necessary therefore, to issue a last warning and a 3 day suspension. Any future Negligence within the next 2 months will result in the immediate sacking of Special Agent Kowalski. I expect the utmost professionalism and zero mistakes from hereon. Regards, Sir Klaus Chief of Staff U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation.