LogoLogo
  • LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT
    • T2 PD SOPs
      • Introduction
      • General Policies
        • Code Of Conduct
        • Dress Code & Appearance
        • Standard Duty Loadout
        • Chain of Command
        • Officer Safety
        • Specialized Departments
          • Certifications
        • LSPD Ride-Along Policy
        • Corruption Protocol
        • At-Will Employment
          • PD Blacklisting Policy
        • Patrol Procedures
          • Vehicle Patrol
          • Department Vehicles Guide
          • Radio Communication Protocol
            • Phonetic Alphabets
          • Foot Pursuit Protocol
      • Arrest and Detention Procedures
        • Reasonable Suspicion
        • Probable Cause
        • Detentions & Arrests
          • Detention
          • Arrest
            • Examples for Arrest
        • Miranda Rights
        • Use of Force
        • Processing Suspects
        • Incident Reporting
          • MDT GUIDE
      • Traffic Enforcement Procedures
        • Speed Limits & Violations
        • Traffic Stops
          • Do's & Don't List
          • Step By Step Guide
        • Code 5/Felony Stops
        • Pursuit Procedures
          • Formation, Spacing and Levels Of Force
        • Vehicle Repair during Pursuit
        • Tracked Vehicle Pursuit Pursuit
          • Allowed Units
        • The PIT Maneuver
        • Vehicle Swap Rule
        • Issuing a Citation
        • Vehicle Point System
        • Code Red and Blue Protocol
          • Code Red: Neutralization of Suspects
          • Code Blue: Removal of Tires
      • Scene Control
        • Call Response Protocol
        • Hostage Scene Protocol
        • Unit Caps
        • Hostage Handling
        • Negotiations
        • Interrogations
        • Crime Scene Handling
        • Evidence Handling
      • Gang Related Crimes
        • Gang Shootouts
        • South Side Shootings
        • Street Shootings
      • Warrants and Raids
        • Warrant Applications
        • Warrant - Template
        • Warrant Extension - Template
        • Warrant Receipt - Template
        • Subpoena Request - Template
      • Community Engagement
        • Public Relations
        • Civilian Complaints
      • 10 Codes
      • Radar Setup
      • Case Laws
        • Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985)
        • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)
        • Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)
        • Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295 (1999)
        • Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014)
        • Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132 (1925)
        • Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (2015)
        • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
        • Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991)
        • Rhode Island v Innis 446 U.S. 291 (1980)
        • State v. Meadows (2025)
        • State v. Collins (2025)
        • State v Cozney King (2024)
        • Garrity v. New Jersey (1967)
      • San Andreas Public Legislation
Powered by GitBook
On this page
  1. LOS SANTOS POLICE DEPARTMENT
  2. T2 PD SOPs
  3. Case Laws

State v Cozney King (2024)

Jurisdiction: San Andreas Court: City Hall, Carcer Way Date: 23rd October 2024

Facts of the Case In The State vs. Cozney King, the defendant, Cozney King, was charged with the illegal storage of controlled items on his property. During the investigation, it was found that the illegal items in question belonged to another individual, and Cozney King argued that he should not be held liable for the contents since they were not his personal property. Legal Issue The primary issue in this case was whether the property owner (Cozney King) could be held accountable for illegal items found on his premises, despite not being the actual owner of the items. Holding The court ruled that the property holder, in this case, Cozney King, is responsible for any items found on their property, regardless of ownership. The judge determined that when items, whether legal or illegal, are stored or maintained on a property, it is the duty of the property holder to be aware of those items and ensure they comply with legal standards. If illegal items are found, the property holder can be charged with any violations associated with the storage of those items. Reasoning In the court’s reasoning, the judge emphasized the principle that a property holder has a duty of care and control over their premises. The legal rationale is that property owners are presumed to have knowledge of and control over what is stored or maintained on their premises. Therefore, regardless of who owns the items, the responsibility to prevent illegal activity occurring on the property falls squarely on the shoulders of the property holder. The court further highlighted that allowing an exception based on ownership would undermine property laws and provide a loophole for individuals to avoid liability by claiming ignorance of the contents on their property. Conclusion The court held that Cozney King was liable for the illegal storage of items on his property. The ruling established that a property holder can be held criminally responsible for any illegal items found on their premises, even if the items belong to another party

PreviousState v. Collins (2025)NextGarrity v. New Jersey (1967)