NoMaTez v. LSPD Ends in Six-Figure Court Award

What was scheduled to be a straightforward 3 p.m. civil hearing quickly became one of the more talked about courtroom afternoons in recent memory. More than 40 citizens filled the gallery to watch Billy NoMaTez take on the Los Santos Police Department, and from the outset, there was a noticeable tension in the room.

Although both sides had reportedly been notified of the trial time simultaneously, State Attorney Marcus Holloway did not enter the courtroom until 3:07 p.m. Several officers who were scheduled to appear were not present when proceedings began. Defense attorney Dick Richards immediately highlighted their absence, reminding the court that multiple law enforcement personnel had been expected to attend. He also referenced prior discussions of a potential settlement that never came to fruition, signaling early that this case had already seen behind the scenes negotiation before reaching a judge.

At 3:43 p.m., officers did arrive and take seats in the courtroom. By that time, however, testimony was already underway and the earlier absence had already been acknowledged on the record. The late arrival did little to calm the energy in the room. The lawsuit centered on two separate incidents. The first occurred in late January outside Leap Frog, where NoMaTez had been working as a frog mascot. According to the defense, he was standing outside the business when Officer Juno Black deployed a taser directly into his chest. Richards argued that his client was not committing a crime and was simply exercising his right to free speech by performing a hand gesture. He characterized the use of force as unnecessary and emotionally driven.

Dr. Mark Johnson, a trauma physician, testified that he responded to the scene and removed two taser prongs from NoMaTez’s body. He also treated him for blunt force trauma sustained during the fall. In the days and weeks that followed, NoMaTez returned with complaints of chest pain, shortness of breath, and symptoms consistent with post traumatic stress. He was prescribed medication and advised to practice breathing and stress management techniques. Under cross examination by State Attorney Marcus Holloway, Johnson acknowledged that not every patient interaction is formally documented unless requested, explaining that the city’s medical services are often too busy to record every detail. The State leaned heavily on that point, arguing there was no documented proof of permanent or life altering injury and no evidence that the taser was deployed outside departmental policy.

Ronald Fumble, an employee at Leap Frog, testified that he witnessed the tasing while working that day. He told the court that NoMaTez was in costume and did not appear to be acting aggressively. He described seeing his body tense and spasm after the taser was fired and said the moment appeared frightening. Security footage from the building was submitted into evidence, though it was not played publicly during the hearing and was instead reserved for the judge to review privately during deliberation.

The second issue brought before the court involved NoMaTez’s vehicle. According to testimony, two officers entered his car at Auto Exotics and drove away with it. The vehicle was later reported connected to a crime and impounded. When NoMaTez tracked it down, he was required to pay $5,500 in fees to retrieve it. He told LSPD he did not report the vehicle stolen because officers had taken it, leaving him unsure who he could even report it to. The defense argued that officers knowingly used his property and placed him in a position where he had to pay to recover his own car.

When NoMaTez took the stand, the atmosphere shifted. He spoke at length about how the incident affected him beyond physical pain. He described feeling anxious whenever he sees police lights and said he now avoids officers entirely, sometimes ducking into alleyways to stay out of sight. He testified that he struggles with sleep, confidence, and maintaining normal routines. He told the court he attempted to file a complaint immediately after the tasing but felt dismissed.

During cross examination, State Attorney Marcus Halloway asked about a February 19 mountain incident that resulted in criminal charges. The purpose of the questioning was to challenge claims that NoMaTez was unable to function normally in daily life. NoMaTez stated that he had been hiking in the mountains searching for treasure when officers entered a tunnel area and began shooting. He testified that officers fired first and that he picked up a nearby weapon and returned fire. Defense objected to the line of questioning on relevance grounds, arguing the incident was unrelated to the civil claims being discussed.

In delivering the ruling, the judge acknowledged that while there was no formal medical documentation proving permanent disability, the facts established that NoMaTez had been tased and that his vehicle had been taken and impounded. The court awarded $250,000 in damages, significantly less than the $1.5 million originally sought.

The hearing concluded after the ruling was delivered. Shortly after the decision was announced, the courtroom experienced an unusual disruption when several spectators rushed past the safety barrier. The disturbance involved individuals vomiting, urinating, and defecating inside the trial area, which prompted immediate action from court staff. PD personnel quickly moved to remove the individuals involved and clear the courtroom to restore order before the proceedings were formally adjourned. Outside of the courtroom, NoMaTez stated to Weazel News that LSPD had previously offered a $500,000 settlement before trial. According to him, he declined the offer in favor of taking the matter to court. With the judge awarding $250,000, the final outcome ultimately came in at half of what had reportedly been offered beforehand.

By the end of the afternoon, the court had awarded a six figure judgment against the Los Santos Police Department. Public reaction

following the ruling reflected visible frustration toward what critics described as repeated concerns about officer conduct, transparency, and use of force policies. Supporters of NoMaTez said the verdict confirmed their belief that the department failed in its handling of the incident. The case closed with the plaintiff prevailing in court and the department ordered to pay damages.

Courtroom1

Courtroom2