WOD BPD Game

The Thin Blue Line


    Cops and the Law

    Share
    avatar
    Moderatrix

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2009-10-12

    Cops and the Law

    Post  Moderatrix on Sat Oct 24, 2009 11:29 pm

    Laws that Cops have to follow: Evidence and Interrogation

    (DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice, just game rules gathered from the books and some cursory web searches. Don't get in trouble with the cops, but if you do, don't use this as a legal guidance. That is what an attorney is for.)

    To keep policed people from becoming a police state there are some rules. While you will be playing authority figures, you are not the final authority and you still have rules and procedure you have to follow. Now this is not baring someone playing a corrupt cop, but be careful. Other cops (players) might be straight, and could report you to IAB. So to let you make these decision effectively, these are the basics does and don't.

    Catching the "bad guy" means not only getting him in jail but making sure he stays in there or gets sent to prison. There are some basic rules about gathering evidence and confessions and how it effects admissibility in court. All of this is connected. If gather evidence, even airtight evidence, of a murder without a warrant, that evidence can't be used.

    Getting a warrant means you need to have something to go on. Judges won't just hand you a warrant (unless you have something on him) so you need something to go to him with. This is actually helpful in the end. If the warrant is given on flimsy standards than it could be later thrown out. There is actual rules on the books for a getting a warrant roll.

    Acquiring A Warrant: Manipulation + Politics. One roll = 30 minutes.
    Modifiers: only hearsay from unreliable sources (–4), flimsy circumstantial evidence (–2), extensive circumstantial evidence (–1),
    testimony from a reliable witness (+1), testimony from multiple reliable witnesses (+2), significant physical evidence such as video footage (+2) or incontrovertible physical proof such as DNA evidence testing (+3).

    This mechanic can be used for search and arrest warrants. Once you have your suspect under arrest, you have to be careful. So to get your slam dunk case, read the suspect their rights before official questionings begin. Here is a basic example of the Miranda rights:

    You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say may be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to consult with an attorney and to have one present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you. If you choose to talk to a police offi cer, you have the right to stop the interview at any time. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?

    Now whether they waive the right to council or not, this is Biloxi, not 'Nam. There are rules. How you interrogate a suspect still needs to be tempered by certain rules. You can lie, but only in certain ways. But be warned, even if some lies are aloud, if the suspect is smart and knows them to be false then they know you're fishing and they will clam up. But back to the lies you can or can't tell. You can tell non-coercive lies, or intrinsic misrepresentations, more geared towards the evidence such as:

    1. Placement of the defendant's vehicle at the crime scene.
    2. Physical evidence linked to the victim found in the defendant's car.
    3. Discovery of the murder weapon.
    4. A claim that the murder victim is still alive.
    5. Presence of the defendant's fingerprints on the getaway car or at the crime scene.
    6. Positive identification of the defendant by reliable witnesses.
    7. Discovery of a nonexistent witness.

    Now these next example are coercive lies, or extrinsic misrepresentations. These are the things that if said, could very well get any thing said by the defendant thrown out.

    1. Assurances of divine salvation upon confession.
    2. Promises of mental health treatment in exchange for a confession.
    3. Assurances of treatment in a "nice hospital" (in which the defendant could have his personal belongings and be visited by his girlfriend) in lieu of incarceration, in exchange for a confession.
    4. Misrepresentations of legal principles, such as (a) suggesting that the defendant would have the burden of convincing a judge and jury at trial that he was "perfectly innocent" and had nothing to do with the offense, (b) misrepresenting the consequences of a "habitual offender" conviction, and (c) holding out that the defendant's confession cannot be used against him at trial.
    5. Misrepresentations by an interrogating police officer, who is a close friend of the defendant, that the defendant's failure to confess will get the officer into trouble with his superiors and jeopardize the well-being of the officer's pregnant wife and children.
    6. Claiming to be an attorney or member of the clergy to whom the suspect has the belief of confidentiality with.
    7. Promises of more favorable treatment in the event of a confession.

    This last one can be said under three conditions. 1) A lawyer is present, 2) and it is true. 3) You have checked with the DA or ADA before making such a claim.

    Laws that Cops have to follow: Supernatural Evidence

    The Evidence and Interrogation sections covered some basics for gathering evidence and interrogating suspects in normal circumstances, but in Biloxi things aren't always normal. Getting a warrant becomes more difficult when the only reason you have for wanting an arrest warrant is that you saw the murder take place in your dreams, or that a ghost told you. It is much more difficult to get a murder one conviction to stick when the murderer used spells case from his 30th story hotel room. It is up to the individual officers how they plan to handle this.

    Even if a coworker, superior officer, or judge had any amount of knowledge regarding the supernatural they are more than likely not willing to actively engage in discussion or pursuit of such a case for fear of tarnishing their reputation. Any cop that puts in his reports he saw a suspect turn into a werewolf, his credibility is shot.

    Any one who has become one of the supernatural has templates has another reason to doctor police reports to be more normal. All supernatural have a reason to keep the public unaware of their existence, at least the existence of those that are like them. Though exposing any supernatural to the public could have disastrous.

    Though then the question becomes, what do you do when you have a someone committing crimes via supernatural means? Well that is up to you. What are you willing to do? Are you willing plant a gun? What are you going to do with say a vampire who has killed several people? You can't put him in jail to stand trial. He'll burst into flames going into the court room. It's up to you to figure out how to make it work within the law.
    avatar
    Sue Miller

    Posts : 15
    Join date : 2009-10-17
    Age : 33

    arrest warrants

    Post  Sue Miller on Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:08 am

    So . . . before we bring someone in for questioning, we need to have an arrest warrant? What is the difference between needing to bring someone in for questioning, and arresting them and keeping them in jail while we build our case? All the time in movies they'll be something about not being able to keep suspects there because they don't have enough evidence to hold them, but then how did they have enough evidence to bring them in in the first place? How many different levels of warrants are there?

    -Lynn
    avatar
    Dante Jones

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2009-10-23
    Age : 34

    Re: Cops and the Law

    Post  Dante Jones on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:18 pm

    I'm not an expert on this, but here's what I know:

    - If you have probable cause to search someone's person, vehicle, house, etc., you may do so without a warrant.

    - If you have a suspect, you can bring them in to ask questions without making any accusations. If something comes up that confirms guilt, you can make an arrest; otherwise, you can't hold them for more than one hour -- at that point, you must arrest OR release them.

    - Sometimes police pick a suspect up on a minor charge and use that to springboard into a more serious thing. For example, the guy you suspect of murdering ten people in cold blood leaves his car parked more than six inches from the curb. You arrest him on that charge, put him in a holding cell, and stall for time while you gather evidence.

    - General investigation breakdown: You find a body that's been shot -> You look for the murder weapon -> You find a gun that matches the caliber of the exit wounds on the body -> A ballistics test reveals that it's the same gun -> A registration check shows the gun is owned by one of your suspects -> Everyone you suspect has to take a gunpowder residue test (fairly reliable) -> One of your suspects has gunpowder on their hands, meaning they fired a weapon recently -> You arrest them for murder.
    MAKING THAT STICK is harder than just the arrest. You'd need to prove they were there are the time of the murder, that they did have and use the weapon, and you'll need motive; the jury will, 9 times out of 10, want to know why, unless the guy is a total scumbag. You'll need to gather evidence from the crime scene, or get a witness to place the suspect at the scene, and you'll need a confession; sometimes they give up willingly, or admit guilt by accident. There are lots of ways to get that confession, including those little lies mentioned in another thread.
    EXAMPLE: In the second episode of The Shield, a street vendor is shot and hospitalized in critical condition. The police trace the shooter to a local street gang, and the word is that it was an initiation ritual for joining the gang. They find the location of a jump-in, ambush it, and arrest everyone for loitering and breaking and entering -- the kid they suspect of killing the vendor is brought in for questioning. They tell him that the vendor is dead, he gloats, and they arrest him, telling him the vendor actually survived. By lying about the condition of the victim, the police were able to play into the kid's cockiness and grab a confession.
    avatar
    Moderatrix

    Posts : 43
    Join date : 2009-10-12

    Re: Cops and the Law

    Post  Moderatrix on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:33 pm

    Sue Miller wrote:So . . . before we bring someone in for questioning, we need to have an arrest warrant? What is the difference between needing to bring someone in for questioning, and arresting them and keeping them in jail while we build our case? All the time in movies they'll be something about not being able to keep suspects there because they don't have enough evidence to hold them, but then how did they have enough evidence to bring them in in the first place? How many different levels of warrants are there?

    -Lynn

    I'm gonna take a stab at this; Jordon, call me out if I'm off track.

    A suspect may be detained by the police for up to 24 hours without being arrested or charged with a crime, as long as the police are actively investigating the suspect's case while the suspect is being detained. At the end of the 24 hours, the suspect must be arrested or released.

    There are a number of different levels of questioning. The rules above are intended primarily for interrogating suspects who have been arrested and are in police custody. From lest to most strict, the levels of questioning are: 1) asking someone questions in the field, 2) questioning someone in the police building, 3) questioning a detained suspect, and 4) questioning an arrested suspect. In 1 and 2, any statements made of the suspect's own accord are admissible in court even if Miranda rights have not yet been read. In addition, the person must feel free to end the questioning and leave at any time, in addition to having standard Miranda rights (although those right do not have to be read to the suspect). In 3 and 4, the suspect must be Mirandized before any statement, questioned or volunteered, can be admissible, and then only if the suspect is speaking with counsel or having waived the right to counsel.
    avatar
    Dante Jones

    Posts : 62
    Join date : 2009-10-23
    Age : 34

    Re: Cops and the Law

    Post  Dante Jones on Tue Oct 27, 2009 1:55 pm

    That sounds right to me, Si. But then, I'm not Jordon.
    avatar
    admin of doom +3

    Posts : 681
    Join date : 2009-10-12
    Age : 33

    Re: Cops and the Law

    Post  admin of doom +3 on Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:11 pm

    Well from what I understand from research and talking to attorneys when I have a burning question it sounds good.

    Sue Miller wrote:So . . . before we bring someone in for questioning, we need to have an arrest warrant? What is the difference between needing to bring someone in for questioning, and arresting them and keeping them in jail while we build our case? All the time in movies they'll be something about not being able to keep suspects there because they don't have enough evidence to hold them, but then how did they have enough evidence to bring them in in the first place? How many different levels of warrants are there?

    -Lynn

    To arrest someone you need the warrant, but to question them, as long as they have no reason to think that they can't leave when ever they want.

    As far as levels of warrants it tends to be search warrants and then an arrest warrant. Search warrants are slightly easier to get, but you still need some sort of evidence. Then if the evidence is good enough you can get an arrest warrant.

    Keep the questions coming if you got em.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Cops and the Law

    Post  Sponsored content

      Similar topics

      -

      Current date/time is Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:24 pm