Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ [SprawlSG] Policing in the '60s
Posted by: Squire Aug 22 2003, 05:10 AM
First of all, here are some things I didn't know the police in Shadowrun could do (that the police IRL in the USA cannot do):
-Hold someone in custody without charging them for up to 72 hours
(I could be wrong, but I think the current rule is 48 hours, and you still have to show probable cause to hold them).
-Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID
(Okay, IRL police can talk to anyone, but the term "stop" legally means that person is not free to leave- for that RL police need probable cause)
-Personal and vehicle searches and astral scans without a warrant
(IRL this can occur [well, not the astral scan as far as I know], but only in specific circumstances that have to be well articulated).
Okay, on another (and frankly very minor) matter:
Did anyone else find in strange that the shadowtalk posters that were most critical of police in the "Life in the 60s" section were the former cops. SPD has always been fairly pro-police in his posts (except for slamming Lone Star specifically). X-star perhaps not as much, but both SPD and X-star come off as somewhat anti-police in "Life in the 60s." Neither of them spoke up to clarify a procedure or explain why some things are necessary (SPD's bread and butter), but they both added ways police can abuse their power.
It's not a big issue, but are we perhaps seeing the political bias of the author (whoever it was) in the source material?
Or are we just seeing that the author has a different feel for the personality (and outlooks) of well-known shadowtalk posters than I do?
Posted by: Rain Aug 22 2003, 05:33 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| -Personal and vehicle searches and astral scans without a warrant (IRL this can occur [well, not the astral scan as far as I know], but only in specific circumstances that have to be well articulated). |
Laws on that vary from state to state. In Oregon, for example, an officer must either have clear verbal permission from the person whose vehicle or belongings they are searching, or a warrant stating exactly what may be searched. If a person gives an officer permission to search their vehicle, the officer is still not allowed to open any unopened bags found within the vehicle.
Posted by: Squire Aug 22 2003, 05:43 PM
Yep, wide differences from state to state.
Here in CO police can search vehicles as long as we can articulate probable cause (can be lost in court if the judge does not agree PC existed). Reason being that vehicles are given an exception to the search warrant requirement due to their mobility (the likelihood that they won't be there when you ge back from getting a warrant).
Impounded vehicles can also be searched without warrant or probable cause under the auspices of an inventory (that prevents the owner from saying- "When you guys impounded by vehicle I had an original Picasso in the trunk. Where's my Picasso?!").
Must be a pain in the butt in Oregon, having to have some patrolman sit on the side of the highway and babysit a car while waiting for the warrant.
Posted by: Black Isis Aug 22 2003, 11:36 PM
Well, I think there are two reasons police procedure is different in 2060s;
First is something we're seeing already here -- by 2060 in the Shadowrun timeline, you've had dozens of major terrorist attacks; the Sears Tower bombing alone killed something like ten times as many people as the WTC bombings did in 2001, and then you have ecoterrorist attacks, SAIM launching nukes....what happens after that? You guessed it, everyone is calling for "tough new laws" like the oh-so-wonderful Patriot Act that give new powers to police and make civil libertarians cry themselves to sleep at night. I can definitely see expanded police powers in the 2060s after all that, especially when you can "tweak" the Bill of Rights in the UCAS after the Unification with Canada.
Second, I think police themselves feel like they have less of a margin for error when you are asking a 500 pound troll for his license or the guy you are stopping on the street can whip a fireball into your car before you can draw your gun. That's going to make them play a bit fast and loose with the law, and I have the feeling the government is going to be a bit more tolerant about it.
Posted by: motorfirebox Aug 22 2003, 11:49 PM
those are all logical reasons. stylistically, though, the police have those expanded powers because this is a cyberpunk game. the cops are supposed to be oppressive.
Posted by: Hasagwan Aug 23 2003, 10:34 AM
Out of all the excess the police (especially the Star) seem to have is armament. It's really hard to picture the cops having burst fire side arms due to the high chance they're going to hit the wrong person. Makes you wonder if they didn't clamp down on the ability to sue the police.
On side note to that, I actually like the Star cops with the Ruger Super Warhawk style as it added so much feel to them.
Oh and motorfirebox, if you want oppressive go to Aztlan where the cops carry assault rifles and combat shotguns as their side arm. Makes LS and KE look like momma's golden haired boys. 
Posted by: krishcane Aug 25 2003, 08:38 PM
In my experience, at least in some US states, the police can do all of things you mentioned in the first post.
--Holding for 72 hours -- a friend of mine was held for 72 hours on "suspicion of assault" before being released without being charged. Her roommate called the police on her when she moved out, after they argued about who owned the broom. She was arrested in the parking lot and held for those 3 days. She was not allowed to make a phone call -- I don't know what the law says, but that's the way it happened in Los Angeles. She lost her job in the meanwhile, since she missed three shifts without calling.
--Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID -- I haven't seen it done to pedestrians, but here in North Carolina, the local police routinely blockade a major road during commuter times. Every single car has to stop and show driver's license, registration, insurance, and inspection paperwork. I've been ticketed in just such a thing because my inspection papers were expired. Legally, I can't speak to whether it's technically "optional", but whipping out into the on-coming lane and passing an entire column of lined up cars is not legal anyway, so what are you going to do? I suppose you could just gun it when your turn comes in line, but then wouldn't that be probable cause for them to chase you?
--Personal and vehicle searches -- They don't physically search, but they can scan with thermo, scan for radio broadcast (which they do when searching for pirate radio transmitters), look in the window and comment on anything visible (weapons, radar detectors (illegal in Virginia)), and run drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs around the outside of the car.
--K
Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Aug 26 2003, 06:57 AM
IIRC the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that thermo scans violate the sixth amendment.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 26 2003, 03:43 PM
Cool! My data is out of date, then.
--K
Posted by: Rajaat99 Aug 26 2003, 04:02 PM
| QUOTE (krishcane) |
| In my experience, at least in some US states, the police can do all of things you mentioned in the first post. --Holding for 72 hours -- a friend of mine was held for 72 hours on "suspicion of assault" before being released without being charged. Her roommate called the police on her when she moved out, after they argued about who owned the broom. She was arrested in the parking lot and held for those 3 days. She was not allowed to make a phone call -- I don't know what the law says, but that's the way it happened in Los Angeles. She lost her job in the meanwhile, since she missed three shifts without calling. --Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID -- I haven't seen it done to pedestrians, but here in North Carolina, the local police routinely blockade a major road during commuter times. Every single car has to stop and show driver's license, registration, insurance, and inspection paperwork. I've been ticketed in just such a thing because my inspection papers were expired. Legally, I can't speak to whether it's technically "optional", but whipping out into the on-coming lane and passing an entire column of lined up cars is not legal anyway, so what are you going to do? I suppose you could just gun it when your turn comes in line, but then wouldn't that be probable cause for them to chase you? --Personal and vehicle searches -- They don't physically search, but they can scan with thermo, scan for radio broadcast (which they do when searching for pirate radio transmitters), look in the window and comment on anything visible (weapons, radar detectors (illegal in Virginia)), and run drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs around the outside of the car. --K |
| QUOTE |
| --Holding for 72 hours -- a friend of mine was held for 72 hours on "suspicion of assault" before being released without being charged. Her roommate called the police on her when she moved out, after they argued about who owned the broom. She was arrested in the parking lot and held for those 3 days. She was not allowed to make a phone call -- I don't know what the law says, but that's the way it happened in Los Angeles. She lost her job in the meanwhile, since she missed three shifts without calling. |
This is illegal in California, I'd sue somebody. Max is 48.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 26 2003, 06:27 PM
Neat that it's illegal, but I'm not sure I'd want to tackle suing the LAPD. Seems like that would get dragged out for a very, very long time. But thanks for the tip!
--K
Posted by: phelious fogg Aug 26 2003, 06:52 PM
Actualy as far as police go now adays they can do anything the want if they assume you are a drug dealer or terrorist. They dont even need anything other than suspision. i.e. they can pull you over and impound your car over the suspision of you being a drugdealer. they can sieze your house under similar suspision. They can hold you for up to a month without trial or charges under that suspision.
Basically cops can do what they want so long as the suspect you of being a bad guy. Most cops dont use the rights they have because to use them inappropriately means to loose those rights.
Thanks to the patriot act, and an act in 1995.
Then again maybe im just paranoid and missinformed
Posted by: Squire Aug 26 2003, 06:57 PM
| QUOTE (Hasagwan @ Aug 23 2003, 10:34 AM) |
| Out of all the excess the police (especially the Star) seem to have is armament. It's really hard to picture the cops having burst fire side arms due to the high chance they're going to hit the wrong person. Makes you wonder if they didn't clamp down on the ability to sue the police. |
Well, the Thunderbolt is designed to put all three rounds in the same hole and fires them so quickly that you only hear one report.
I'd guess the public doesn't know the difference, and as long as you hit the target, all three rounds will hit.
Of course the matter of penetration has to be a problem, but I'd have to agree with you, the ability to sue police departments must be reduced in SR.
And I must agree with motorfirebox, it is a cyberpunk game, so the police are supposed to be oppressive.
| QUOTE |
| krishcane wrote In my experience, at least in some US states, the police can do all of things you mentioned in the first post. |
People can be held for investigation. I'm not certain, but I thought the rule was 48 hours (not being a detective, I could be entirely wrong and it might be 72). You have to have probable cause to arrest them, but you can hold them for a period of time before filing charges with the court. You must, however, have pending charges based upon probable cause.
Nowhere does it say that arrested persons have the right to a telephone call (people believe they have that right because they watch television and believe anything the picture box tells them, even if they're watching a fictional show). The reason a telephone call is usually given is because not giving one tends to infringe on the prisoner's right to an attorney.
However, the right to an attorney only applies after arraignment (first court appearance where charges are formerly brought) or if the person is interrogated by police while in custody.
Note that US Supreme Court ruled quite a while ago that when juveniles (under 18 years of age) are arrested and held, the police have a legal obligation to notify the parent or guardian.
You must also have probable cause to stop people (a stop is a temporary detention to investigate something, a voluntary contact is something else entirely). You have to have evidence of a violation to make a stop, but if you set up a checkpoint and they voluntarily drive into it, you've essentially gotten their consent and do not need probable cause.
I've participated in checkpoints before (in MD, not CO). We set them up with signs ahead of time just to make sure people knew they were driving into one and had the option to turn off in plenty of time.
| QUOTE |
| I suppose you could just gun it when your turn comes in line, but then wouldn't that be probable cause for them to chase you? |
Yeah, that would probably go very badly for you. We always had a chase car standing by and with a check point there are officers on foot in the roadway. Charging through would endanger them, creating a violation on your part. (Also, we generally employed temporary road signs that you would be disobeying). This will result in a non-voluntary stop by a whole lot of really pissed off cops who'll be wondering what you've done wrong that you're trying to hide by such a reckless maneuver.
Also, they generally stop four or five cars at a time in a checkpoint, and those cars are generally in a single-file line, so unless you're stopped at the front of the line, gunning it won't be an option.
As for searches, there is the plain sight doctrime which says that if the police can see (or smell or hear or otherwise sense it) from someplace that they have the right to be (like outside your car), then they have not conducted a search.
So if some Mope is sitting in his car and I walk past and look in the window, and I see a baggie of marijuana on his dash board, it's mine. I can also use things I see in plain sight to develope probable cause for a search or arrest.
Passive sensors are frequently considered by the courts to fall under plain sight. For example, drug dogs can smell the drugs from outside the car (where they have a right to be) and radio broadcasts (on any frequency) are considered free to access by anyone since they come into your space anyway. No search has legally take place.
As for thermo, Crimsondude is correct. The INS and Boarder Patrol used thermo for a while to detect shipments of illegal aliens crossing our boarders hidden in boxes of other cargo. These cases found their way to the US Supreme Court who ruled that thermo lets the police look somewhere they do not have a right to (inside something) and therefor constitutes a search. Thermo can still be used, but a warrant (or one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement, such as consent) is required.
IRL police can do all the things mentioned, but only in specific and limited circumstances. The wording in the sourcebook is suggestive that police can do all those things at any time and without cause or evidence.
But perhaps the wording is was just unclear. Does anyone from the writing team or WizKids have clarification on the issue?
@phelious fogg:
I'd have to say that you've probably been the victim of some extensive exaggeration. Mere suspicion won't go far in court (even post-patriot act). Probable cause is needed for most of the things you mentioned.
Pulling you over (a stop) still requires probable cause.
Impounding a car is a seizure and also requires probable cause (though there are exceptions, such as to ensure the safety of the car while you are in custody- those exceptions are also limited).
Seizing a house requires probable cause and often additional evidence.
As far as I know, the rule for holding someone without charges remains either 48 or 72 hours, not a week (although the rules may be different for INS when dealing with non-residents of the US- I don't know).
The difference is the level of evidence. "Mere suspicion" means that they have reason to think you might be up to something. "Probable cause" means that there is enough evidence that most reasonable people (with the benefit of the same training, experience and evidence the police have) would believe that given the evidence a crime probably occurred and that the suspect is probably the person who committed that crime. Probable cause is actually a fairly significant amount of evidence.
Of course it should be noted that until you get to court, the police are not required to share with you what evidence they have against you and how they developed probable cause for your arrest, or the seizure of your property.
Now, I must admit that I work in Denver, and the Denver city council gave orders that all City and County of Denver law enforcement agencies would disregard the Patriot Act, so I don't have the expanded powers that other law enforement agencies do. But I'm highly certain that the Patriot Act does not go nearly as far as you've been led to believe.
Posted by: Rain Aug 26 2003, 08:05 PM
| QUOTE (krishcane) |
| --Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID -- I haven't seen it done to pedestrians, but here in North Carolina, the local police routinely blockade a major road during commuter times. Every single car has to stop and show driver's license, registration, insurance, and inspection paperwork. |
And that's not legal in Oregon. Only time they can stop people randomly in Oregon is when they're doing a sting for drunk drivers.
| QUOTE |
| --Personal and vehicle searches -- They don't physically search, but they can scan with thermo, scan for radio broadcast (which they do when searching for pirate radio transmitters), look in the window and comment on anything visible (weapons, radar detectors (illegal in Virginia)), and run drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs around the outside of the car. |
Again, in Oregon they can only do a "plain sight" search. If you've got an ounce of meth sitting there on the seat next to you, then can arrest you, impound your car, and generally make your life suckage. If they don't see anything in plain sight, they must ask your permission to search the vehicle. You do have the right to say no.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 26 2003, 08:08 PM
Good to have a cop's perspective in the conversation....
| QUOTE |
You have to have evidence of a violation to make a stop, but if you set up a checkpoint and they voluntarily drive into it, you've essentially gotten their consent and do not need probable cause. I've participated in checkpoints before (in MD, not CO). We set them up with signs ahead of time just to make sure people knew they were driving into one and had the option to turn off in plenty of time. |
Jeez... I'm reallly uncomfortable with calling that "voluntary". Even aside from the sign issue (the checkpoints in NC definitely don't have signs ahead of time -- I like that more enlightened view), these weren't small suburban roads. These were major linking roads -- technically, one might have been able to do a 3-point turn in the middle of the road (is that legal?), drive back a couple of miles, and then try to weave through several secondary roads in neighborhoods to make the same link. But, that seems like a fairly big behavior shift and time impact to the travel time. I mean, I was making a 20 minute drive across town -- to turn into a 45 minute adventure seeking to avoid the checkpoint would have been extreme. At that point, how different would it be to just be pulled over and had my papers checked?
What was the spirit of the probable cause idea to begin with? I assume it was along the lines of preventing "unreasonable searches and seizures". So is blocking a commuter road and checking every car, or making them back up and go the long way around, an "unreasonable search and seizure"? Seems like it if they're not targeting anything in particular -- if it's just a sweep to catch out-of-date paperwork.
Now, I feel completely differently if the police know that a criminal went down a certain road, and they have a poor vehicle description, so they're checking to see if their target is in one of these cars. That's a real cause.
On a separate note, good to know that there is no such thing as the right to a phone call. It obviously wouldn't have been in the Constitution, anyway.
About INS holding non-citizens, I've done some reading on that. If they plan to deport someone, they can hold them as long as they want until deportation arrangements can be made. For Cubans in Miami, that frequently stretches on into months in an immigrant-only prison. There are supposedly some horrible abuses that go on in those facilities, since the guests don't speak the language, are unlikely to have legal representation, money, or easy communication with the outside world, and aren't entitled to many of the same rights and priviliges. Murder and rape are still illegal, of course, but it gets very hard to prosecute. More common is everyday "sex for favors" and casual beatings, which are impossible to prosecute once the deportation actually takes place and said victim is now far, far away.
--K
Posted by: Squire Aug 26 2003, 09:50 PM
| QUOTE |
| At that point, how different would it be to just be pulled over and had my papers checked? |
If you've got your paperwork in order and you're sober, it's probably easier to just go through the checkpoint.
| QUOTE |
| So is blocking a commuter road and checking every car, or making them back up and go the long way around, an "unreasonable search and seizure"? |
Not according to current case law in the US. Of course the Supreme Court could one day decide that it is an unreasonable search or seizure.
The government owns the road, so they can block it off as they see fit for purposes of maintenence or public safety.
The government doesn't force you to drive down that road.
Although in my personal opinion if you don't have a real option to turn off before the check point, you didn't enter it voluntarily. But I'm not in charge. If I were in charge things would be different.
| QUOTE |
| What was the spirit of the probable cause idea to begin with? I assume it was along the lines of preventing "unreasonable searches and seizures". |
Correct. Actually the phraise comes directly out of the 4th Ammendment which is the portion of the Consititution that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's just a measure of evidence that has to be met for a search or seizure (an arrest being a seizure of a person's freedom).
| QUOTE |
| Seems like it if they're not targeting anything in particular -- if it's just a sweep to catch out-of-date paperwork. |
All the ones I've heard of from police circles or been involved in were actually targeted for drunk drivers. Asking for your paperwork (which by law you have to present if you're driving) is probably just an excuse to talk to you and see if they smell alcohol on your breath.
Generally checkpoints are set up in areas of heavy traffic and heavy drunk driving on nights with especially heavy drunk driving. In MD they'd always set one up on prom night near where the prom was being held. On St. Patrick's Day and New Years Eve they tend to set one up on roads leaving the part of town with a lot of bars.
Given the dangers of drunk driving (and the frequency), I'm willing to put up with a little inconveneince to get those pricks off the roads.
| QUOTE |
| About INS holding non-citizens |
That may well be true. Deportees don't really have a way to complain (or a right to complain).
I'm purely speculating here, but I imagine that things work the same way for the Boarder Patrol-
Imagine that you and some of your buddies are all alone in the middle of the desert guarding the boarder with Mexico. Now, you're well armed and a hundred miles from civilization. Aside from you and the people attempting to sneak across the boarder, there is no one around for miles.
As long as you trust your buddies, you can probably do anything you want (demand bribes of sex or money or whatever to let people by, shoot people trying to cross the boarder, go to sleep, whatever). The ones you turn back can't complain, and the ones that get by you or you let in for whatever reason are too afraid of being deported to file a complaint (particularly Mexicans, who don't trust police due to the way law enforcement works in Mexico, or so I'm told).
Now I have no reason to believe that the men and women of the Boarder Patrol and INS are anything but honerable, law abiding civil servants. As I said, I'm just speculating on that matter.
Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Aug 27 2003, 05:44 AM
Well, the case I refered too (which I can't seem to find at the moment) was in regard to a local PD officer using thermo to locate the heat lamp some dude was using to grow pot in his house. Ironically, the article the case was mentioned in was about how liberal the Rehnquist Court still is.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 27 2003, 04:52 PM
On the checkpoint thing, I'm half-and-half about the checking for drunk drivers, but I understand also. That was annoying, but it didn't crush me too much. I mean, if you're out at 2 am just after the bars close, you're not really going anywhere on a schedule typically. You may think you are, but that party can wait an extra 10 minutes.
The checkpoints that have me foaming at the mouth for weeks afterward are the ones I hit here in NC -- at 4 or 5 pm during the homeward commute!! I don't think they'll find many drunk drivers at that time. The checkpoint in one case backed traffic up over a mile, just so they could check papers. <sigh> I found myself dramatically unsupportive of that. I've hit two such checkpoints during the homeward commute, and two such during the morning commute at 8 am. Granted, that's over the course of about 4 years, but every time it leaves me feeling like I live in a police state. That's just an emotional reaction -- I'm not arguing anything of the sort, since I've visited actual police states and you could cut the feeling of oppression with a knife in the air.
Squire, it sounds like you and I agree philosophically, but neither of us are in charge of the world. It's interesting to me that from a strictly legal perspective, the Powers-That-Be (police, government, military, etc) are not really very limited. The function of a free society still depends to a degree on a general spirit of restraint in those agencies, a general freedom-protecting attitude in the individual employees. Lacking that, they can be oppressive in lots of ways that are technically legal.
I guess that's only a revelation to me since I'm white and male.
--K
Posted by: Dalassa Aug 27 2003, 07:55 PM
Completely off topic for a second:
Krishcane, are you sure you aren't getting caught in lisence and seat belt checks rather than drunk checks? Drunk checks tend to be in city at night. The Click it or ticket campaigns tend to run in day time and on major arteries so that drugs and outstanding warrents can be picked up.
My favorite tactic that the State Troopers use is the misleading sign on the highway. Right before an exit there will be a sign "Click it or Ticket checkpoint ahead," people who try to avoid the checkpoints generelly get off the highway. Well of course they set the checkpoint up at the end of the exit.
Vain attempt to stay on topic:
NC cops have all sorts of nasty tactics they use on the raods for law enforcement, most of them I've incorporated for Shadowun. You can use the misleading checkpoint one or another favorite trick of cops is to stand on an overpass over a highway and radar the cars going under. Then you have one or two other cars on the entrance from the overpass do the checking. Its like one Highway Patrol officer once told me. I don't need to manufacture reasons to stop someone, sooner or later they're going to violate some part of the motor vehicle code and I can stop them.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 27 2003, 08:42 PM
Oh, I'm sure it was some kind of license/seat belt check. There was no sign that I ever saw -- these were country roads connecting 2-lane state highways. It's the very concept of the "stop every car" license/seat belt check that I object to.
Do you do some driving in NC, Dalassa? It sort of sounded that way by your post. I wonder if you're near me.
--K
Posted by: Squire Aug 29 2003, 12:38 AM
Checkpoints in rush-hour traffic?!?
That's nuts. At some point you have to balance your public safety goals with letting the city actually function. A safe city that can't function isn't any good to anyone.
As for catching drunk drivers during evening rush hour... Well, you won't catch as many as you find at bar-closing time. But you'd be surprised.
Still, rush hour is hands off. Your goal as a police officer then should be to keep things flowing safety, not jamming them up.
I hadn't thought of checkpoints for click-it or ticket. Frankly, to me it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth. While I support the writing of tickets for people who don't wear their seatbelts, I certainly do not feel it is important enough to jam up traffic with a checkpoint (unlike DUIs, which are that important).
On the matter of sneaky ways to use radar, I completely lack sympathy. Hell, I know a guy who used to take a battery pack and climb a tree, then radio the car description and speed to another officer waiting up the road with a patrol car.
You're either speeding or you're not. If you choose to speed, you take your chances and it is pretty much all fair game.
Posted by: krishcane Aug 29 2003, 03:48 PM
I have to agree with that on the speeding thing -- whether or not you agree with the speed limit, it's very clear what the speed limit is. Only times I'm uncomfortable here are in the classic "speed traps" -- radaring people at the bottom of a steep hill where their attention may have lapsed and allowed them to speed up, or radaring people directly after the speed limit changed from 55 to 35.
Generally, though, speed-limits, blowing stop signs, and DUI are all enforcements that fit into the idea of the officer as a "public safety" guy. Makes perfect sense, and it's fair as long as the officer isn't going out of his way to set people up.
--K
Posted by: Peter Pan Aug 31 2003, 07:29 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Passive sensors are frequently considered by the courts to fall under plain sight. For example, drug dogs can smell the drugs from outside the car (where they have a right to be) and radio broadcasts (on any frequency) are considered free to access by anyone since they come into your space anyway. No search has legally take place. As for thermo, Crimsondude is correct. The INS and Boarder Patrol used thermo for a while to detect shipments of illegal aliens crossing our boarders hidden in boxes of other cargo. These cases found their way to the US Supreme Court who ruled that thermo lets the police look somewhere they do not have a right to (inside something) and therefor constitutes a search. Thermo can still be used, but a warrant (or one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement, such as consent) is required. |
I assume that radar traps also fall under the plain sight doctrine even if it's an active sensor ?
What I've also heard people complain about is unmanned photo-radar traps... you can't exactly cross-examine them in court.
Only time I've seen an outright radar trap AMBUSH was in an unqualified police state (East Germany), in the US, the only photo-radar trap I fell afoul of was fair: empty road or not, I was speeding, and the speed limit was clearly posted, and the parked radar van was blindingly obvious once the photgraphic flash went off.
Posted by: Frag-o Delux Aug 31 2003, 11:24 PM
| QUOTE (Peter Pan) |
| What I've also heard people complain about is unmanned photo-radar traps... you can't exactly cross-examine them in court. |
The only thing you can do is ask if when the radar was last calibrated. If it is pass the calibration date they drope the ticket.
If a patrol man stops you the gun has to be calibrated and the patrol man has to take a test or something for the operation of the radar. If either one is missing the ticket is dropped. If the patrol man is pacing(driving behind you in his patrol car watching his speedometer) his car has to be calibrated. Agai if it is not the ticket will be dropped. I have seen these tactics work in court, a speeder would ask the officer to produce these papers. In a few instances the officer could not produce the paper work and the judge dropped the ticket. But that is MD.
Posted by: Squire Sep 1 2003, 12:21 AM
You know, the argument of radar falling under plain sight has never come up before to my knowledge.
In order to apply plain sight, the argument would have to be made that the radar use involved a search. But you are correct, the use of radar is lawful, because the officer (and the radar beams) are in places where there is no expectation of privacy (plain sight).
Denver canceled it's rather extensive photo-radar van program about two years ago because of the argument that the operators were not police officers (the vans were manned by civilians similar to meter maids). The program restarted again about a year ago after an overhaul (though I'm not sure what changes they made).
One jurisdiction in Maryland recently took out all the the unmanned red-light enforcement cameras. Not because they were unmanned, but because they kept giving tickets to people in funeral processions (no judgement). The tickets got dropped in court, but it was a pain in the butt for everyone involved. Eventually a city council member was ticketed, and the whole program was dropped.
If the photo-radar system is manned, you have an operator who can appear in court. If it's unmanned, I think there might be a possible objection (but enough people pay the ticket to make it financially worth while, even if you lose all the tickets that go to court).
As for the necessity of producing calibration paperwork in court, it usually does not work well. The officer can testify that the radar gun was functioning properly (certain tests before each use, ensure this). If the defendant demands to see the maintenence paperwork in court, the officer will just ask for a continuance and bring the paperwork with him on the next appearance. The PDs usually keep careful records on radar equipment maintenance. Of course if the PD screws up and the officer can't find the paperwork (or if the judge does not allow the continuance), the case will be dropped.
I got better training on how to testify in radar cases then I did for any other type of case.
As for pacing tickets, asking to see the calibration records is a good tactic to beat the ticket. Most traffic officers routinely calibrate their speedometers and if they write a pace ticket, they'll testify up front to the calibration dates and results, sort of a pre-emptive strike at the calibration objection a defendant might make. Patrol officers usually do not have calibrated cars, however, a smart officer in a non-calibrated car can still write a pace ticket and have a very good chance of winning a case based upon the calibration objection. All (s)he has to do is prove to the court that the speedometer gave an accurate measure of the suspect's speed.
For example, my patrol car does not have a calibrated speedometer, but I can still testify that the ticket is accurate. If I write a pace ticket, I always test the car with a radar gun (drive at a set speed, point the radar gun at a fixed object and compare the results). I record the results in my notes on the back of the ticket. Since I can testify that the radar gun was functioning properly, and I can testify that the speedometer was reading the same as (or close to) the radar gun, I can testify that I've gained an accurate speed reading. For example, my current patrol car speedometer usually reads between one and two MPH faster than actual (radar) speed. I know this and take it into account when I write the ticket. Since I won't bother with a ticket that is at least ten miles above the speed limit, and since I usually write the ticket for at least a few MPH slower than I caught the person driving, I shouldn't have a problem in court. However I've never gotten to test this as none of the people I've written pace-tickets to have ever shown up in court (one tried to file a complaint against me, both my sergeant and internal affairs declined the complaint and told him to contest the ticket in court, but I never got subpoenaed).
Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 1 2003, 01:13 AM
In certain jusidictions they don't calibrate the speedometer in there cars, they just do what you said about once a month they drive their squad cars down a back road and record the radar readings. Sparrows point if you are familiar with that place. Has nly 5 full time officers and 2 squad cars. They have to get the state police to bring in their radars to do the test.
I have only seen the calibration tactic work 3 times in one day. I heard about it before I seen it. The officer had about 30 people in car for speeding. All he did was pace people. The first guy up asked about his calibration, the officer couldn't produce the paper work, and the judge dropped the ticket out of hand, before the officer could say anything. Well 2 more people tried it and the judge did the same thing. The officer frantically thumbing through papers while the clerk called up defendents. I was going to just ask for leniancey seeing that it was my first speeding ticket, but seeing everyone getting off I was thinking my lucky day. Unfortunatly the officer found his paper work by time the next speeding ticket came up. Not all his cases were speeding. Having a last name near the end of the alphabet, he found the paper well before I got up there. So I had to go back to pleading for mercy. The funny thing was a lot of people that went to beg for mercy were extremly rude to the issuing officer, the judge, even though he seemed to not like the officer by just throughing out his cases, really let people have it for being an ass on the highway. When I got up there I just pleaded my case and the judge asked the officer my attitude at the stop. The officer was cool, he told the judge I was the most respectful person he had ever stopped. Which is sad, I just put out my cigarette and waited for the officer to approach with my hands on the wheel. Then as he asked for my papers I just told him the locations of the papers and only used one hand to reach for them. I just acted like what I thought would make the officer feel like I was not a threat and didn't jump all over him. I could only get mad at myself, I was speeding, not the cop.
Hey squire where you a cop in maryland?
Posted by: Squire Sep 1 2003, 01:58 AM
Nope, I was a police explorer (high school and college cadets) in Montgomery County (DC suburbs) for several years and a dispatcher for Chevy Chase Village (a very wealthy DC suburb).
Denver is the only place I've been an officer. But in both my associations in Maryland, I had a lot of training and contact with the officers and I got to see first hand how things worked.
In fact, I'd have to say that being a police explorer provided me with far better training than the police academy did.
BTW: I let a guy off last night on a violation that I usually write tickets for (and technically in violation of DPD policy- we're not supposed to give warnings for moving violations). He got a break just because he turned on his interior light and kept his hands on the wheel. He was polite and took steps to show that he was not a threat and that he was cooperating, so I gave him a warning on a 3-point, $100.00 violation. A little good will can sometimes go a long, long way.
Posted by: Frag-o Delux Sep 1 2003, 02:49 AM
I wish the Officer who got me did that. Oh well you can't win them all. In fact I was on I-95 going through Montgomery county going into DC for work about 3 years ago.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 1 2003, 06:51 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| You know, the argument of radar falling under plain sight has never come up before to my knowledge. In order to apply plain sight, the argument would have to be made that the radar use involved a search. But you are correct, the use of radar is lawful, because the officer (and the radar beams) are in places where there is no expectation of privacy (plain sight). |
I guess it's not a search, the radar isn't going to penetrate the car like a thermal scan would, it's just going to quantify what is in plain sight (whether the car is speeding or not). Before the military shit-canned us, the research project I was on involved X-band radar (ironically enough, the same band as speed traps), which is why I was being such a stickler about radar being an active, not passive system.
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Eventually a city council member was ticketed, and the whole program was dropped. |
LOL. Touche. Democracy in action.
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| If the photo-radar system is manned, you have an operator who can appear in court. If it's unmanned, I think there might be a possible objection (but enough people pay the ticket to make it financially worth while, even if you lose all the tickets that go to court). |
Indeed, I got junk mail from an ambulance chasing lawyer about fighting the ticket because the photo-radar system was unmanned... after I had already paid the ticket, which wasn't what annoyed me, I was after all speeding, more that this lawyer was able to get my name after I had opted to take the reduced fine / attend driving school / keep it off my record route.
Basically hope that my car insurance company doesn't check the same public police records this lawyer did... but given that they sent me detailed revisions of my policy, including several paragraphs of legalese that translates to "if a nuke goes off and toasts the car, it's not covered", I fear that may well have enough free time to do so.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 1 2003, 07:04 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
Denver is the only place I've been an officer. |
Are you familiar at all with the Denver sourcebook from 2nd ed? It's what I'm using now for my campaign... as far as law enforcement goes, the sourcebook has Knights Errant (e.g. subsidiary of UCAS-based Ares) police the CAS sector, and Lone Star (e.g. CAS-based corp) police the UCAS sector... they don't comment on it, or suggest any reasons why, but it struck me as something so messed up that I had to just keep it like that for my campaign.
At any rate, do you any general ideas or insights for how to run Lone Star and/or Knights Errant in Denver ? Sorry for shooting off such a vauge question, but I don't know if I have anything more specific as yet.
Posted by: Squire Sep 2 2003, 03:31 AM
@Peter:
If you can talk about the radar project, I'm curious to hear about it.
As for running KE or LS in Denver, there isn't too much I can say.
Colfax Ave must be a true nightmare. It's one of the biggest streets in Denver (should be named 15th Ave) and it's the boarder of several sectors- making it a one-way only street in many places (with inadaquate alternate routes), and having to put boarder checkpoints on Colfax in places where they just don't have room had to be a real headache.
Otherwise, I can provide descriptions of parts of town, photographs, information to some degree on police procedure and answer any specific questions. Of course any information that is accurate for 2003 may not hold true for 2063. I'm always willing to lend a hand, I'm just not sure what you need.
That's rotten about the lawyer. Frankly, I think the "public's right to know" frequently goes quite a bit too far.
As for the city councilperson, it's typical. Get a load of this:
Colorado State Law forbids the arrest of members of the the State Legislature caught driving intoxicated on their way to State Legislature meetings. Not only can you not arrest them, but you can't delay them on the way to the meeting, you have to let them drive.
@Frag-o:
I-95 doesn't pass through Monkey county. You would have been in either Howard or Prince Georges county. As I recall, MSP is have a heavy and unforgiving presence on I-95 between Baltimore and DC.
Guys assigned to traffic duties (which generally includes most all state police) very rarely give warnings. They exist to enforce safety on the roads, so they write tickets. Being a patrol officer (rather than a traffic officer) gives me greater freedom to give warnings where I feel they're appropriate.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 2 2003, 04:59 AM
yeah, I can talk about the radar project, but I'll send that as a private message so as to try and stay on topic 
I guess my main question about running the Star in Denver is not so much about Denver, but just how to play Cops in a cyberpunk setting.
I had this Lone Star NPC in since the first draft of the campaign plan, Captain Murphy, put simply he was going to be a Johnson from Lone Star, hiring shadowruns whenever it was needed to cut through the red tape and see justice served (e.g. setting up a road block in NAN territory near Denver to stop a CAS-bound fugitive from Seattle that NAN wasn't lifting a finger to stop ), as a joke I had him use Dunkin Donuts as the meeting point.
subsequently, a late-joining player took Captain Murphy as a contact, buddy-level, and this has corrupted my original plan for the good Captain, as this player is a bit of a twink and has asked for completely unreasonable things from the Captain, in as much as it violates the original concept of the character, I've tried to put my foot down, for example:
PC: Murphy, can you help us slip a truck load of C-4 into the airport so we can get it on a cargo plane to Bangkok like our Johnson hired us to do ?
Murphy: HELL NO !!!
I still need to figure out how to handle it when the twink PC tries to use Murphy to help them with something that is monumentally against public safety (so far, I guess it's been a case of "sure I'll look the other way when you guys go after extra-territorial corps, I just need to hire you guys when it comes to helping keep the streets safe for the common folk")
the Star is also responsible for UCAS border security acording to the Denver sourcebook, and I had a pretty corrupt "checkpoint charlie" where both sides of a Pueblo/UCAS border were on the take from Fuchi to let certain shipments through, the PCs caused this info to get to the news media, the LS cops were suspended and killed the offending reporter. As hard ass as I've had Murphy get is looking the other way when they took a run from News Net to kill the suspended LS cops
( they used non-issue ammo, but the circumstantial evidence of tactics and motive made Murphy and News Net believe the suspended LS cops were behind the attack, something the PCs confirmed with mind-reading magic before they did the deed )
in a previous campaign I had LS cops in Seattle on the take from Renraku, and i guess it's hard to ask you a specific question on that front... it's the future, it's cyberpunk, we can make the cops as corrupt as we need them to be for the plot... but I guess I'd like to know your thoughts about Hollywood portrayals of police corruption, b/c like it or not, that's the mental archetype most GMs will be drawing upon
Posted by: Pistons Sep 2 2003, 01:52 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| As for the city councilperson, it's typical. Get a load of this: Colorado State Law forbids the arrest of members of the the State Legislature caught driving intoxicated on their way to State Legislature meetings. Not only can you not arrest them, but you can't delay them on the way to the meeting, you have to let them drive. |
But I bet you can put them under police escort to the meeting, and give them a ticket after the meeting.
Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Sep 2 2003, 08:40 PM
Sovereign immunity. It can be a bitch.
Posted by: Centurion Sep 3 2003, 12:38 AM
| QUOTE (Squire @ Aug 26 2003, 04:50 PM) |
| Imagine that you and some of your buddies are all alone in the middle of the desert guarding the boarder with Mexico. Now, you're well armed and a hundred miles from civilization. Aside from you and the people attempting to sneak across the boarder, there is no one around for miles. As long as you trust your buddies, you can probably do anything you want (demand bribes of sex or money or whatever to let people by, shoot people trying to cross the boarder, go to sleep, whatever). The ones you turn back can't complain, and the ones that get by you or you let in for whatever reason are too afraid of being deported to file a complaint (particularly Mexicans, who don't trust police due to the way law enforcement works in Mexico, or so I'm told). Now I have no reason to believe that the men and women of the Boarder Patrol and INS are anything but honerable, law abiding civil servants. As I said, I'm just speculating on that matter. |
Well, I've lived on the U.S.-Mexico border pretty much my whole life and having several border patrol agents both as neighbors and as family, let me put my two cents in here.
If an agent hypothetically did those things (and I'm sure they happen occasionally) thier ass would be toast. Most Mexicans have figured out they have the right to see the Mexican consulate (a mini-ambassador and also a pseudo attorney) not to mention the fact they can sue in America (through intervening civil rights organizations and aforementioned consulates) in addition, SHOOTING a Mexican running back across the river would get every News agency in Mexico and most in America calling you a murderer and demanding your lynching. Illegal Mexicans have also figured out that any scandel the BP commits upon them can pretty much be reported back to Mexican media, who will gleefully report it, as will the American stations near the border in turn.
Firing a single round on duty, whether to put down a hostile animal (more on this later) or an accidental discharge requires a detailed report about the whole incident and most station chiefs nowadays and obsessive types who want EVERYTHING that goes on reported, so it's become dang near impossible to do something out in the boonies and not report it because other agents often find it to their advantage to report misdeeds of other agents to agent in charge in exchange for favors later.
Area chiefs also do things like order agents not to patrol certain heavily crossed areas of the border in order to make the apprehension record go down and make it look as if they're solving the problem.
The current border patrol has many problems, but it's problematic on the side of inaction, not overreaction.
Although I'm sure the CAS's 2060 equivelant of the border patrol along the Texas-Atzlan border probably isn't all nice and fuzzy with the illegals they get thier hands on...
Azzie: *reads nametag* "M. NPC? Hey, officer, was your dad J. NPC, fought at battle of El Paso? Officer in Texas resistance, head exploded shortly thereafter?"
Officer: "Yeah...how'd the hel?"
Azzie: "Aw, nothing. Just Uncle Joaquin still talks about it. He still has his blood sample and-oh drek..."
Now, it's not all battles with bureacracies and what not, there are a few stories that apparently did happen involving local agents. Feel free to borrow any you want.
Border patrol agents can legally enter any private property that isn't a dwelling (i.e., no houses without owner's permission or warrent, but tool sheds, land, etc, is ok) within 25 miles of the border with no permission needed from the owner. They can also legally cut locks and chains and bust open gates of any property owner that attempts to prevent them from doing this.
Drug lords attempt to circumvent this by buying guards animals, usually of the exotic type. An agent jumped the fence into the property into one of the aforementioned DLs and was accosted by an ostrich who tried to disembowel him (those things kick something MEAN) before the felonious fowl met several delegates from Smith and Wesson.
The drug lord summarily went and fumed to the American gov't and demanded restitution (I think he eventually got $20) the and the local animal rights people (all 5 of them) tried to picket the station.
_
The Rio grande is the junkyard of both sides of the border, more on the Mexico side however. There was a large dumpsite right around a major alien crossing
zone populated by a large amount of junkyard dogs that would not only give away agents's positions but try to attack them on numerous occasions.
So one day, a certain agent checks out a shotgun and goes out to put a handle on our little critter problem (this is before they had to report any sort of firearms discharge). So lo and behold soon he spots a ragged looking mutt snarling at him next to a bunch of tall carrizo (river cane, extremely dense. Think bamboo about 8ft/ 2.3 meteres tall) and wastes it. The mexican that was standing behind the cane, about three feet (1 m) away. Looks down at his dead dog.
Agent: "Er...como estas? <You an American citizen?>"
Mexican: "<No man, but don't worry, I ain't ever coming back here> *turns around, wades back into the river and disapears into the sunset*
_
A pair of agents are driving down and old creek road at night with their lights off to not attract attention. They're barelling down the road at about 40 mpg in pitch black when they come up to a bridge when all of a sudden the driver slams the breaks, yells, and flicks on the flood lights. About two feet in front of the vehicle are about 20 illegal Mexicans who immediate explode in every direction with the two agents jumping out after them. Another half second and there would be twenty gibbed Mexicans, a wrecked bronco, and two agents who the national media would rapidly be denouncing as the latest Vlad Tepes cum Barney Fife.
Moral: Night vision edge is a handy thing to have.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 4 2003, 04:42 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Otherwise, I can provide descriptions of parts of town, photographs, information to some degree on police procedure and answer any specific questions. Of course any information that is accurate for 2003 may not hold true for 2063. I'm always willing to lend a hand, I'm just not sure what you need. |
thought some more about what I need to know to run Lone Star (or any other police organization) in my campaign, one thing that definitely pops up is police hierarchy... e.g. I have this Lone Star Captain that is a sometimes-johnson, sometimes-contact, how powerful would a police captain really be as a contact ?
so far, this is what I have had him do, hopefully none of this is unrealistic, but I'd like to know your thoughts so I can play him in the future within reasonable limits as to what his level of power would realisitcally be:
* told them when the NSA had issued an APB for them (moral of the story: don't piss off an AI capable of hacking into the NSA mainframes at Fort Meade
), but I did not have him be capable to cancel that APB, even as far as just Lone Star in Denver was concerned* kept an eye on the passenger manifests of incoming flights to warn them if certain foes were coming back into town (these foes being of a sufficently nasty sort that it seems reasonable that LS had them on a watch list)
* held back an LS response to a run they were pulling on a megacorp facility
* told them of Sioux tunnels under the border that LS had located, sealed off and scheduled for demolition, and gave them the passcodes so they could open the seals and use the tunnel before it got demolished.... of course... on one occassion, the Sioux military hadn't completely abandoned the other side...
has to have been one of Captain Murphys' best lines in the game to date, when they complained to him about this last detail:
"Is it my fault the Sioux Military was behind schedule?"
* had the LS border guards on the UCAS side to hold their fire and let them pass after they gunned their way through the Sioux side
( that's all the favors he's done for them to date as far as I can recall )
a related question, from my old campaign, one of the players had a Lone Star Lt. as a contact, didn't really get used in the game, but the player retired to become a fixer, using a night club as a front... his standing instructions to me for running the old PC as an NPC, is that he used this LS contact to set up security arrangements for the night club... I still need to mull this over and figure out the details of what kind of help the good Lt. could have provided in this regard, though I imagine this was more through informal means than whatever the formal powers of a Lt. in a police force would be
Posted by: annachie Sep 5 2003, 11:21 AM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Pulling you over (a stop) still requires probable cause. |
Swish
crack
tinkle tinkle
Excuse me driver, did you know your tail light is broken?
| QUOTE (Dalassa) |
| or another favorite trick of cops is to stand on an overpass over a highway and radar the cars going under. |
Or just paint a couple of lines accross the road at a carefully measured seperation, then use a hekicopter to time the cars over the fixed distance
(It predates radar guns)| QUOTE (Squire) |
| On the matter of sneaky ways to use radar, I completely lack sympathy. Hell, I know a guy who used to take a battery pack and climb a tree, then radio the car description and speed to another officer waiting up the road with a patrol car |
Then there was the cop who parked his unmarked car on the nature-strip, hung a big 'for sale' sign on the front, and hid the speed camera at the back
Posted by: Kesh Sep 5 2003, 05:10 PM
Locally, we have a problem with illegal dumping. People will come to certain spots and just throw garbage, tires, furniture, whatever into the pile or ravine.
A few weeks ago, the local news did a special. Apparently, law enforcement has now put signs up with embedded cameras. The signs state that dumping is illegal, and the site is being filmed.
And people still dump there. 
Oh, and the 'break the taillight' idea probably wouldn't work too well... given the frequency of police car cameras now, I can imagine they're so cheap in the 2060's that every patrol car has one.
Posted by: FlakJacket Sep 8 2003, 04:15 AM
| QUOTE (Peter Pan) |
| Subsequently, a late-joining player took Captain Murphy as a contact, buddy-level, and this has corrupted my original plan for the good Captain, as this player is a bit of a twink and has asked for completely unreasonable things from the Captain, |
Well for starters, couldn't you have refused the player? Since the GM gets final say-so on character sheets, unless they came up with a real good backstory I'd tell them no, pick someone else. And besides, if they kept making such outrageous requests I'd just have him get annoyed to pissed off and eventually donwgrade him a level if he keeps on.
Posted by: Squire Sep 8 2003, 12:47 PM
Okay, first off- sorry about the delay in my response here. I recently got my hands on Season 3 of Babylon 5, so I've been a bit distracted.
So, where to start?
Thanks to Centurion for dropping some info on the Boarder Patrol. I certainly do not believe that the good men and women who serve on the BP are the sort of folks to behave the way I described. As I say, I only speculating about possibilities.
| QUOTE |
| annachie wrote: Swish crack tinkle tinkle Excuse me driver, did you know your tail light is broken? |
Too many video cameras floating around the US.
Too much risk when the person files a complaint.
Besides, there isn't anyone I want to get that badly that I'm willing to compromise my honor (even if I'm the only one who know).
As for the dash cameras- they're pretty common these days, though Denver lacks them. Frankly, I love the things. I tend to assume I'm always being videotaped, and I'm going to behave myself anyway, so the camera can't hurt me.
By the 2060's they'd be standard on all police and security vehicles.
About 6 or 8 years ago I was watching some technology show (ya know, the kind they have on the Discovery Channel) and they were talking about badge-mounted camera's for police officers. Current (2003) technology allows video cameras as small as a shirt button (though I'm not certain about the quality of the video).
I tend to assume that in 2060, all police officers have a camera mounted somewhere on their uniform that records high quality video and audio.
Personally, if they ever invented Simsense, I'd be at the front of the line of volunteers to have a recorder deck installed. I can't think of anything better to have in court. I'd love it.
| QUOTE |
| Pistons wrote: But I bet you can put them under police escort to the meeting, and give them a ticket after the meeting. |
Technically I could, but I wouldn't.
Frankly the politician would make enough noise with the department's upper command to make my life miserable and my career a dead end path. The media likes police scandals more than political scandals and the department isn't willing to cross the state legislature over something as minor as public safety. I would lose, and lose badly. No thanks.
Okay, now on to Peter Pan and Captain Murphy.
My idea for how to play cops in a cyberpunk setting is "jaded."
Think of them as guys who work for a corporation that is trying to squeeze every penny out of their work. When they go the extra mile for the community, their sergeant gets on their case for wasting resources. Every second of overtime is scrutinized, every drop of fuel used must be accounted for.
These guys know that if they get into a scandal, the corp hangs them out to dry regardless of whether they did the right thing or not, because the corp cares a lot more about it's public image than it does about actually keeping the streets safe or any considerations for justice.
These guys know that the corporation would literally rather see them bleed to death in the streets than have to deal with negative media from their officers winning a gun fight with the biggest scumbag ever to walk the earth. Policies are written to kiss the asses of the powerful and wealthy, and to ignore problems in neighborhood that have no political and financial pull. Policies frequently demand the exact opposite of practices that provide for officer safety in favor of policies that provide greater public relations.
These guys know that anything they do can get them fired, including doing nothing.
These guys know that no matter how horrid the crime was, the corp is not going to put resources into solving it if it's a low profile victim.
These guys know that they're just "resources" to be exploited.
These guys have given up on justice and the law. They're just trying to get through their shift without getting geeked or fired. They're seriously jaded.
And they're likely to take their frustration out on the SINless (who have no real recourse) in all kinds of nasty ways. They know who has pull and who doesn't. They know they can get a way with doing damn near anything to a SINless as long as they take basic precautions (like choosing where and when to do what they're going to do).
A lot of them probably joined with all sorts of high ideals in mind. Guys who believed in justice and honor. These guys will be the most jaded- I'm talking about some really bitter guys here.
Of course if they see the chance to work for justice in spite of the corp, there will be a lot of guys who will take the chance if the risk is reasonable. Sometimes that might mean taking the law into their own hands and bending the rules. If they think they can get away with it, they will.
Anyway, that's my recomendation for cyberpunk cops.
As for Captian Murphy- we all know LS hires runners from time to time. Captain Murphy is a reasonable choice for a LS Johnson.
In a major metropolitan PD a Captian usually is in charge of one police station (generally about 100 officers). In detective bureaus Captains run a bureau (several units- say homide, sex assaults, assaults, domestic violence, and child abuse units all under one captain).
Captains are administrators. They still wear a gun, but probably haven't even seen their handcuffs in a few years (ahem- except for "personal use," but I digress). Captains sit behind their desk writing policies, shuffling paperwork related to the troops under them (approving leave, approving IA investigations, approving work schedules, writing discipline letters) and meeting with members of the community that their station is located in. Captains (in big cities) do not investigate cases or handle calls.
But given a unit of LS designated to handle shadow assets, the corp may want to have things handled by someone who's got a bit more invested in the company than the average detective or officer. That might be a captain.
I think you've got a decent handle on the sorts of things Murphy might help with. Keep in mind that one of his jobs is to keep the department provided with intelligence. It's highly likely that anything the PCs tell him (or anything he can surmise), will end up in LS files. That doens't mean that every grunt patrolman will have access to that information, but when a case comes up that the company wants to see solved, they'll make use of the info regardless of whether or not it screws Murphy's contacts. Murphy knows this, of course and knows that when that moment comes, he's got more to gain by screwing the PCs than by protecting them. Murphy will not risk his position with LS for the PCs.
Generally speaking a Captain has access to the same information that patrolmen do. That does not include having access to passenger lists (unless he can get a warrant or talk the airline into releasing the information, which is unlikely). A captain has some pull, but not a lot over guys who are not under his direct command. It would be difficult for a captain assigned to one station to tell patrolmen from another station to back off of something. He could do it, but they'd make noise and if he didn't have good reasons, he'd probably be in trouble.
Of course all that can change if the captain in question works for the black-ops division. The black-ops division probably has access to all sorts of information (probably not necessarily through legal means) and probably has the authority to order officers and detectives to back off of certain things. They may ultimately have to justify their actions to one of the chiefs, but they can probably get a away with it.
As for the Lieutenant setting up security in the night club for the NCP, that's easilly done. Police officers work off-duty doing security for all kinds of places, including bars and night clubs. The lieutenant simply has to call up the unit that manages off-duty work (usually in the chief's office). That unit will have pre-written contracts on file. The LT will get one signed by the club owner and he'll hire some officers who want to do the work. Off-duty police officers in 2003 get between 25 and 50 dollars an hour (generally at the upper end of that range for bars and night clubs). The department has rules specifying what sort of work they can do- the basically function as if they're on duty, under the same rules while they're at the bar. They have arrest powers, they follow department policy and they cannot take enforcement action unless there is a law violation (or they're preventing a law violation).
In the case of LS, LS will probably just have the night club hire LS to do their security and will give officers over-time pay to work there.
Anyway, thanks for the info on the radar project, it was interesting.
I hope I didn't miss anything, but I've got to run- dayshift wants my patrol car.
| QUOTE |
| use Dunkin Donuts as the meeting point |
In Denver, we prefer Krispy Kreme. It's very important that you get that detail right.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 8 2003, 03:03 PM
@ FlakJacket:
During char gen, he wanted an LS contact, I nominated Capt Murphy (seeing as I didn't want to multiply NPCs unneccesarily), and it was only gradually that I realized he was going to be an abusive would-be twink about it... Murphy has categorically refused unreasonable requests... and yes, I guess he may very well have to downgrade the PC from Buddy to contact, to maybe "if he calls, tell him I'm not here"
@ Squire:
| QUOTE |
| Okay, first off- sorry about the delay in my response here. I recently got my hands on Season 3 of Babylon 5, so I've been a bit distracted. |
I was wondering what happened... glad to know you have a more than acceptable excuse
If my budget allowed, I'd be replacing my VHS collection of every hour of B5 ever aired (movies and Crusade included) with the DVDs...
3rd Season opener is still the best (though I do like the 5th Season opener a lot):
| QUOTE |
| "The Bablyon Project Was Our Last Best Hope For Peace...." (cue battle scenes) "... It Failed..." |
moving on: back in my PC days, I fell afoul of a LS cop having video recorder in his squad car... certain team mates decided to get in a drinking contest before the run, including the rigger, ergo, we were pulled over, and after the mage failed to cast a manipulation spell, the cop noticed our street sam's insane collection of weapons and all hell broke loose... the best I could do (as the decker) was run backwards towards the squad car and take the camera out, but the footage had already been uplinked...
thanks for all your comments, they're very helpful...
in terms of the passenger lists... the individual in question is a really nasty sort, so I assumed something like a warrant was in place... even if LS couldn't pin anything on the guy, they sure as hell wanted to know if he was coming back into town
the night club with the LS protetion actually came up yesterday in game, so I had to ad lib, basically I assumed drones spotted them coming from a mile away and they were pulled over by LS squad car, license and registration please, and gee, what do you know, your weapons license's don't read as legit, we'll have to confiscate those... so they had to proceede unarmed to their confrontational meeting with the fixer NPC... on the way back, they were pulled over, and the weapons were returned, sorry about the misunderstanding, your licenses checked out after all, etc, etc...
the funny part was that the ork (who wasn't driving) was completely shit faced, and the street sam (who was driving) had no right to not be shit faced too, but had made an incredible body roll (like > 30 ), so really was able to drive after downing the strongest drink in the house... the one that had felled the ork...
feel I failed slightly as a GM by having a scene were cops were handing weapons to drunks in a car, but oh well.
| QUOTE |
| In Denver, we prefer Krispy Kreme. It's very important that you get that detail right. |
Posted by: Hot Wheels Sep 10 2003, 02:48 PM
I loved the complaint some people brought up in Jersey, when they started having highway cruisers with the lightbar inside the car instead of on the roof, so you can't see it until the officer turns it on. Some people, especially truckers, complained it was entrampment since they couldn't see the cars in the distance and stop speeding, in short "Hey it's no fair you'll see me breaking the law on a public highway."
As for local laws, just look at the difference in firepower. The LAPD allows sgts to have access to M-16's for heavy action and those have been rigged for single fire only. By comparison I've seen the NYPD heavy stuff- pre 9/11 and they look like the freaking Marine corp, only dressed in blue.
Posted by: Black Isis Sep 10 2003, 05:59 PM
Here in Champaign-Urbana, it's very interesting to know that all the UniCops (who a lot of people think are a big joke) a) have enforcement power in any county in Illinois where the University of Illinois owns property (which is a fair bit, including Cook County where Chicago is) and b) that every patrol car for the UniCops on this campus has an M16 in it. Most of the University police are members of the Champaign County combined SWAT team (which includes cops from Champaign and Urbana municipal departments as well).
Posted by: Hot Wheels Sep 10 2003, 09:47 PM
If they're such hard cases, then why do people think they're a joke?
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 11 2003, 01:39 AM
hell, one of the campus cops at my alma matter (a small liberal arts college) has a TOW missile...
though that was in his private collection, not what he was issued by College Safety & Security
one of my friends GMs GURPS IOU and has the campus cops be so heavy-handed and out of control ( read: tactical nukes ), that the whole idea is "no, you've got to solve this yourselves and keep the campus security people out of it"
Posted by: Hot Wheels Sep 11 2003, 01:04 PM
Where the hell did you go to school that the cops needed not just guns but freaking Missles?????????
Posted by: Squire Sep 11 2003, 02:41 PM
| QUOTE (Hot Wheels) |
| Some people, especially truckers, complained it was entrampment since they couldn't see the cars in the distance and stop speeding, in short "Hey it's no fair you'll see me breaking the law on a public highway." |
You know, I hear arguments like that a lot. Something like this "but it gives you a chance to catch me breaking the law, it just can't be fair." It's really funny when people get pissed off about it.
I was just practicing with a radar gun one day in my personal car when some guy drove by, he stopped, got out of his car and walked up. He wanted to know if it was legal for me to run radar out of a car that wasn't a marked police car because he felt his rights were being violated. Not only did he think it wasn't fair, he actually thought it was illegal. And the funny thing was, he wasn't even speeding.
Frankly, I think there are a ton of people who have no idea what the word "entrapment" means. A lot of dumbasses think that entrapment is anything except a uniformed police officer calling you ahead of time to tell you they're onto you.
In order for entrapment to apply, the police have to entice you to do something you wouldn't normally do. Generally that means they have to give you the idea to commit the illegal act and then give you a reason to do it. If I walk up to someone and say "Hey, we should rob that bank over there. It'll be easy and we'll get away with oodles of cash. I'll give you the plan, you carry it out, and we'll split the cash." That would be entrapment.
If I learn that you're planning on robbing the bank, and I volunteer to help you plan it, then use the planning session as evidence to arrest you for conspiracy to commit bank robbery- that is NOT entrapment. You were going to commit the crime anyway, I just tricked you into giving me the evidence needed to arrest you.
As for police with heavy weapons, Denver PD and Aurora (Denver's largest suburb) both let patrol officers carry AR-15 assault rifles (very similar to the M-16). I've seen them deployed a number of times. Most of this started after the famous Hollywood Bank Robbery when the LAPD had to go to a gun store to buy guns in order to deal with well armored bank robbers who were shooting the hell out of everything while wearing armor that effectively stopped the rounds fired from police side-arms.
Frankly, I think it is ridiculously stupid to try to deal with organized criminals who are well armed and armored, with a handgun. The law gives the police the right to win fights, and police should be armed reasonably to match the threat they are facing.
Some cities are afraid of looking too military, too much like an occupying force. I like the NYPD method. They deal with the threats to public safety and make no apologies for doing their job and doing it well.
A lot of people have a problem with giving law enforcement the tools to actually do the job their hired to do. They think properly armed police are "too oppressive" and unmarked police cars are "not fair." Somehow, they don't seem to mind that the criminals are carrying AK-47s. I'm forced to wonder about the motivations, loyalties and goals of such people.
Posted by: Peter Pan Sep 11 2003, 06:59 PM
| QUOTE (Hot Wheels) |
| Where the hell did you go to school that the cops needed not just guns but freaking Missles????????? |
Oberlin... a small hippie reservation slash college in rural Ohio... though I stress, the TOW missile was in his private collection, not anything he needed for his job...
though I do like the mental image of Oberlin's resident socialists deciding they could start a revolution and not counting on those innocous safety & security officers being armed... and then this guy breaking out the anti-tank missile...
Posted by: Black Isis Sep 11 2003, 07:08 PM
| QUOTE (Hot Wheels) |
| If they're such hard cases, then why do people think they're a joke? |
Because most of the time, the UniCops are busting students for speeding or citing underage students for drinking, or something that students find completely trivial. They don't generally see them busting down doors in body armor carrying M16s and shotguns. However, I did have the rare treat of watching the county SWAT practice raids in a house that was due for demolition across from my high school one year, which was pretty neat. Most people don't get to see that though, and wouldn't know it was the same people anyway.
Posted by: Digital Heroin Oct 2 2003, 10:31 AM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Did anyone else find in strange that the shadowtalk posters that were most critical of police in the "Life in the 60s" section were the former cops. SPD has always been fairly pro-police in his posts (except for slamming Lone Star specifically). X-star perhaps not as much, but both SPD and X-star come off as somewhat anti-police in "Life in the 60s." Neither of them spoke up to clarify a procedure or explain why some things are necessary (SPD's bread and butter), but they both added ways police can abuse their power. It's not a big issue, but are we perhaps seeing the political bias of the author (whoever it was) in the source material? Or are we just seeing that the author has a different feel for the personality (and outlooks) of well-known shadowtalk posters than I do? |
Now that you mention it, SPD did seem a little off... maybe it's just an evolution of the poster though, times change us all...
Posted by: Squire Oct 2 2003, 09:08 PM
It could be, but it's a pretty significant change that I wasn't comfortable with.
Personally, I'm inclined to blame the political-bias of the author, but that's just my personal feeling about it. Admittedly, I can be a bit touchy about that sort of thing.
However, SPD (and other shadowtalk posters) served a purpose in the past- to show the perspective of the other side of things, to explain why things are the way they are. He (they) also nicely illustrated the difference between a civil (government operated) police force and the corporate contracted police forces.
Those purpose has been lost and I felt it was important.
EDIT: Of course there is also the political bias of the shadow author to consider (the character who's voice the article is in as apposed to the actual freelancer who write the section). But one of the main purposes of shadowtalk is to off-set those character biases with other points-of view. This was not done, in my less than humble opinion.
Posted by: MYST1C Oct 3 2003, 09:06 PM
| QUOTE (Peter Pan) |
| hell, one of the campus cops at my alma matter (a small liberal arts college) has a TOW missile... |
We don't even have such a thing as "campus cops" here in Germany...
Posted by: Crimsondude 2.0 Oct 7 2003, 01:59 AM
| QUOTE (Peter Pan @ Sep 10 2003, 07:39 PM) |
| hell, one of the campus cops at my alma matter (a small liberal arts college) has a TOW missile... |
Yeah, but how many confirmed kills does he have? UPD?
Posted by: Sahandrian Oct 18 2003, 11:45 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Okay, first off- sorry about the delay in my response here. I recently got my hands on Season 3 of Babylon 5, so I've been a bit distracted. |
Completely off-topic...
...I miss that show.
Posted by: Squire Oct 19 2003, 08:52 AM
Seasons 1 through 3 are available on DVD...
Posted by: CeaDawg Feb 9 2004, 07:46 PM
Prior to the patriot act I've seen a few applications of "Police Rights" that most people consider to be "no-nos", but are legal (or at least have held up in court ).
1. Florida 1978: State patrol in co-operation with DEA, local sheriff departments, US Customs and INS setup a series or inspection points on the major roadways leading north from the Orlando area. chase cars were positioned to cover the south bound lanes, these vehicles were positioned in camoflaged bolt holes and such. On the north bound side drivers first encountered signs stating "Narcotics Inspection and Taxation Station Ahead". This was followed up by signs and cones further up the road where ID, registration, & insurance checks were performed in one lane and in the outside lane a sign directed vehicles carrying narcotics to pull over to the shoulder. Those vehicles that did not pull over to the shoulder were subjected to dog searches inside and outside of the vehicle at another checkpoint only a few hundred yards down the road. Some smugglers were caught at these 2 points, but the majority were caught when they turned around after seeing the 1st sign. I observed this happening as part of the Navy's support of coastal drug interdiction. It's my understanding that this was a monthly occurance during the late '70s and early '80s.
2. A Gentleman from Ohio, who owned a small landscaping business, was detained for 6 weeks on the belief that he was a drug dealer. In addition to this the state of Georgia and the DEA confiscated his home, his personal cars, his business and it's vehicles and equipment. They also confiscated the $30,000 in cash that he was carrying. He was "busted" during a layover at the Atlanta airport where he had to change to a local commuter flight to reach his final destination. Which was a town in south GA. where the region's largest landscape floral market is located. The probable cause for his being taken in to custody was that he was a: black, b: had declared he was transporting large amounts of cash at the time he checked in for his flight from Columbus Ohio, c: his deceased brother inlaw had a record as a drug dealer in Illinois. Under the RICO act, all of his assets were charged in drug trafficing. These charges against his assets were not dropped after the investigation into his activities was dropped. Note he was never charged with a crime. He has been all the way to the US Supreme court with this; their final ruling was that his assets were not citizens of the US and therefore could not be afforded rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the US. They additionally ruled that his assets had to provide their own legal representation in court, thus preventing him for retaining an attorney on their behalf to represent them.
3. On numerous occassions here in Nebraska, children have been recruited by law enforcement to "test" local stores and shops that sell alcohol and tobacco. Many of these kids, after performing this service have then been charged/ticketed for purchasing those same materials. The evidence used against them were the "tested" store's/shop's video surveillance tapes of the "test". The same practice has been used to nail kids in the schools for dealing/buying drugs on school property where the penalties are doubled.
After the Patriot Act things appear to have gotten even more draconian, around here at least. My kids (all under the age of 15 years) were to be subjected to strip and cavity searches at the airport, this summer, prior to boarding for a flight to Atlanta to visit their grand parents. They were flagged for this abuse, because their grandmother purchased their tickets from her end and had them mailed to the kids here. Fortunately, I'm known to several of the security personnel that were on duty at the time and a Federal prosecutor was in line behind us to board the same flight.
Posted by: Squire Feb 9 2004, 09:58 PM
Okay, lets talk about these situations you're presenting CeaDawg.
THE ROAD BLOCK:
This event is perfectly legal, perfectly fair and a fairly standard practice. Here is why-
Signs were put up warning drivers in advance that they would be entering a checkpoint. Drivers had the opportunity to turn off and not drive into the check point. Therefor anyone driving into the check point does so willingly and in doing so gives consent to be contacted. Based upon that contact, evidence justifying a further search may result.
For those drivers who turn off- well simply turning away from the check point is NOT probable cause to stop them, however no evedence at all is needed for law enforcement to follow someone for a short distance and visually check for violations (it's called "plain sight"). If a violation is found (any will do, even a cracked windshield, a tail light out, whatever) the officer has probable cause to stop the person. An officer who is well versed in traffic law (like say, a state patrolman) will usually have no difficulty in finding a violation on most vehicles.
If a person enters the checkpoint area and then does not follow the orders given to them (or the cones or signs set up or whatever), they are committing (at the least) a traffic violation, which is probable cause to stop them.
THE GUY FROM OHIO:
Sorry, but I'm just not buying into this one. Not as it is presented anyway.
I can see a dozen ways this would be legal if just a little bit more information was provided. What you are not providing (and probably do not have access to yourself) is if there was additional information the law enfrocement officers had that led to this person being contacted and detained and which led to the seizure of his properties.
I'm fairly suspicious of the idea that it would play out as described even at the level of a small, isolated town police force (it's possible, but unlikely). However, even if it did, the US Supreme Court would NOT put up with that kind of thing. They have ruled on the standards for probable cause for detaining someone and for seizure of property- and what you've described does not fit.
However, I find it no surprise that the events would be portrayed the way they were. The police are not required to tell the media (or even the suspect) all the evidence they have that led to the detention- they are only required to tell the defendant's attorney and the court. Based upon the information you provided, at least 3 seperate courts have upheld this case, which is a very clear sign that the evidence was there.
The media's goal is to generate higher ratings and circulation, not to inform the public of the facts- nothing short of a major disaster boosts ratings and circulation better than a scandal (police scandals are one of the best), and the media is not usually shy about leaving a few peices of key information out of the public's knowledge in order to make things appear more sinister. I see it happen all the time.
Nor is this person likely to tell the full story when he tries to win support for himself. He is very likely to leave a few things out.
Now, it was stated that his being black was the only reason for him to be contacted. That would be illegal, and even the few police that are racist are smart enough not to do that (those who are not smart enough not to do that don't last long).
His being black can be part of a greater amount of evidence the leads to his contact, but only under very limited circomstances. If, for example, a reliable informant told the police "On the three PM flight from Atlanta to Chicago there will be a black man in his mid-thirties wearing a mustache, glasses and a brown coat. He will be carrying a shipment of drugs." The police can look for a person matching that description at that time and place. In that case, his being black is part of a description and therefor can be used as part of the reason for contacting him.
By itself, his race cannot be the reason for a stop. Had that been the sole reason for his being stopped, the case would have been thrown out in court.
For the record- in order for a case to get to the US Supreme Court, it has to pass through a minimum of two other courts:
-The state trial court
-The state appeals court
-(sometimes a state supreme court)
-(sometimes a US appeals court)
-And then the US Supreme Court.
If it was a federal case that it would pass through two courtrooms before the Supreme Court:
-the federal trial cout
-the federal appeals court
-then the US Supreme Court.
Each one of those courts operates independantly of the others. The idea that so many seperate courts would let something that they've ruled against in the past go on is just not within the realm of beleivability.
Sorry, but I gotta call bullshit on this case as it is portrayed here. (Note for the record, I am not accusing you of attempting to misrepresent the case, I'm just pointing out that odds are that you do not have all the facts of the case).
ALCOHOL PURCHASING STINGS:
Calling bullshit on this one as well (again, not calling you a liar, just point out that you likely do not have all the facts).
Juveniles (or at least persons under 21 years of age) are used to conduct sting operations of businesses which sell alcohol and tobacco. This is not unusual or illegal. Usually police cadets or police explorer scouts are used for the sting, but some jurisdictions recruit in other ways. An officer will give money and instructions to the juvenile, the juvenile will go into the store and attempt to purchase the alcohol or tobacco. It is illegal for the store to make the sale, so if the juvenile is able to make the purchase, the juvenile then reports to the officer (who is waiting just around the corner). The juvenile turns over the alcohol or tobacco to the officer and the officer goes into the store to serve a criminal summons to the clerk who made the sale.
I've participated in these stings myself. It is completely legal, fairly common, and easy to do. Most stores will not make the sale and you'd never know the sting was attempted (except that some PDs will send the owner a letter congratulating them on their compliance with the law- some store owners will throw these away, some will proudly post then in the store as a warning to juveniles).
The PD would have no reason to file charges on the juvenile (who is helping them), but if they did, the juvenile would get out of it because it would be a clear situation of entrapment. EXCEPT....
Except:
-If the juvenile fails to turn (some or all of) the alcohol or tobacco over to the officer in accordance with procedures and the law
-If the juvenile attempts such a sting on their own (not acting under authority and orders of a police officer)
-If the juvenile comes back later, after the sting, and purchases alcohol or tobacco, in which case they are breaking the law and the sting is not at all related to the violation.
Oh, one more possibility- the officer was waiting for the juvenile around the corner (out of sight) and as the juvenile was walking out of the store, another officer (one who did not know the sting operation was going on) approached and saw the juvenile- then made an arrest. In this case, it is the responsibility of the officer conducting the sting to step in and inform the arresting officer what is going on.
It is possible that a situation might occur where the juvenile is arrested and the officer conducting the sting doesn't find out about it (operating on a different radio channel) until the juvenile is in custody at the station or jail. In that case, it is the responsibility of the officer to contact the arresting officer, or the attorney's handling the case, or in necessary to testify in court and inform all related parties that it was all a misunderstanding. I can easily see it happening that way.
Once again, regardless of how this happened, by the time this hits the papers you're going to be missing a lot of the facts of the case.
Posted by: snowRaven Feb 10 2004, 02:25 PM
Being a european, it's been very interesting reading your police stories.
Regarding speed checks: here in Sweden if you call the police and ask where they have their radar set up at the moment, they are required by law to tell you. This has evolved into a cellphone service that automatically sends you information of any police radar in the area you are in. (As far as I know, this doesn't apply to any other check-points though)
Posted by: Squire Feb 10 2004, 08:04 PM
That's very interesting, and I can see the police actually liking the idea.
In the 1970s when CB radios were popular, police at first got angry when someone on a CB radio would announce the location of a radar officer.
Until we realized that when the CB announcement is made, everyone with a CB slows down. Half the cars without a CB radio are smart enough to notice that the cars with radios slowed down and so they slow down as well. We realized that the CB announcement was helping us to slow down speeders, without us every having to lift a finger. Efficiency.
Besides, there is no shortage of wildly stupid people out there who will pass a marked police car while doing 30 MPH over the speed limit, and then say "Gee Officer, I didn't see you." We call it D.W.H.U.A. (Driving With Head Up Ass).
Frankly though, I don't see how anyone can complain about being caught for speeding by a hidden officer (not that it would stop them- some people think that anything which makes it possible for them to get caught is "not fair"). They're traveling on a public roadway, with no expectation of privacy- it's a public place, anyone can see them go by. There is nothing unfair about it- they know the speed limit (it's posted or mandated by law that they are responsible for knowing), if they choose to speed, they take their chances.
Posted by: FlakJacket Feb 10 2004, 11:01 PM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| Frankly though, I don't see how anyone can complain about being caught for speeding by a hidden officer |
Oh my favourites are the ones that bitch and moan about being caught by permanent/stationary speed cameras who they seem to consider it totally unfair. For gods sake people, if you don't break the law and speed limits then you don't get done. Simple as that.
Posted by: Austere Emancipator Feb 11 2004, 09:41 AM
Agree 100% with Squire on RL police practices, although I have a feeling that the SR 2060s has seen Patriot Acts I through XVIII and police can at least get away with, if they aren't directly authorized to, for example, holding anyone in custody indefinitely.
People who megacorps care about (pretty much any corper with a high lifestyle) might be safer from this, but poor people could be put into custody and be everything but tortured to confess, only to be released after a few weeks: "So you didn't commit this crime, but don't think for a second we aren't on to you."
Regarding speeding fines: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/02/10/finland.speeding.reut/index.html At least those guys don't start whining about the fines, "Waaahhhh, I only get $6,800,000 this year because of the fine *sob sob* Plus $10 million in dividends and stock options worth $5 million". They wouldn't get a lot of empathy.
Posted by: Hecatonchires Feb 16 2004, 06:23 AM
I just got my hands on the Lone Star book. Found it at the local Book and Music Exchange. Once it is digested I may have something useful to add.
Nice info on the ticket. I thought paying 101.50 in court costs was a bitch.
Posted by: Watchman Feb 23 2004, 03:20 PM
I dunno, it's in corporate interests to look after their employees (to a degree) or more to the point ask (nicely or not) the guys charged with the job, in SR UCAS usually the KE or LS, to do it. So, basically, if you look middle-class, can provide a SIN and aren't caught doing something blatantly illegal you're likely fairly safe from the cops.
Fail to fulfill the two latter conditions, though, and chances are you're in Shit Creek up to your nose.
Kinda like how police states do things, really. Don't buck the system and be nice to the cops and you're fairly safe, do it and the rest of your life is going to be very unpleasant.
Of course, all that only applies in the parts of the city (or whatever) the cops bother to (or dare to) patrol - in the poorer parts you're likely mostly on your own and best off not having anything to do with the random patrol car.
Posted by: Squire Feb 24 2004, 06:37 AM
Watchman is probably right about the 6th world. Different rules there.
If I recall correctly, the SINless have no civil rights in the UCAS. (Sadly, I cannot cite a source, so take that with a grain of salt).
In the RL USA, everyone has civil rights. They could be in the country illegally, and have committed horrible mass murder on national televison, and still will receive the same rights and legal protections as Joe Yuppie from Bethesda.
In the 6th World, with the SINless having no civil rights- well, that means that LS can pretty much do whatever they want to the SINless, as long as they keep a reasonably low profile about it. SINless guy pisses you off- beat him to a pulp and leave him on the side of the road.
Hell, LS can pick up a SINless guy who's causing problems and lock them up without trial. As long as they're reasonably subtle about it, they could probably get a way with it (and assuming they don't let the SINless guy make phone calls or write letters).
LS would still have to be careful of the media- a beating on trid would still be bad for the department, but unless it hits the evening news, no one is going to care except the SINless, and when they complain about it, and no one will really care about their complaints.
Posted by: Necro Tech May 22 2004, 03:06 AM
| QUOTE (CeaDawg) |
| 2. A Gentleman from Ohio, who owned a small landscaping business, was detained for 6 weeks on the belief that he was a drug dealer. In addition to this the state of Georgia and the DEA confiscated his home, his personal cars, his business and it's vehicles and equipment. They also confiscated the $30,000 in cash that he was carrying. He was "busted" during a layover at the Atlanta airport where he had to change to a local commuter flight to reach his final destination. Which was a town in south GA. where the region's largest landscape floral market is located. The probable cause for his being taken in to custody was that he was a: black, b: had declared he was transporting large amounts of cash at the time he checked in for his flight from Columbus Ohio, c: his deceased brother inlaw had a record as a drug dealer in Illinois. Under the RICO act, all of his assets were charged in drug trafficing. These charges against his assets were not dropped after the investigation into his activities was dropped. Note he was never charged with a crime. He has been all the way to the US Supreme court with this; their final ruling was that his assets were not citizens of the US and therefore could not be afforded rights and protections under the laws and constitution of the US. They additionally ruled that his assets had to provide their own legal representation in court, thus preventing him for retaining an attorney on their behalf to represent them. |
Actually, there is a story very similar to the one you describe but the man was caucasian and only his money was taken (to the tune of 30,000) but the Atlanta PD. The justification sited was that he had a very short turn around time (about 6 hours). This is called civil asset forfeiture. The man tried to get his money back but never made it out of local courts. The supreme court ruled (Bennis vs. Michigan) that you can be deprived of property if it is used in a crime without your consent or knowledge. They also ruled that if you are charged with a civil offense (no possible jail time) that you have no presumption of innocence. no right to an attorney and double jeopardy does not attach. If you are never charged you have precisely zero rights. You must prove that you earned every penny of money seized and that no crime has EVER been committed with the seized property and you have to do it all on your own dime. There are thousands of such incidents on file. Why are the police/prosecutors taking your stuff and never charging you? Why will no judge rule for you? Wait for it...............they get a cut. I'm not kidding. Look it up. In some jurisdictions the officers who seized the property get up to 25% of the value while prosecutors get a smaller share (10%). This has been upheld at the federal and state supreme court levels.
Fun huh?
Posted by: xizor May 22 2004, 06:22 PM
| QUOTE |
| In the RL USA, everyone has civil rights. They could be in the country illegally, and have committed horrible mass murder on national televison, and still will receive the same rights and legal protections as Joe Yuppie from Bethesda. |
somebody should probably tell the people on extended free vacation in cuba curtesy of the american Government that they actualy DO have civil rights...
Posted by: Squire May 27 2004, 02:48 AM
| QUOTE |
| xizor wrote: somebody should probably tell the people on extended free vacation in cuba curtesy of the american Government that they actualy DO have civil rights |
Not really. They're not Americans, they weren't taken into custody in the US, and they're not being held in the US- so US civil rights do not apply.
Now whether or not international law, treaties and the Genevia Conventions apply is a matter that can be debated. But US civil rights simply do not apply outside of the US.
| QUOTE |
| Necro Tech wrote: Why are the police/prosecutors taking your stuff and never charging you? Why will no judge rule for you? Wait for it...............they get a cut. I'm not kidding. Look it up. In some jurisdictions the officers who seized the property get up to 25% of the value while prosecutors get a smaller share (10%). This has been upheld at the federal and state supreme court levels. |
Um, sorry but no.
That is absolutely untrue for the US (other nations might be different).
Seized money or property must be held in evidence until the trial(s) are completed. Then is can be distributed to the accounts that receive seized money.
Seized money cannot be given to individuals (especially those that participated in any way in the seizure), the money can't even go into the police department or court's accounts. It either goes into special accounts that are very limited in how they can be used (such as only for anti-drug education) or it goes into the local, state or federal government's general fund (which means it never goes to the police department or courts, let alone any individuals instead it goes toward things like street repairs, art, and paying the power bill for all those street lights the government so nicely provides).
Seized property is generally auctioned off (at rediculously low prices) with the proceeds distributed in the same way as seized money.
Many places have very strict rules that prevent police officers from purchasing seized property (even if said property was seized in another state). So, for example, officers would not be able to seize a vehicle, then wait for it to come up for auction and buy it.
Such limitations often extend not only to the officer, but also to his/her entire family.
Here in Denver, the PD has a policy forbidding officers from purchasing items seized, repossessed or forfeit in any way (yes that means that Denver Police officers are forbidden to even buy things at a pawn shop).
| QUOTE |
| The supreme court ruled (Bennis vs. Michigan) that you can be deprived of property if it is used in a crime without your consent or knowledge |
That is true, but the government agency that seized the property must show in court that said property was used in a crime. If the seizing agency is unable to do that, the property must be returned.
Being found not guilty in court does not negate the property seizure. Not being charged does not negate the property seizure. But the seizing agency still must show in a court hearing that the property was used (or intended to be used) in the commission of a crime. If the seizing agency is unable to do so, the property must be returned.
| QUOTE |
| You must prove that you earned every penny of money seized and that no crime has EVER been committed with the seized property and you have to do it all on your own dime. |
Not entirely true.
The burden of proof in those hearings is on the seizing agency. They have to prove that is was used in criminal activity. All you have to do is keep them from proving it was used in criminal activity. If they fail to prove it was used in criminal activity, they must return the property.
Now there may be issues with proving that the property is yours. They can't return it to you until there is some degree of confidence that they are returing property to the rightful owner (you can see all the ways that could be a problem).
I'll give you an example scenario:
Bob purchases a car from Fred. Bob does not bother to ensure that Fred signed the title over to him and in fact, Fred never did sign the title over to Bob. Bob also does not get plates for the car, but rather drives the car using the plates Fred had. One day Bob gets pulled over because he's driving a little too fast. The officer notices a mirror, razor blade and straw on the dash board, all of which have white powdery resedue on them. The officer then searches Bob's car and finds several large bags of white powerder in the car which he reasonably believes is cocaine.
The officer arrests Bob and impounds Bob's car.
Later the white powder is tested and determined to be baking powder, not cocain.
Bob is released from custody with no charges filed. The car was not used in comission of a crime, so it is also set to be released.
So Bob shows up at the impound lot to pick up his car. But the impound lot won't give Bob his car because the Department of Motor Vehicle files show that the car belongs to Fred. Bob pulls out the title and says "See, it is my car, I have the title" and the impound lot attendant looks at the title and says "No, this shows that Fred owns the car."
The impound lot is required to hold the car until the owner picks it up and all legal documentation shows that Fred is the legal owner.
Sucks to be Bob, he should have made sure the title was filled out and that the car was registered in his own name.
The impound lot will make reasonable attempts to contact Fred and let him know his car is waiting to be picked up at the pound. Without Fred proving his identity, then letting them know that he sold the car to Bob, the impound lot is legally required to hold the car until Fred comes to get it.
Posted by: Necro Tech May 28 2004, 12:55 AM
| QUOTE (Squire) |
| That is absolutely untrue for the US (other nations might be different). Seized money or property must be held in evidence until the trial(s) are completed. Then is can be distributed to the accounts that receive seized money. |
Actually this is untrue. That is what the reform act was about in 2000. The house passed a resolution that would change the burden of proof to the agency as well as removing the 10% bond the owner had to pay to contest the seizure. Civil asset forfeiture (Not criminal) means the property is guilty, not the person. There is no hearing unless the owner pays the 10% of the value of the property. They take your 300,000$ house and its costs 30,000$ for the hearing. As with most things, this varies from state to state. I'm glad to see that Colorado is a lot more forward thinking. In New York and California this is not the case. I didn't mean to imply that the officers got a check from seized money or that they could take property for free but the money can be used to pay their expenses, outfit the stations, increase their fleet of vehicles, pay their overtime, outfit their labs and generally supplement their budget buy buying equipment for themselves. A prosecutor in New York is actually driving a seized car as his city car. Cheap way to drive a Porche I guess.
Posted by: Paul May 28 2004, 12:07 PM
Can I get a link to that, this reform act? I'd like to read it. I know there is nothing similar to that here in Michigan, or else some poeple I know would be really happy.
Posted by: Necro Tech May 28 2004, 06:54 PM
http://www.fear.org/ is a comprehensive website that addresses everything on the topic and included links to Federal websites details the actual statuettes I have been discussing plus the reform act, letters, testimonials etc. This should cover all your questions about state and federal laws and decisions on the subject.
Posted by: Squire May 31 2004, 12:49 AM
I browsed breifly that site. I did find links to the laws for several states, but they were hosted by the site. Perhaps there are more and I missed them, perhaps not.
The site is clearly an anti-forfeiture site, and not an official source of information. The site's operators are probably well-meaning people, but what they have produced is clearly propagnada.
It being propaganda does not necessarily make it inaccurate. But they are trying to convince readers to agree with their views relating to forfeiture. Naturally facts which do not support their views will be omitted (particularly in regards to the horror stories) and facts which do support their views may be given a greater importance than they really have. All propaganda is like that, it's the nature of propaganda.
Laws from most states are available on-line and also at public libraries in that state. Additionally information can be gained from law-libraries which are in most courthouses and are open to the public (at least during certain times- and a fee may be required).
A wise person will seek confirmation from official sources (or at least additional sources) as to what the laws say and how they are applied before getting too excited about a propagnadist interpertation of events.
Posted by: lspahn72 Jun 5 2004, 01:26 PM
| QUOTE (snowRaven) |
| Being a european, it's been very interesting reading your police stories. Regarding speed checks: here in Sweden if you call the police and ask where they have their radar set up at the moment, they are required by law to tell you. This has evolved into a cellphone service that automatically sends you information of any police radar in the area you are in. (As far as I know, this doesn't apply to any other check-points though) |
In delaware they post all the upcoming checkpoint in the paper and on the net... You just have to pay attention, alot of bartenders print them out and take it in to give warning. Lets be trueful, in the US most of these stops are about drug interdiction. Just like teh seatbelt law...do you really think they care if you wear your belt???NO!!! BUT, if you dont we can pull you over, and with care with AUTOMATIC seatbelts they can stop you to see if you have you lapbelt. So basicly if your some long haired Hippy or black or some other "suspicious" type they dont really need a reason...
Posted by: Backgammon Jun 5 2004, 11:14 PM
Here in Canada (well, Quebec at least), it is illegal to say where police radars are set. Although, often in the traffic news, they'll say "careful, there is a hair dryer at so and so", everyone knowing that the hair dryer is a police radar.
Posted by: Finbar Jun 14 2004, 06:57 PM
We have that in Sydney,
One particular radio station, during peak hour, (7am-9am, 3pm-7pm) will post the location of every speed camera wielding cop that the listeners care to ring in with.
It was taken to court and the Radio station argued that because the police were sitting in public owned assets, on public property, then the Public were allowed to find out. (or something like that, i cant remember the details
It won or at the very least, wasdropped by the police when they realised that their revenue hadnt really changed. Cause thats what alot of speed cops in Sydney are, revenue raising.
The City of Sydney parking inspectors went on strike because the council was enforcing (by firing, putting on probation), inspectors who werent writing out at least 20 tickets a day. It wasnt official policy, was never written down but was enforced, if i remember what I heard from one of them, as dereliction on the job, or improper workplace attitude
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)