As far as I know, astral perceptions have never been recordable with simsense technology. The closest they come is to record the physiological changes caused by changes in the subject's emotional state, but without perceptual cues to give those emotions context, a sim recording of someone astrally projecting comes across like a recording of a blind/deaf/comatose person on a cocktail of mood altering drugs.

I believe one of the sourcebooks detailed a way to capture auras on film, but I forget which one. One of the SotAs maybe? I seem to recall it wasn't particularly reliable, but I may be mis-remembering entirely.

Similar as to what happens today in many other fields. Expert witnesses who communicate with others in the trade using some sort of specialized techincal shorthand notation, AKA jargon, to describe what they 'see'. Sort of like shorthand for the spirit formula of a spirit's True Name.

This doesn't work, the defense won't have any chance to examine the evidence.

Astral clues will have to be handled like any other officer testimony that can't be proven afterwards, like accounts of what an officer heard or saw the accused do. Astral clues will count somewhat, but it won't be hard evidence.

That is what I mean. They are likely to be experts in the field that are witnessing, that of observing and perhaps even interpreting astral phenomenon and signatures. Their court recognized training/testing would give them that standing, which of course the defense can attempt to challenge. Their testimony, potentially including field notes, avidavits, filed reports, etc., are the evidence. The defense of course gets to see the documents in advance, outside of perhaps their own personal notes, and then cross-examine during trial.

A 'grunt' cop with a gift might give testimony, or even awakened bystanders. However I would imagine that would end up with dueling interpretation experts taking the stand. I imagine that most Awakened cops would have at least a rudimentary training course to help punch up their credibility, as well as actually assisting in investigations.

They can give a description of the signature or phenomenon, explaining what they noted and the matching features that form the basis of that opinion, as long as the opinion doesn't fall into the realm of speculation for his given level of court recognized expertise. This would be particularly important for matching spell signatures and such together and to a person.

The experts get to duel over the interpretation of what he describes. It is like getting to the scene and noting the size and location of blood splatters before a rainstorm washes them away. The direct witness might not have standing with the court to interpret the splatters, but his testimony still becomes evidence, and then dueling blood splatter experts come in to talk about what the witness's observations mean.

All you'd need would be some standardized test. It is like worrying if everyone sees the color 'red' the same. It doesn't really matter, all you need to do is prove you can reliably identify tones and hues.

It is like the 1 day course for becoming a legal witness to air stack particulate emissions. They've got a little portable air stack mockup on a trailer with a gas flame running at the bottom. They then introduce material that comes out as particulates at the top and you have to read the opacicy with your eyeball at the correct location of the plume. You do that a number of times and if your recorded observed readings fall within a certain margin of error you can give testimony that has an expert witness standing in regards to polution.

I had this myself at one time, but let it lapse because I ended up in a different field that I didn't need it. So it wasn't worth the hassle and cost of getting recertified.

I'm pretty sure there was a thread or two around here, likely in the Shadowrun forum, speculating about that. I seem to remember the thought line that it might fall under the 5th Amendment, but at the least would require a warrant. It should be noted that that assumes a Constitution or laws in place in whatever jurisdiction that are similar to the US Constitution. Which may or may not be the case, as the US is no more. For the USCA Canada, the 'C' part, has a similar legal concepts. But when you get some folks together to write out a Constitution it's hard to say WTF you'll come out with, and then you'll have court interpretations of that.

This is specifically addressed in Street Magic. Aura reading and mind probe evidence are inadmissable as violations of the 5th Amendment. Astral signatures, however, are as accepted as DNA and fingerprints. Spirit testimony is also inadmissable.

[edit]: In the UCAS only, of course. Other jurisdictions without the Bill of Rights and views on magic naturally have other laws.

dont know if this is in street magic, but the spirit (or ghost) can still lead you to some other source of evidence even if any testimony from it isnt valid.

That's true, but that's during a police investigation. You have to find admissable evidence once the spirits lead you to it. Though it's not specifically stated, I'd also venture to guess that if a spirit indicates you, the police, should enter someone's property, the spirit wouldn't qualify as probable cause for a warrant.

I'm surprised that aura reading is inadmissible. In the awakened world, any number of astrally percieving people might see your aura while you walk down the street, so you wouldn't have any any expectation of privacy in it. It's more analogous to something in "plain sight" that's limited to the subset of the population who have astral perception. It's also a bit like a drug-sniffing dog catching your scent, which isn't a 'search' as long as the police dog had a right to be where it was when it smelled you.

I hadn't even made it through that Awakened World section yet, thanks. For those interested in more details check out the left side of page 14.

P.S. It does specifically mention CAS as well.

In that case, the aura reading may be acceptable probable cause for an on-the-spot inspection by a police officer. Note that trial evidence and (official, legal) police procedures aren't even remotely similar, sometimes. The drug sniffing dog's handler may testify that the dog was showing significant agitation regarding a citizen's bag, giving the officer probable cause the search the bag on the spot. Inside the bag, of course, was five pounds of coke. The coke goes into evidence. During trial, the officer's testimony regarding the dog and the acquisition of the drugs serves mostly to explain to the jury that the search and seizure of the drugs was performed legally, and within the suspect's rights. It's not evidence against the suspect for drug possession.

Replace the dog with someone who reads auras.

As stated in my previous post, I think the aura reading would be sufficient to search the suspect for hot-sim-capable hardware or software. Possession of an illegal implant or hardware is the actual charge, and the item itself is the evidence against the person, seized in their possession. The testimony of the aura-reader is mostly describing how they found it.

I concur. As far as the investigation goes, it would serve as probable cause, assuming the awakened officer was certified in some way.

I imagine an awakened officer would be quite an asset to a police force. They'd probably be promoted pretty quickly. I wonder, though, how many awakened people would be inclined to take on a career like that, as opposed to other uses of their gifts.

Dread Polack

There is a world of difference between

a) a mage witnessing that he saw an aura signature matching the accused. It is a non-trivial perception test and may require memory test, so subject to human error. There is no way for the defense or anyone else to verify the claim, so subject to the witness' integrity (conscious or unconscious).

b) a CSI testifying that he performed a DNA-match. This is performed by a machine under laboratory conditions with little to no risk of error. The original gathered evidence is in storage, and can be tested by the defense if they wish to do so. The witness is running great risk by lying since he can't claim he just remembered it wrong and it is very easy to prove that he testified false.

a) is just a witness statement. b) is not just a witness statement - it is hard evidence. The defense can't argue that hard evidence is false based on witness mistake or integrity, the only way to counter hard evidence is by having another expert analyze the evidence, and with most hard evidence there is only a very narrow margin for interpretation. Giving the defense the ability to repeat the analysis makes all the difference.

Of course there is the matter of tampered evidence, but this is very rarely accepted in court unless there is actual evidence of the tampering or the evidence is found to be somehow inconsistent.