# Would the police be allowed to survey someone legally in this case?



## ironpony (Sep 1, 2018)

Basically in my research in order for the police to investigate the suspect of a crime, they need probable cause.  You need probable cause to get a search a warrant, or to get a wire tap order.  However, if they were not going to search or audio record the villain, and are just going to maybe plant a tracking device on his car and follow him around, are the police allowed to do that if all they have is a hunch or suspicion, or do they need probable cause, and maybe even to get a warrant for that, still?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 1, 2018)

Another question which is basically unanswerable. If you want them to, yes, send them to a co-operative magistrate who signs anything put in front of him, if you don't want them to send them to a stickler who demands a higher standard of evidence (I don't suppose it is a magistrate signs the warrant elsewhere, but I don't know where you are. Someone must). It is fiction, you can make it work to suit the story, you don't have to twist the story to fit uncomfortable facts, just be vague.

I will give you an example, In one of my stories there is someone known to everyone as 'The Boss'. He sounds Italian, the place sounds like Italy, but I know nothing of how the Mafia really works, so I don't ever call him that or identify the location, no-one has ever complained.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 1, 2018)

Oh okay.  I have no problems making things up, I just sometimes feel like I need to know the legal facts, so I know where to embellish and how far.  Mainly in my story I want the main cop character to be forced to do things on his own.  But would the reader ask, hey why doesn't the other police just follow the guy around to see what he is up to?  But would they be allowed to or would that tantamount to stalking, if they don't have a warrant or court order to follow someone around?

Knowing things like this might help the story.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 1, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Basically in my research in order for the police to investigate the suspect of a crime, they need probable cause.  You need probable cause to get a search a warrant, or to get a wire tap order.  However, if they were not going to search or audio record the villain, and are just going to maybe plant a tracking device on his car and follow him around, are the police allowed to do that if all they have is a hunch or suspicion, or do they need probable cause, and maybe even to get a warrant for that, still?




Yes, they would need PC to track someone's car.
In fact, later in the process they would be required to document the evidentiary trail that led them to this suspect.
Often police (the Machiavellian ones) will say that an informant put them on the trail, then pay an informant to say he did so.
It helps if the informant dies right after they write their statement.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 1, 2018)

Okay thanks.  Why would it help if the informant dies?  So the court will not have to question him/her?

Alright let's say the main character decides to track the suspect's car and follow him around.  Later what happens in the story is, is that the suspect knows the main character is following him on his own agenda, and he leads the main character into a trap, so he can kill him to get him off his back.  However, another cop that was following the villain around, that the MC did not know about, gets killed in the process.

Now the MC is not going to be able to say he was following the suspect around on his own, out of a hunch, cause he is not allowed to do that and did not have probable cause.  So he would have to pretend he was not there and cover up all the evidence he was there then, right?


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 1, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  I have no problems making things up, I just sometimes feel like I need to know the legal facts, so I know where to embellish and how far.  Mainly in my story I want the main cop character to be forced to do things on his own.  But would the reader ask, hey why doesn't the other police just follow the guy around to see what he is up to?  But would they be allowed to or would that tantamount to stalking, if they don't have a warrant or court order to follow someone around?
> 
> Knowing things like this might help the story.



Okay,  some ways quite commendable, but look at something like 'diehard', the 'good' guys go round breaking just about every regulation in the book, not only that, they do impossible things one after another and luck is invariably on their side. Okay, extreme example, but the point is no-one really cares because what they want is entertainment, that is what it provides and so long as they get it the audience are quite ready to suspend disbelief. Even if you don't want to go that far there are always ways around things as people point out, and you admit you do not lack the imagination to think of them, you are writing a story, not a court transcript, go for it, let yourself go; and if it doesn't work there is always an edit.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 1, 2018)

Yeah But Die Hard I felt was different though, cause the hostages are in danger and that was more important than bringing a case at the time for the police.

As for suspension of disbelief, I guess readers tell me 'why do this character do this, when they can just do this instead', so that gets me all wanting to cover all my bases.


----------



## patskywriter (Sep 1, 2018)

ironpony said:


> … As for suspension of disbelief, I guess readers tell me 'why do this character do this, when they can just do this instead', so that gets me all wanting to cover all my bases.



No, if your readers are asking those types of questions, tell them to explore alternative plot lines with some fan fiction. Let them do the worrying for a change. You go ahead and write your story. By the way, have you done any writing yet?


----------



## ironpony (Sep 1, 2018)

Yeah I've written about 78 pages of this script, give or take, since I keep making changes.  Normally a screenplay is 90-120 pages on average so and I still have enough plot room left to hit 90 or over, I think.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Sep 2, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Yeah But Die Hard I felt was different though, cause the hostages are in danger and that was more important than bringing a case at the time for the police.



In one way it is exactly the same, it is a screen play that someone wrote and set up to be that way because that is what he wanted to happen. If you make your suspect scary enough that the lawyer does what he wants you are setting it up to achieve what you want, you are doing the same; making the story fit your desires rather than making your desires fit the story. Creative and liberating.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 2, 2018)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  Why would it help if the informant dies?  So the court will not have to question him/her?
> 
> Alright let's say the main character decides to track the suspect's car and follow him around.  Later what happens in the story is, is that the suspect knows the main character is following him on his own agenda, and he leads the main character into a trap, so he can kill him to get him off his back.  However, another cop that was following the villain around, that the MC did not know about, gets killed in the process.
> 
> Now the MC is not going to be able to say he was following the suspect around on his own, out of a hunch, cause he is not allowed to do that and did not have probable cause.  So he would have to pretend he was not there and cover up all the evidence he was there then, right?





Actually, if your hero was tracking the villain, and was led into a trap and some other cop got shot as a result, and his whole tracking effort came to light, he would be in trouble...but some of the info regarding his efforts would now be covered under Inevitable Discovery:

*Inevitable Discovery Exception Law and Legal Definition. The inevitable discovery exception to the exclusionary rule allows into evidence illegally seized items that would have been discovered lawfully anyway. This exception allows evidence to be admitted, even though it was seized in violation of the Constitution.*


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 2, 2018)

The death or wounding of the 2nd officer would mandate an investigation, and under THAT investigation they could view the illegal things your hero had done.
Because they are charged with upholding the law, any illegal acts they uncover during the course of that investigation would need to be dealt with.

That's actually how Paul Manafort came to be convicted: Mueller was investigating '_collusion_' and stumbled across Manafort's dirty laundry, and being charged as an officer of the federal court, Mueller had to refer Manafort for prosecution...even though it had nothing to do with Russian collusion.  Same for Trump's lawyer.  Mueller cannot look away just because it is not germane to his investigation.  He is legally obligated to act on the discovery of a crime.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 3, 2018)

Okay thanks, but that's just it though.  The hero wants to cover up that he was there at all, and erase all physical evidence that he was there, cause he does not want his illegal surveillance being 'fruit of the poisonous tree' on the case.  So in order for the case not to be ruined, I want the hero to cover up any evidence that he was there.  I also want the hero to get an idea, and create a trail of breadcrumbs from the crime scene that will lead back to the villains, evidence wise.

That way the police will investigate and just be aware of the killing of the 2nd officer only, and no investigation will lead back to the hero at all... plus the hero has now given the police a new trail of breadcrumbs of evidence to follow, that they never had before.  As for inevitable discovery, which pieces of evidence, would be considered legally inevitable, in this situation?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

ironpony said:


> which pieces of evidence, would be considered legally inevitable, in this situation?



Anything they find would now be evidentiary for the case at hand (the killing of the officer.)


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Sep 4, 2018)

...and stop focusing on page count.
Write the best damned script you possibly can, page count be damned.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 4, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Anything they find would now be evidentiary for the case at hand (the killing of the officer.)



Yep makes sense, so since I don't want them finding any evidence of the main character being there, the main character will have to erase all evidence of him being there, such as prints, DNA and whatever else.



Ralph Rotten said:


> ...and stop focusing on page count.
> Write the best damned script you possibly can, page count be damned.



Ok I will do that.


----------

