# What kind of evidence would the police need to get a wire tap order in this case?



## ironpony (May 5, 2016)

For my story I was wondering if this particular case, would be enough legal cause to get such an order for a suspect.

What happens is, is that a cop on patrol, gets a glimpse of some suspicious activity, he decides to watch, such as two guys search another guy for weapons or a wire, or doing that type of search. The cop decides to follow them very discretely in his unmarked car, not to far, to a secluded location near by. He cannot identify faces from his distance, but he sees they meet up with more men wearing masks and gloves.

It's a 'blood in', which is a term for when a gang gets a new member they are recruiting to spill the blood of another person in order to see if that person can be relied upon to be a fellow member. In this case, they give the new member, a pistol with one bullet in it to do the job.

As the cop observes, he sees that an innocent kidnapped hostage is about to be likely harmed, so he intervenes, saves the kidnap victim, and manages to arrest one of the suspects, while the others get away in the process.

Unbeknownst to the cop though, the hostage, was actually a fellow gang member posing a hostage, as part of the blood in. The new member did not have to actually shoot the hostage. The pistol with one bullet in, was loaded with a dummy round (a round that is real on the outside, but will not fire). The reason the gang did this, was in case the new recruit may not have been an undercover cop or something, they did not want to be caught with a real kidnapped hostage, and can create deniability of a crime, should the blood in be a set up.

So when the cop, arrests one of them, and saves the hostage, the hostage then makes up the story, that she and the arrested suspect are actually friends, and they were playing a role playing game with a prop gun.

They say that they went out drinking the night before, met the others, and then brought them back to her property for the game with the gun prop. The police ask her who the other's are and why they ran, and she says that since she met them and brought them back after a night of drinking, she didn't get their names, and just brought them back to play. Why they ran, she doesn't know and assumes they must be wanted for something else, she says.

She also reports a complaint towards the cop who rescued her, saying that he threatened her into testifying against her arrested friend, or he will make things bad for her in the future. Even though it's her word against the cops, she still wanted to complain anyway, just to save face to help her look innocent.

So there is not enough evidence to charge her or the other suspect, with any crimes, since it was just role playing with a prop gun, on her property, and there is no crime, and no victim of a crime.

So the police let them go. But would they be able to get a wire tap order, to listen in on any possible conversations they may have with the other suspects who ran, who could not be identified?

Is this enough probable cause to legally get a wire tap order since a cop busted a crime, which turned out did not happen, and then received a complaint, for threats, by the suspect they had to let go? The only crime committed as that the members who ran resisted arrest, and perhaps some related charges, could be attached to that. But that's all there is, crime wise.

Is this enough for a wire tap order on the two people?


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2016)

Firstly; the cop would call for backup on seeing any weapons in a location like that, and would wait until he could intervene in force with them in order to ensure arresting all parties involved (and without backup, it's suicide).

No one would believe the "I met them drinking and we decided to play hostage". If someone you meet drinking asks you to play hostage, then you're going to be a real hostage--no cop would believe that story is real. If the hostage is unwilling to press charges, the cops would drop the case, though. Aside from maybe a weapons charge against the criminal carrying the gun--even unloaded, an illegal carry is illegal.

From there... the warrant for a wire tap would be up to the judge they request the warrant from. Also, the state/province/federal laws on evidence gathering/wire tapping in the region where the jurisdiction is taking place. Also, if there's truly no crime, no evidence, and no charges, expect that they'll get no warrant as well. Meaning no wire tap.


----------



## ironpony (May 5, 2016)

Well her story is, is that she asked them to play hostage, not them asking her.  So she is the one doing the asking and initiating inn story.  I know the cops wouldn't believe it, but at the same time, they have to let them go, and not be able to get a wire tap as well I guess.  And yes, the cop does call for back up, I left that part out.  But he doesn't wait for them and intervenes himself, while back up is on his way, because he is afraid that if he waits, the hostage could be killed.  I can write it so that it's a completely a fake prop then, that just looks real, if that would be smarter for the gang.

But back up gets there after.  Is their anything the police could do, to pursue the case further, if they could not get a wire tap, or is their anything they could do?  Does their have to be charges to get a wire tap though?  What about probable cause, since the other suspects ran away, and resisted arrest?


----------



## Bishop (May 5, 2016)

With no evidence, no crime, and no victim pressing charges? No, there's nothing they can do. As for resisting, if they weren't doing anything wrong, I doubt they'd even pursue those charges; police resources are better spent elsewhere.


----------



## ironpony (May 5, 2016)

Okay thanks.  What if I wrote it so that the kidnapping fit the profile of other kidnapping crimes that have been happening, and the suspects who took off fit the description of the kidnappers in those other crimes.  Even though they are wearing masks and gloves, the clothes they wear, and the appearance fit the description of other crimes.  Would that help to establish probable cause to link them to previous crimes, and get a wire tap order based on that?


----------



## Sleepwriter (May 7, 2016)

So she is a gang member, which means she probably has a record.   She was just witnessed taking part in a pseudo murder.   They might keep an eye on her for awhile, but since no actual crime, doubt they could a wire tap.  

Question, if the cop originally couldn't get close enough to get a description, how could he tell they were wearing masks and gloves?


----------



## Bishop (May 7, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks.  What if I wrote it so that the kidnapping fit the profile of other kidnapping crimes that have been happening, and the suspects who took off fit the description of the kidnappers in those other crimes.  Even though they are wearing masks and gloves, the clothes they wear, and the appearance fit the description of other crimes.  Would that help to establish probable cause to link them to previous crimes, and get a wire tap order based on that?



No. You cannot get warrants based on similar clothing or appearances. There has to be more, unless the issuing judge is senile, corrupt, or an idiot.


----------



## TJ1985 (May 7, 2016)

Bishop said:


> There has to be more, unless the issuing judge is senile, corrupt, or an idiot.



Something I've learned never to rule out without having significant evidence to the contrary!


----------



## aj47 (May 8, 2016)

That would have to be a subplot then, it couldn't be an oh-by-the-way coincidence.


----------



## ironpony (May 8, 2016)

Sleepwriter said:


> So she is a gang member, which means she probably has a record.   She was just witnessed taking part in a pseudo murder.   They might keep an eye on her for awhile, but since no actual crime, doubt they could a wire tap.
> 
> Question, if the cop originally couldn't get close enough to get a description, how could he tell they were wearing masks and gloves?



No, she doesn't have a record, and neither does the other gang member that the cop arrested.  The cop could not get a description of them when he saw them without masks on originally, when two of them searched the new recruit for possible recording devices.  The cop follows them and gets closer to see the blood in, moments later.  But when they get out of their car moments later, by that time, they already have their masks on, when the cop gets close enough to rescue the fake hostage.



astroannie said:


> That would have to be a subplot then, it couldn't be an oh-by-the-way coincidence.



Even though the villains having the same type of masks as a gang the cops were looking for before in the plot, wouldn't a coincidence alone be probable cause to get wire taps, since cops and courts do not often believe in coincidences, over probability, since it's probable that it's the same gang the cops were looking for before?


----------



## Bishop (May 10, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Even though the villains having the same type of masks as a gang the cops were looking for before in the plot, wouldn't a coincidence alone be probable cause to get wire taps, since cops and courts do not often believe in coincidences, over probability, since it's probable that it's the same gang the cops were looking for before?



I think you're failing to understand a couple of things: First, wire taps are rare in police work, for two reasons: 1) they're considered a major invasion of personal liberty, and are only used in the most necessary of circumstances. Many police organizations in the US and Canada have specific bans AGAINST wiretaps because they're often considered unconstitutional, and often enough recorded conversations that were recorded without consent of both parties are often _inadmissible _as evidence in court--that depends on state law. 2) Wiretaps imply a very old level of technology at this point. Cell phone conversations are so much harder to 'tap' than old style landline phones, making it further useless for departments. A burner cell phone can be purchased at RadioShack or Walmart for less than ten dollars, and can be purchased with cash under a fake name--and just as easily destroyed in the event of police investigation. Ever watch Breaking Bad? They snap cell phones in half on that show almost as many times as they cook meth. Because if the cops are even thinking about watching you, you destroy your burner phone--it eliminates a GPS track on its SIM/IMEI, and permanently disables calling (obviously).

It's also strange to me that an organized crime group would wear masks; it's like saying "hey! We're the ones committing all the crimes!". Secondly, masks alone are not probable cause, for the same reason clothing is not probable cause. Third, _probable cause is not a catch-all authorization for police surveillance_. In fact, probable cause may be enough justification for a cop to act in the moment, but not for him to launch a full investigation.

You really need to research criminal justice procedures.


----------



## ironpony (May 12, 2016)

Okay thanks. 

The reason why the gang wore masks during the blood in, is that they do not want the new recruit to know who they are, until the new recruit has proven himself trustworthy.  The recruit only knows the one gang member who brought him in, but does not know the others, and the others want to keep it that way, until he proves himself, via the blood in as a start.

 When I said wire tap order, I meant for listening in on cell phones.  The police still call it a wire tap order, or at least that is what I read.  Even though it applies to old technology, for new technology, they still seem to use the same legal term from the old days.  Perhaps wire tap orders are the wrong term I am using.  What I mean is for police to tap into conversations, such as aiming a parabolic microphone at a house to hear what is going on inside, for my story more.

Well I would like the police to continue to investigate the case.  However the villains commit all of their crimes indoors.  The police cannot legally listen in to what they are doing, or see them for legal privacy reasons.  Is their a way the police can find out what they are doing behind closed doors legally?  I read on more criminal police procedures, but I cannot find any law for the cops to be able to tell what these crooks are doing behind closed doors.  Is their some way, they can find out, since the crimes the gang commits for the rest of the story, have no reason to be committed outdoors?


----------



## afk4life (May 12, 2016)

Some things--

Actually the "victim" doesn't have to press charges, I don't think, that's up to the DA. And if the whole crime is staged, there would be charges pressed all around for something along the lines of public disturbance at least and/or domestic terrorism. You can't convince cops to believe a crime is happening and not expect big consequences. Not talking parabolic mics it's turning on all the technology in the house to monitor the suspects. But really once you've crossed the line of a fake crime it's going to easily be considered domestic terrorism so there are literally no rules for what the cops can and can't do, and it would not be local cops doing the investigating.


----------



## Bishop (May 12, 2016)

ironpony said:


> Well I would like the police to continue to investigate the case.  However the villains commit all of their crimes indoors.  The police cannot legally listen in to what they are doing, or see them for legal privacy reasons.  Is their a way the police can find out what they are doing behind closed doors legally?  I read on more criminal police procedures, but I cannot find any law for the cops to be able to tell what these crooks are doing behind closed doors.  Is their some way, they can find out, since the crimes the gang commits for the rest of the story, have no reason to be committed outdoors?



Basically, no. Not unless someone alerts the police to that location. Search and seizure laws are very clear and made to protect the privacy of citizens. I'm no lawyer, but I'm fairly certain that without explicit evidence pointing to that location or a person alerting the police to that location, there's no way the police would know (or at least be allowed to know) what's going on inside.


----------



## ironpony (May 12, 2016)

Okay thanks.  How is a fake kidnapping where the victim says she was role playing, domestic terrorism?  The DA can go ahead with charges without the victim, but if the victim says she wasn't kidnapping and it was roll playing, then no jury is going to convict on that, if she says no crime happened, so what is the point?  How is it domestic terrorism, if the victim doesn't even say she is a victim?  The DA could go ahead but would he be successful?

All the defense attorney has to say, is 'show us the victim', and if the DA cannot produce one in court that says she was the victim of a kidnapping, then wouldn't the case be dismissed.


----------



## afk4life (May 12, 2016)

It's like filing a false police report or SWATting. If you fake a crime in public, the DA could argue your intent was to a) scare people to death b) distract police and emergency services from another situation, since the second of those two is playbook for terrorists it would not be hard to prove and point a is the definition of terrorism. Either case is pretty sure to be FBI territory. In any case the "victim" would not be a victim but instead be a conspirator. The government can find an argument that it was part of a plot that didn't work out, or simply argue the "victim" cost taxpayers time and money and seek reparations. They're going to go in the direction of domestic terrorism if they can because that takes all limits off of the table.


----------



## ironpony (May 12, 2016)

Oh I see.  Since there was no actual victim of the crime, I was told by a cop that it would be reduced to public mischief charges.  Plus in order for the public to be scared, there has to be witnesses.  Since this blood in was done in a secluded private place, no one was scared, so the prosecutor cannot call any witnesses that were say they were scared.  So it would just be a conspiracy in mischief, I was told by a cop when asking.  But even if they go in the direction of terrorism, without in order for the public to have been scared, they will need public witnesses.  Since there are none, the prosecutor going in this direction, will not be successful will it?

In order for the FBI to get involved and investigate based on terrorism, does there need to be and scared public witnesses to come forth to support it?  Also to argue that the villains were doing it to distract from the police from another situation, there are no police at other situations that were being distracted at the time, so the court cannot call any police to stand to say that they were distracted by these suspects.  So wouldn't the prosecution fail in proving any type of terrorism, as oppose to mischief, since there was no victim at all, and no witnesses who were threatened, and no police who were distracted from another situation?

It seems to me that those would be accusations without being able to back them up, wouldn't it?


----------



## afk4life (May 12, 2016)

Well, yes and no. If you get lucky, you're right. But if you're unlucky enough to get caught up in an election cycle or a cycle of bad press for the cops... There are plenty of cases where the cops just stumbled on things. The public doesn't have to really be scared, it has to be a perceived threat to the public or public safety. IANAL but those are odds I would never play, because nothing annoys cops more than to devolve a situation that was faked. They will find some charge, the worst they can, and press it. If the counter-argument was it wasn't an intended distraction, theirs will be the other part must not have worked for some reason. And I am pretty sure the FBI would be instantly involved to make sure those involved weren't radicalized. There is no win here, because in court a jury is just going to hear cops talking, and they would be quite thorough about taking apart the suspects' lives bit by bit to put them in the worst light. So while it is entirely possible the cop could just charge you for conspiracy in mischief, I would bet that almost never is the end of it.


----------



## ironpony (May 13, 2016)

Okay thanks.  If the cops get on the stand and take apart their lives, like you say, a lot of times in court, a judge will not allow a suspect's past, to determine finding him guilty on the current crime though.  But in my story, it doesn't get as far as a jury.  However, I wrote it so that the blood in, does not take place outdoors.  Basically, the cop is on a patrol and sees stumbles upon the gang by seeing two of the gang members, frisk the new blood in recruit for a wire.  The cop recognizes this as a wire frisk, so he decides to discretely follow the three men.  He follows them to a building, where they go inside, and inside is the tied up fake hostage, who is actually a gang member.]

The cop can see through a small basement window opening.  He calls for back up and acts accordingly, saying he sees a tied up woman who is blindfolded, with kidnappers around her.

However, since this is indoors and not in a public place, would the gang still be seen as part of some public disturbance conspiracy?  I wrote it so that the cop sees it through a small basement window opening.  But as far as you said about taking apart the suspect's lives, a jury cannot convict someone just because that person has a questionable past.  They must convict on the current crime being charged, so it seems that whatever is in their past is not relevant.

Plus only one gang member is arrested while the rest get away, cause the gang had a police radio scanner, and heard the cop calling for back up, so they all take off.  The cop manages to arrest one, while saving the kidnapped hostage.

But the suspect who was arrested does not have a criminal record.  So with no record, what could the cops say on the stand about his past that a jury could convict on?


----------



## afk4life (May 13, 2016)

I don't think a cop would do anything without his actual backup there, maybe on TV, but not in real life because that could be suicidal. And a lot of departments have digital, encrypted communications now that supposedly can't be decrypted. In a situation like this where they've got one or two persons in custody, my guess is they would not do anything except use the hours allowed to hold them without charging to figure out what exactly happened before they charge anyone with anything, and there would probably be more than enough evidence left behind for lots of charges. It's just not as black and white. Maybe, if all the pieces line up as you say, they can't charge anyone with anything but that would probably just mean they focus a lot of attention on those people when they're released and get the rest of them. Anyone they actually did get, even if not charged, would have giant target on their back forever.


----------



## ironpony (May 13, 2016)

But if the hostage looks like she was about to be harmed the cop could intervene, if the cop was the type of character to care about human life, to the point where he does not want to see a person about to be killed, while he is waiting, couldn't he?

You can get radio scanners that scan for encrypted signals I was told by a cop, if that's true.  And yes even though they cannot be charged, they would be painted targets forever.  However, being a painted target will not do any good for the police, since the police cannot perform searches or record their conversations, cause there is not enough evidence to court orders to do so.   So all the police can do is just watch them really, which isn't enough and they need more.  I was trying to figure out how they could get more later on, after they are released.  They know they are painted targets, so they will be doing all their illegal activities indoors, so the cops seem helpless now, since they cannot record anything indoors.

What do you think?


----------

