I don't know what you're doing, I just know that by the time you come here to ask about a scenario, it's overcomplicated. It does appear to me that you have a lot of trouble releasing a thought when it's come to you. Example: Let's imagine that I need a character to be home in the middle of a workday, because he's going to find his neighbor's murdered body in the hallway of his apartment building. My first thought is, "OK, he gets a spot of paint on his shirt, so he wants to go home and change." And I think about that for a minute, and I realize that paint is unlikely, and that my character has never really cared about his appearance anyway, so that doesn't work. And I play with a few other ideas--he needs to go home for an appliance delivery, or he promised to feed a different neighbor's dog, or he got sick that day and never went in to work at all. And I play with the underlying premise--does this have to happen on a weekday or do I just need daytime? Does it have to be this character? And after playing with those things, I decide to combine some ideas: He's home on Saturday, he hears his neighbor's dog barking all morning, and he goes over, finds his neighbor's door unlocked, and finds his neighbor's body. I feel that in this situation, you might get "stuck" on the original premise of "goes home because of a paint spot on his shirt" and you might create more and more elaborate ways to make that premise work. The character doesn't care about his appearance--so you decide that he has a huge presentation today. There's no likely reason for him to get paint on his shirt--so you decide that there's someone painting a wall. There's no particular reason for him to make contact with that wall--so you decide that he gets into a fight with a coworker, who shoves him into a wall. But you don't want him to get fired--so you decide that his boss has a crush on him. And the you come to us to ask for advice about whether a boss can get an employee "off" of a serious behavior infraction like a workplace fight. It seems to me that when you see problems with a premise, you almost never abandon the premise and back up and find something less problematic--instead, you just keep piling and piling and piling on to force that premise to work.
Harry committed an illegal search that turned up physical evidence that was used for the specific crime in question. Your MC is committing illegal hacking that turns up evidence that leads him to suspect a person that commits a crime in the MC's plain view that might be related to the original crime that the illegal hacking was for. The Harry logic is clear and simple. Your logic is ambiguous and complicated. You are using a clear, simple plot element from the movie to excuse a complicated, implausible plot element from your story. The fact that they both touch on unlawful search and seizure does not make them the same.
Okay thanks. Actually in this situation, this idea was the first idea, I thought of for the villain to get away with it, but the MC still witnesses it, and knows it was him, as oppose to just guessing. Since it was the first thought I had on how to do it, I don't believe it was overcomplicated by compiling ideas to together. I just came up with the one idea, and asked police to see if it would work.
That's what I'm saying. You came up with an idea, it doesn't work, but you were unable to release it.
Okay thanks. However, in order to not avoid it again, I want to establish why it doesn't work. You said it was implausible. The cops and legal expert I asked said it was plausible, so if's plausible to them in the real world, then it's my job as a writer to make the reader believe it.
It doesn't work because it makes the cop "tainted" for the rest of the plot. Which was the whole reason why you created this thread. My MC getting in a big fight and getting thrown into a freshly painted wall "works" in the sense that it gets him home at the time that I wanted him to get home. But it doesn't "work" in the sense that it adds a bunch of added complications that weigh down the rest of the plot without adding anything to it. Your illegal hacking scenario "works" in the sense that it causes your MC to witness a murder that your villain gets away with. But it doesn't "work" in the sense that it adds a bunch of added complications that weigh down the rest of the plot without adding anything to it.
I see what you mean, but I thought that in order for the MC to get out of it, it would just take some creative thinking and some legal research. I feel that this could add to the plot and make things interesting for the reader. The reader could be thinking that now the MC is forever tainted, what can he do to legally get around that! I will abandon it, if it doesn't work of course, but it could serve the story better and make for an interesting challenge for the MC as well. I would like to explore how the MC could possibly get out of the challenge, before throwing it away, since I like the idea of the MC being tainted, and having to come up with a strategy of getting around it.
You are tying your plot to some very, very fine legal points, points for which you have no real expert knowledge. If you insist on following this path, you should discuss these points with an actual criminal lawyer. I also don't understand how the evidence could be thrown out without the MC getting fired--either he confessed to the illegal hacking, in which case he gets fired, or he didn't, in which case the evidence holds up. It doesn't work. But it was your first idea, so you are not, ever, no matter what, going to release it, and I need to give up.
Well one option is to write it so that he doesn't tell anyone who he was there maybe, and has to think of something else. That way, no one will know and he will not be tainted. Would that work better?
So he's just going to let the villain get away with murder, without doing anything about it, because he's too much of a coward to face any of the consequences of what he's done. If he is that much of a coward, I guess it works.
It's not that he is a coward, it's that his testimony is tainted. It's not that he is a coward. It's not useful and the villain would still get off. This way the MC can still get the villain another way later, by not being a tainted witness, when the time comes. He is not being a coward, he is thinking and planning ahead.
No, he's a coward. He is not a lawyer. He doesn't know that his evidence is useless. (If it is useless, and to be sure about that, you need to consult with a criminal lawyer.) From what I've read, that evidence could be used outside the courtroom. But he withholds it because that's what's safest for him. Also, the case for him "needing" to commit a crime to get the criminal's identity is not very strong. As is the case for him being unable to stop the murder. It's a long chain of unlikelihoods. It's a lemon cake. It's a Kryptonite quarter. But it was your first idea. And you will not release it. If you want to ever be able to write this thing, you're going to need to learn to release ideas.
Okay thanks. I thought that because since three cops told me this, my character, like other cops, could know how the laws work. When you say from what you have read, the evidence could be used "outside the courtroom", what do you mean by "outside". What good is it if it cannot be used in the courtroom?
Ryan, I found that on a five-minute Google search. You, too, can do five-minute Google searches. You are tying most of your story to legal principles that you don't truly understand, and when I suggest that you find a criminal lawyer to ask, you appear to be unable to hear me making the suggestion. You seem to be unwilling or unable to hear most of what I say. I can't help wondering if you're really hearing what the cops that you keep quoting have said. You ask for a tremendous amount of advice, and you rarely seem to really hear any of the advice that comes back. I don't know what's going on with you.
Well I googled 'tainted evidence being used outside of court' and similar wordings, but could not find anything close to my scenario. I will keep looking,
http://uscivilliberties.org/themes/3774-exclusionary-rule.html "Additionally, if the suspect provided the evidence in a display of his own free will...a court is likely to find that the evidence was attenuated from the violation." A murder in front of a witness seems to me to fit this exception. And the "poisonous tree" thing seems to be swarming with other exceptions, to the point that your cop couldn't possibly be confident that his testimony would be unusable. http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/legal/criminalprocedure/section2.php "a lengthy causal chain between the illegality and seizure of the evidence" Going from illegal hacking that identifies a criminal, to following that criminal around, to SEEING THAT CRIMINAL COMMIT A WHOLE NEW MURDER strikes me as a pretty lengthy chain. I don't present this in any hope that you will give up on this premise; you are clearly determined to use it.
Okay thanks. But in my research before I read that the court will only attenuate it, if it's a private citizen. If a police officer comes forth with tainted evidence, the court will take it if, if it's from an officer, in comparison. I am not sure why, that is, but it's what I read before. I can continue to look for a criminal attorney, but most do not want to sit down with a writer and help perfect a story, legal wise, so far. I will keep looking. But I feel the premise shouldn't be thrown away entirely, until I have ascertained the outcome more, and what can be legally done about it.
That makes no sense. Where are you reading that the exclusionary rule applies to private citizens, at all? Because it was your first idea. And you will not release it. See, I can understand the refusal to release something despite all evidence to the contrary, because I seem to be unable to accept the fact that you are never, under any circumstances, going to change your story to be plausible. Never. I know this, and yet I keep posting in your threads.
I will release it, as long as I can come up with something that legally works. At this point it seems that every idea has some problem in it, and it's just a matter of picking one. I feel like it's time to make a decision. I can go with something else, but I have to do some more legal research first. But I have to change my way of thinking since every idea has some legal technical hole in it.
@Ryan Elder you might look into the 'new crime' exception to the exclusionary rule. Of course, you can take certain liberties with fiction, but there have been cases where even though there was initial misconduct by police (such as an illegal stop), a new crime resulting from that was found to be an exception to the exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule is a public policy matter, so you have competing public policy here. If the officer witnesses a murder, even though he was on the scene as a result of 4th amendment misconduct, you're going to have a public policy argument in favor of admitting his testimony, even though if they tried to prosecute the defendant for the crime for which they were initially following him, the evidence might be excluded. In the hypothetical in your story, I would be very surprised if a prosecutor would decide not to try the case based on the idea that the exclusionary rule might apply. They'd go forward and let the judge decide that, and based on some of the case law under the 'new crime' exception, you might find that a judge is going to try hard to form a rationale to get the evidence of the murder in.
Yeah, the Constitution only restrains government. It doesn't apply to the actions of a private citizen. If the citizen was acting at the behest of the police, then it would be an issue. In that case they'd likely exclude the evidence. But if not, it's admissible (though depending on what the citizen did to get it there's always a possibility that he'd be liable for something as well).
Okay thanks. Since in my story the MC is a cop, I was told by other cops when researching, that a cop cannot be at the scene of a crime and witness, it, if he is there as a result of his own criminal activity. That's what they told me anyway. I thought of a possible way, he can untaint himself. Basically if he fails to capture the crooks this time for a murder, he can always investigate other members of the group, as long as he does it without breaking the law. Cause he can still catch the group as whole, he just can't go after the leader anymore. As far as having an exclusionary rule, the police I interviewed did not mention that. I also asked someone with a criminal law degree, and he did not talk about it either. Perhaps I could write it for my story, that the prosecutor is the by the book type, and if a cop commits a legal error, he will not proceed? Or I can write so that the cop does not want admit he was at the scene, because he knows the crook will get off, and that he will have a harder time getting him later, cause he has tainted himself. So even though it is cowardly, he is doing it because he is thinking ahead, knowing he will have a better shot later, if he doesn't taint himself. What's the point of coming forth, being brave, and not cowardly, if the court is very likely going to throw it out the window, he figures. Plus it's common for the MC in a story to have flaws, is him making a cowardly decision, just so he can come out on top later, really that bad for the reader? I could write it one of those ways, if that's better? Also, in a lot of cases where a new crime results of misconduct, in those cases they usually go by evidence other than the tainted witness. The only evidence they have to go on in mine is the tainted witness only, so is that possibly why I was told it doesn't count as exclusionary in this case?
