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?
I do not think it would be enough evidence for a wiretap based on what you write. Good story so far though.
Okay thanks. I am trying to figure out what more the police could do at this point to get the villains. The suspects fit the profile, of a gang that has been committing other violent crimes. They only fit the profile in their masks and appearance though, and the police just speculate, that it's the same gang, they have been onto from the past. Would this be enough, for probable cause, that's probably most likely the same gang they have been after before, based on appearance?
If the police could convince a judge and show evidence supporting their claim then that might be enough.
Would the police have to go to the same judge, who originally let the crooks go for lack of evidence? Would it go to the same judge, or could they go to a different judge? If they have to go to the same judge who let them off, would that judge likely sign off on a wire tap order? Is the above scenario I mentioned enough evidence to support the claim? I like what I have so far in the story, but I cannot figure out how the police could get any legal authorization to do anything to move further now.
