Criminal investigations

Wow.....I seem to have a major plot hole or development problem.

Background: The story is set in NYC in the mid 80s. The main character is a rookie female police beat cop. NYC had a financial crisis between 1976 - 1980 and did not have academy classes for new cops so a lot of cops in the 80s were inexperienced and did not always have access to experienced cops as mentors. There was also the start of the drug wars and the drug and crime scene was really overwhelming during this period. I think the data from Wikpedia has 3,000 homicides in a city of 7 million in one year.

I have a scene in a WIP where cops are chasing down some fleeing people and they stumble over a corpse in an abandoned building. This body is obviously deceased and isn't going anywhere so the cops continue chasing the fleeing people - with guns drawn.

I have one extremely honest beta reader that is very, very clear that this would NOT ever happen, that the cops in this scene in the novel would assign one of the rookies to stay with the body and secure it for evidence.

This is a question I asked a friend that lives in NYC: "So: A question. Have you ever seen cops come across a corpse, dead from exposure or an OD for example and just leave the body there while they chase criminals? Or do they HAVE to stay with the body and secure it for evidence and investigation while the criminals flee from them and go on to commit more crimes the next day/week? There's a scene in the book where that happens and my friend simply can't believe it. I don't see how beat cops that are chasing a possible serial killer are going to just abandon the chase to secure a dead body. It would be different if it was an injured victim that needed aid but if the person is obviously dead, then.....????"

Does anyone here have an answer? Maybe a link to a source where something like this happened and what (if any) consequences there were for the cop?

The other issue he (beta-reader) keeps bringing to my attention is the way the cops and their procedures have been written simply isn't believable. Like one rookie cop comes across a photograph at a crime scene that she pockets and carries off. He is very insistent that no cop in their right mind would do this, that this is tampering with evidence and the cop can be fired on the spot for this.

I'm thinking the whole environment that the rookie cop finds herself in - overwhelming crime, lack of training/mentorship, the amount of sheer depression (lots of homeless people, drug addicts, etc) is just so much that she can play fast and loose with the rules like putting off logging evidence, taking witness statements, etc.

BUT: The beta reader keeps saying, "What, a rookie cop has NO SUPERVISION?! She's taking evidence, disobeying orders, ignoring police procedures (she returns to the crime scene unaccompanied), and she chases fleeing people with her gun drawn?????"

So I am really second guessing every cop scene there is. I can rewrite them, but since I may have screwed it up too much to begin with, I'd better make sure I have things correct before I re-write things.

Does anyone know where I could get my hands on a police procedures manual for the NYPD from the years 1983 to present? I don't need every single page of each years manual but I do need to tighten up the procedures that are used.

Thanks so much everyone!!!!

(I was so happy to be ready to publish and now I'm second guessing everything.)

 

This requires a free account and can be borrowed for 1 hour:-

Police procedures and defensive tactics training manual, by Aziz, Harry
https://archive.org/details/policeprocedures0000aziz/page/n5/mode/2up

It's from 1979 and the foreword has a recommendation from the director of the Massachusetts Police Academy, who was formerly a Sergeant in the NYPD

I think p.71 is relevant

 

From my own experiences, I would agree with the Beta Reader over most of the points they make. I am looking at it through a lens from almost forty years later and from a UK based perspective so keep that in mind.

- Cops wouldn't chase a fleeing person with their guns drawn unless the fleeing person also had a weapon drawn
- What is obviously deceased? As in freshly killed by the person they are chasing? If so, the cops should stop and attempt first aid. Preservation of life comes before all else and cops are not trained to pronounce life extinct.
- No cop would pocket a photo from a crime scene. It's potentially evidence tampering not to mention theft. Not fired on the spot but certainly a good candidate for sacking following suspension.

From reading what you've wrote about your protagonist she seems wildly unsuited to the job to the point of being dangerous, ignorant (returning to a crime scene, lifting evidence) and lazy (not logging evidence.) Why would a rookie be so keen to ignore what she's told and avoid necessary parts of her job?


I don't know about a police procedures manual but have you read Blue Blood by Edward Conlon? It's a biography of the author's first seven years in the NYPD as a beat cop and he deals with a lot of the societal issues you mentioned.

 

She wouldn't be processing a crime scene but would almost certainly be the first on scene, start the log and set cordon points.

As Moose alluded to, a lot of crime shows and books take serious liberties with actual police procedures. Nothing you mentioned seems wildly out of place compared to the shows he's mentioned.

 

What are the circumstances that cause them to find a deceased body? I'd think it would take some time to actually stop , check for a pulse, etc. and by that time the killer would have escaped anyway.

Cops in certain areas probably pass homeless alcoholics and drug addicts often enough that they wouldn't stop and investigate unless there was evidence of foul play, some bystander urged them to, etc. For all they know the person could be sleeping or high.

Or does the victim wear clean clothes and stands out?

 

Another thing that makes it difficult to answer these questions is that we don't know the context of the scene. I'm assuming that having the cops trip over a dead body is some important plot point, otherwise they could just trip over a living body or a fire hydrant.

As long as it's addressed somehow I don't think it should be a big deal but without the context it's hard to say.

If they returned to the place of the corpse and it's no longer there and they comment

"Hey should we put this in our report?"

"Naw, they'll think we're crazy"

"Well, you are crazy, Maddox"

"Fu€$ you!

Then you've at least addressed it in a semi-plausible way.

 

I'm with your beta reader. Much of my family is or was in law enforcement, and I have had a lifetime of listening to them hoot and holler about idiocies perpetuated in police drama.

 

You could get around it all if you have the rookie cop take a very personal stake in the hunting down of the serial killer, like a Captain Ahab after his White Whale and not caring about anything else. Maybe she's so personally offended by what he's done to all the children that she doesn't give a hoot anymore about proper police procedure. Maybe she's fed up with being overwokred and underpaind, undertrained, and having no experienced partner etc—she snaps, and it becomes a personal life's mission. She plans to see him dead no matter what, screw her superiors and anybody else who tries to stop her, for any reason. Then it's one of those stories where the hunter becomes like the prey, in order to more effectively hunt them down. She has to be like him. think like him, etc. No more having her hands tied by morality or procedure, none of which he has to do.

Police around her could keep freaking out on what she's doing, telling her it isn't proper procedure, and she just doesn't care. Then she could become a fugitive herself, hunted by the police she once worked with.

 

You might watch the movie Manhunter (prequel to Silence of the Lambs) where the detective has to go to Hannibal Lecter in his prison cell to try to work out a psychological profile of the serial killer, and the more he learns about him the more he becomes like him. It's the only way he can be caught, because they need to figure out how the guy thinks, what he's going to do next. Otherwise the guy's always one or two steps ahead of them. But it really puts the detective through the wringer. He can't stand what he's becoming, and Lecter keeps taunting him that really he's no different than the serial killer and himself now. Powerful stuff.

 

I agree with the beta reader.

 

Chasing with guns drawn, so they are actually running it isn't like they enter the building and not knowing if the perp is around the corner or not have their weapons drawn. You are talking about a time where there wasn't supervision and corners were cut, the rookie could be torn on take or not to take the photo. If the story shows that if she didn't "take it" it might disappear and it is relevant to the case or it becomes part of a cover up. Do cops follow the rules all the time, probably not and it is in other stories where they break the rules. It does have to fit the story there has to be some consideration of regulations, in other words they cannot be breaking all the rules.