NationStates

Please consider the following hypothetical scenario.

You are a detective working for a small-town police department, you have been called to investigate a murder that happened last night. After a few hours of searching the crime scene you found fingerprints and were able to identify who the suspect is. You go to the suspect's house address (with a warrant) and knocked on the door after a while of waiting the door finally opens, the man who opened the door wasn't the suspect. Confused you ask the man some questions hoping to get some information out of him. After a few hours of questioning you get the following information from him.

-The man was a friend of the suspect and he came down to stay and visit.

-The man wasn't aware his friend committed any crimes.

-The man said that when he woke up this morning his friend never came back.

With this information you have, you get a feeling that the man might be helping the suspect get away from the police. However, you don't have any proof that the man was helping the suspect and it could be possible that the man only came down to visit his friend unaware of the crime he would commit.

You have three options

1. You assume the man is innocent and that he was unaware of his friend's crime.

2. You place him under arrest for being an accessory to the crime.

3. Other (If you don't like the other options, explain what you would do in this situation and how you would handle the investigation)

What option would you choose NSG?

If you went to the suspect's house without bringing a warrant to search, you're doing it wrong. How about fixing that in the scenario?

i didnt even read the op, but ya'll motherfuckas guitly

Bear Stearns wrote:i didnt even read the op, but ya'll motherfuckas guitly

So you don't even make to the suspect's house, because the cruiser is all full up with perps and you have to head back to the station?

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If you went to the suspect's house without bringing a warrant to search, you're doing it wrong. How about fixing that in the scenario?

You don't need a warrant to ask some questions.

However I would possibly phone back to the station to procure a warrant and hang about to ensure no one tootles off in my absence.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If you went to the suspect's house without bringing a warrant to search, you're doing it wrong. How about fixing that in the scenario?

Well you didn't enter the house, you just knocked and started asking questions. However, I'll just add that you brought a warrant.

Other.

First, I'd use the warrant to search the house and look for the suspect. Then, if that failed, I'd put the suspect's friend under surveillance in hopes that he would contact, or better yet meet with, the guy I was looking for. If he did that, my department could then move in and arrest the originally-sought suspect, AND nail the friend for obstruction (and/or whatever else applies for trying to help the guy get away).

I'd also get the house under surveillance in case the original suspect was dumb enough to come back. I'd also set up surveillance on the houses/apartments of the suspect's mother, girlfriend(s), siblings, etc. Lots of criminals go to one of those obvious spots IRL and then wonder how they got busted. I might as well add another to the Stupid Criminals list. If any of those places were out of my jurisdiction, I'd work with their local police departments to get everything in place.

My main focus wouldn't be on this friend, even if I didn't believe him. I'd want to get the murderer first and foremost. However, I'd keep an eye out for any evidence that could be used against the friend later, just in case.

I'd assume that he's innocent until proven guilty.

3. I ask him why he's crazy enough to sleep in the same building as a psychotic lunatic.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:3. I ask him why he's crazy enough to sleep in the same building as a psychotic lunatic.

As stated in the OP, the friend is unaware of the crimes the suspect committed.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:3. I ask him why he's crazy enough to sleep in the same building as a psychotic lunatic.

At this point even the suspect isn't proven guilty yet.

Bombadil wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:3. I ask him why he's crazy enough to sleep in the same building as a psychotic lunatic.

At this point even the suspect isn't proven guilty yet.

How so? You found their finger prints at the crime scene. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious on why you think that.

Aeritai wrote:

Bombadil wrote:
At this point even the suspect isn't proven guilty yet.

How so? You found their finger prints at the crime scene. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious on why you think that.

Simply because a case has to be proven first before they're declared guilty.

3. other:

There is no evidence to support the notion that he was being an accessory to a crime, and since there's insufficient evidence his friend committed any crimes I'dkeep investigating.

Bombadil wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:If you went to the suspect's house without bringing a warrant to search, you're doing it wrong. How about fixing that in the scenario?

You don't need a warrant to ask some questions.

Yeah, if a neighbour's cat went missing.

But this is a murder case, and you have a suspect by fingerprints. You turn up to "ask some questions" and you have no counter to the suspect shutting the door in your face?

You'd better get back to cruiser quick, or some local kid will drive away in it!

Bombadil wrote:

Aeritai wrote:
How so? You found their finger prints at the crime scene. I'm not disagreeing with you, but I am curious on why you think that.

Simply because a case has to be proven first before they're declared guilty.

Police have the power to arrest on suspicion, and if it took a proven case in court they'd never arrest anyone so they'd never get to court.

It would be a good life for criminals. Cop catches you breaking a safe, cop asks you your name. You say nothing, and finished breaking that safe. Cop say "eh, where you going with those jewels and gold bars m'laddie?" and you just ignore the cop. The cop tries to stand in your way, but you just brush past. You drive away as the cop takes down the registration of your stolen car.

Kind of a bummer how there are hardly any paying jobs left in town, but hey. Move to the big city perhaps?

I pick option 3. While it is technically possible the dude is covering, innocent till proven guilty still applies here. I would continue investigating and probably bring the dude in for questioning, but unless I find actual evidence against him I am not arresting him.

I'd take him under arrest and give him further questioning.

Duraludon wrote:I'd take him under arrest and give him further questioning.

On what grounds would you arrest him? What crime do you think he committed, and what's your probable cause?

Wish him a nice day, have him followed, and get a warrant for his phone, text, and computer records.

Continue the investigation in other directions.

Gravlen wrote:

Duraludon wrote:I'd take him under arrest and give him further questioning.

On what grounds would you arrest him? What crime do you think he committed, and what's your probable cause?

This is a small-town police department as mentioned in the OP. Why do we need to have any of that?

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Gravlen wrote:On what grounds would you arrest him? What crime do you think he committed, and what's your probable cause?

This is a small-town police department as mentioned in the OP. Why do we need to have any of that?

Because it's a police department. You don't think small towns should respect the rule of law, basic standards of evidence, or basic rules of policing?

Gravlen wrote:

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:This is a small-town police department as mentioned in the OP. Why do we need to have any of that?

Because it's a police department. You don't think small towns should respect the rule of law, basic standards of evidence, or basic rules of policing?

[Yes chad]

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Gravlen wrote:Because it's a police department. You don't think small towns should respect the rule of law, basic standards of evidence, or basic rules of policing?

[Yes chad]

I think you're in the wrong place. Forum 7 seems to be more your speed.

Nationalist Northumbria wrote:

Gravlen wrote:On what grounds would you arrest him? What crime do you think he committed, and what's your probable cause?

This is a small-town police department as mentioned in the OP. Why do we need to have any of that?

Because the standards for how police should be operating does not change just because it is a small town? Seems pretty obvious.