Timeline for How would a city police department handle a super-hero joining as an officer?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2019 at 19:28 | vote | accept | Zan Lynx | ||
| Sep 8, 2018 at 7:36 | history | edited | Tim B II | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Tidied some grammar and spelling
|
| Jan 2, 2018 at 8:50 | comment | added | a4android | @TimB Overheard conversations are unlikely to used as evidence in court, in, of and by themselves however, they might be used as the basis of the next steps in an investigation. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 8:48 | comment | added | a4android | @CJDennis This is what the courts & the legislature will need to decide. Of course, if two super-cops independently overheard the same conversation that could be a whole new ball game. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 5:21 | comment | added | Tim B II | @CJDennis; that's absolutely correct, which is why it might be useful for exigent discovery, but not for investigations. Ultimately, the admissibility of evidence from super talents in a court is troublesome; a cop who's heard a mugging 2 blocks over and intervened is not. This is why you'd not want such a person as a detective as it would be a legal minefield, but preventing or intervening in crime is a whole different matter. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 5:11 | comment | added | CJ Dennis | How would a conversation overheard with super-hearing be verified? At least a wire-tap can be recorded. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 4:07 | comment | added | Justin Thyme | @a4android Using technology, super-cops can do pretty much everything that super-heroes can do. But they are restricted by the courts in using that technology. Super-hero powers or not, it goes beyond the reasonableness test. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 1:36 | comment | added | a4android | @fluffysheap If you or I talk in someone's presence, the reasonable expectation of privacy evaporates. If super-cop can hear what anyone is saying within, say, one hundred miles, then the same thing might apply. It would depend what the criminal was saying to their lawyer. Sometimes this might be covered by legal professional privilege other times not. if the criminal & lawyer were colluding to keep a crime requiring legal expertise to cover it up, for example. Courts & the legislature will ultimately decide. | |
| Jan 2, 2018 at 1:32 | comment | added | a4android | @TimB We are in agreement. The courts would need to decide. Super-sense may not be normally available to ordinary police, but if they are normally available to super-cops that could be quite different. laws are human institutions, they can and do change according to circumstances. It would be easy for a legislature to make police super-senses and their use completely legal & even change the Rules of Evidence to allow them in court. | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 9:25 | comment | added | fluffysheap | @a4android The usual rules about "reasonable expectation of privacy" would likely apply. If the superhero uses super hearing to overhear a criminal talking about a crime a mile away, but still in public, that would likely be allowed. If the hero heard the criminal talking to their lawyer in the lawyer's office, that would not only not be something the hero could act on, it would likely even be considered privileged information. | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 4:35 | comment | added | Tim B II | @a4android; these are good points and largely in line with what I believe personally in this case. The trouble would come in defining the boundary between exigent circumstances arising from the use of skills not normally available to police, and deliberate surveillance. I suspect that the courts would determine intent to be the deciding factor, and that would be a legal minefield that may make super heroes ineligible for investigative and detective style work. As a beat cop though, he or she could be invaluable. | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 4:15 | comment | added | a4android | A good answer. While I gave it plus one, I disagree about the use of super-senses. Wire taps require warrants because they involve the interception of communications. X-ray vision & super-hearing bring anything within range bring criminal activities of any kind into the purview of a officer of the law. Frankly it may take court rulings & judgements to decide if limits should be placed police officers with super-senses. Normally it would be dereliction of duty for a police officer to ignore a criminal act or the evidence of crime. | |
| Jan 1, 2018 at 2:24 | history | answered | Tim B II | CC BY-SA 3.0 |