Quote:

harleykwin said:
...what it would come down to is whether or not the system considers Batman working with law enforcement. It's been a long time since I've looked at crim pro (criminal procedure), but IIRC, when an individual who is not working in concert with law enforcement brings in evidence, that evidence is not going to be considered having been obtained in violation of a suspect's rights, because it was brought in by a person who is not connected to the official police investigation. (This is not the same as a private citizen wearing a wire, for example. In that scenario, they are clearly working with the police.)

I would think that, given Batman and Gordon's history, saying that Batman is not some sort of extension of the GCPD is a weak argument, but nonetheless, it could be argued that because the Batman is not currently sanctioned (or officially sanctioned) by the GCPD, that his bringing in evidence is not considered to be part of a police investigation. Hence, there has been no violation of the law - at least with respect to the actual evidence. How it was obtained, however...

Still, a good defense attorney would be remiss if s/he didn't bring up the obvious friendship/relationship that Gordon and Bats have. Just because Gordon - who as Commissioner speaks for the GCPD - turns a blind eye, as it were, to Batman's actions, doesn't negate the fact that his relying on Batman all these years is, in a way, an implicit sanction of Batman.

But playing devil's advocate, if the cops could show that they would have eventually obtained the evidence without Batman's help - i.e., that it was inevitable that they would have gotten it anyway - then the whole "fruit of the poisonous tree" argument would fail.

I actually want to comment on the law/justice point you raise, but I have got to get going. Seriously, I was supposed to leave here 20 minutes ago...



Harley is essentially correct. I would, however, expand upon one of her points.

Even if someone is not a duly deputized law officer, if it can be shown that the person was working at the behest of the police, the illegally obtained evidence is, as noted above, usually inadmissible.

In the case of Batman, given that Gordon often specifically asks for Batman's help on a case, and even has a special method of signaling him on the roof of police HQ, it would often be difficult, at best, to show that Batman was not acting as a police agent at the time he acted illegally.

However, there is more to the issue than that.

If a defendant can show that Batman was acting at the behest of representatives of the GCPD at the time he illegally obtained evidence, it is very likely possible that a defendant could file a lawsuit under U.S. Code Title 42 Sec. 1983 against Gotham City for deprivation of his civil rights. Assuming that an agency relationship was established, it would not be difficult to argue that the defendants' civil rights were violated when Batman, for example, burglarized the defendant's residence, stole property as "evidence" and tortured a confession out of him by hanging him off a skyscraper ledge.

Which might explain the real reason that so many criminals in Gotham can afford so much hi-tech gadgetry: the millions of dollars in settlement payouts to the legion of Batman "victims."