Quote:

harleykwin said:


You make really good points Basty, but WRT your last comments, 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, I did not know that about an agent acting without official sanction. I guess is does make sense...without official sanction or formal relationship to law enforcement, there can be no expectation that the suspect's rights should be upheld. But, that does raise some interesting points...

Say you had 2 guys, Peter and Elsia, who sold drugs. Peter had a fued with the Elsia. What would happen if Peter brought a kilo of heroin to the police and told them it belonged to Elsia...when it actually belonged to Peter?

If the police acted on incorrect information and arrested Elsia, could it be argued that they had no probable cause for taking action against Elsia...since the heroin wasn't his to begin with and it was known on the streets that Elsia only sells crack?

Now, I know I'm over-simplifying the case...I would imagine that the police wiould investigate, determine that Elsia was a bad actor, and his arrest would be based on its own merits. But if the whole thing were brought about by false information, would the suspect have any legal recourse?

Back to The Bat-Man:

It's been said in recent continuity, that The Bat-Man is not acknowledged to exist by the GCPD. In fact, he's considered a myth by most of the residents of Gotham. In current continuity (before One Year Later), his existence had become common knowledge (since that whole gang war storyline where Orpheus and Spoiler were killed), and he had been disavowed by the cops.

Now, if the police used evidence obtained by Bats in any cases previous to his existence becoming common knowledge, they would have had to perjure themselves about its origins. If they would not publicly cop to his existence, then how could they admit that they've used evidence provided by him?

Wouldn't the fabrication of how they obtained the evidence be enough to have it thrown out and any conviction based on that evidence overturned? Wouldn't the mere appearance of impropriety be enough to have almost any criminal case resulting in conviction during the time that Bats has been in operation retried?

Now obviously, DCU Law is probably a bit different from ours but, vigilantism is still illegal even there. To me, this means that any agent, from Superman on down, that is not directly in the employ of an officially sanctioned law enforement agency, is engaged in illegal activity.

So, my question is this: If evidence is obtained by somebody engaging in an illegal activity in order to get it, then wouldn't that evidence be considered inadmissable since, by definition, it was illegally obtained?

I got the whole thing about arguing that the evidence could be admissable if the cops can credibly show that they would have gotten it anyway during the course of the investigation. But, so much of the evidence provided by Bats is the result of actions that are completely against acceptable police procedures.

Lat's say The Bat-Man illegally bugged the Penguin's penthouse and found out that a critical piece of evidence was hidden in a safe in one of his warehouses. He then breaks into that warehouse...without benefit of a warrant or even any official capacity to be there...proceeds to severely injure several privately employed security agents in order to coerce them into giving up the location of the safe. Then, using a small C-4 charge to blow the safe, opens it and removes the item proving guilt. He then hands it over to Gordon, Gordon gives it to the D.A. and the crimninal is convicted

This is a fairly standard plotline for a Bat-Man book. The Bat-Man committed at least 4 felonies during that example. Whether he's an acknowkedged agent of the GCPD or not, wouldn't that evidence be considered tainted? Even if the cops could say that they applied for and were granted permission to officially wiretap the Penguin's crib and would have gotten the necessary info leading to the recovery of the evidence anyway?

Oderint, dum metuant.


You are a god damned idiot, you know that? You ought to be smacked upside your dumb-fuck head, even after all these years. Shame on you!
-USCHI showin' some love