Follow TV Tropes

Following

Question about cops

Go To

washington213 Since: Jan, 2013
#1: Jan 23rd 2012 at 11:36:06 AM

I'm writing a story about a vampire cop who plays dirty. Due to his heightened senses, he can tell when somebody has drugs on them, and he can use his vampire persuasion stuff to force a confession out of somebody without them realizing what he's doing. Also, The Masquerade is in full effect, nobody on the force knows he's a vampire.

My question was for people who know about police procedure; how far can a cop hassle somebody without a warrant before their superiors raise an eyebrow? Basically, the idea for my vampire cop is that he pulls people off the street, and asks them to hand over drugs. They refuse, so he uses his mind power to make them give it up. And yes, having many people confess and willingly give up drugs is meant to attract attention for the purposes of plot. The idea is I want him to attract a little attention, but not be fired on the spot. So, can a cop stop a seemingly random person on the street and accuse them of drug usage? He's not performing an illegal search, not to outward appearances anyway.

burnpsy Since: Sep, 2010
#2: Jan 23rd 2012 at 12:04:02 PM

I don't think that's at all legal. To be perfectly honest, warrants exist specifically so they can't do that. He would be instantly fired, assuming competent supervisors (which is a big if).

This is regardless of whether the person actually has drugs or not.

edited 23rd Jan '12 12:05:04 PM by burnpsy

MidnightRambler Ich bin nicht schuld! 's ist Gottes Plan! from Germania Inferior Since: Mar, 2011
Ich bin nicht schuld! 's ist Gottes Plan!
#3: Jan 23rd 2012 at 1:42:11 PM

Depends on where you are. Different countries have different rules, and I hear the United States never quite got the point of being a country, so they have different rules in different states as well.

But I think in most democratic countries, the police couldn't just make someone confess things on the spot. They'd need to arrest him first (for which they need reasonable cause for suspicion), then give him a proper trial and, if he is found guilty, hand out the appropriate punishment.

Your idea sounds like the "vampire cop" is doing stuff on the spot that should really be done in a court of law.

Mache dich, mein Herze, rein...
washington213 Since: Jan, 2013
#4: Jan 23rd 2012 at 2:08:51 PM

I know a cop can't force a confession out of somebody without being fired on the spot. But that's using conventional tactics. I was mostly referring to the vampire cop forcing a confession using Mind Control.

I was just wondering if the cop would get in trouble just for asking somebody if they have drugs. He's not performing a search or anything, just asking a simple question, to which they respond truthfully. To the human observers, people just seem to openly admit things to the vampire cop. The idea is that it's incredibly suspiscious, but still within the rules.

I thought of making the vampire cop an undercover narc, but I need him to have a human partner who gets suspiscious and causes the whole ploy to unravel.

edited 23rd Jan '12 2:12:18 PM by washington213

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#5: Jan 23rd 2012 at 2:11:39 PM

[up][up][up]Instantly fired? Have you been reading the news? He should be instantly fired according to police protocol, but that's a completely different question.

Morven Nemesis from Seattle, WA, USA Since: Jan, 2001
Nemesis
#6: Jan 23rd 2012 at 3:53:02 PM

Cops are generally allowed to ask questions of anyone. It's when they force someone to talk to them, prevent them from leaving, or enter someone's property that lines are crossed.

A brighter future for a darker age.
Leradny Since: Jan, 2001
#7: Jan 23rd 2012 at 6:56:27 PM

If he specializes in narcotics, he should be able to disguise his abilities just by having a dog on hand.

Edit: Oh, you wanted him to draw attention? Simply not having a dog on hand would work if the drugs' hiding places aren't completely obvious.

edited 23rd Jan '12 6:58:47 PM by Leradny

burnpsy Since: Sep, 2010
#8: Jan 23rd 2012 at 8:17:23 PM

[up][up][up]Did you try seriously reading my post? I clearly said "assuming competent supervisors".

jewelleddragon Also known as Katz from Pasadena, CA Since: Apr, 2009
Also known as Katz
#9: Jan 23rd 2012 at 10:40:09 PM

[up]Fair enough, but that's a big assumption.

Add Post

Total posts: 9
Top