RPG Legal Advice

[Celebrim]

I'm always impressed by the ability of the PC's to not only get in legal trouble, but to compound their legal trouble by behaving absolutely bizarrely, often in an effort to avoid legal trouble. I have some knowledge of the law, specifically for this sort of thing, but invariably the PC's manage to get so creative with their activities, that I'm pretty darn sure they are guilty of something, I just don't know what it is. So I'm hoping some posters who are lawyers or who have law enforcement background can help me out.

Suppose that someone drops a person off at a hospital. The person is tied up, has 4 gun shot wounds, but has been very expertly patched up - bullets removed, sutures performed. Naturally, the hospital wants to know who this person is, why they have 4 gun shot wounds, and why they have been apparently kidnapped. The person dropping this person off explains that the person that they shot is a dangerous psychotic that tried to attack them, that they shot the person in self-defense, proceeded to administer medical attention to save the persons life, and then decided that they should probably take them to a hospital. They did all of this without in any way notifying the local authorities that any of this had taken place, and in fact the events occurred some 30 miles away and they don't quite remember where.

Needtheless to say, the police are highly suspicious of all of this, and detain the individuals for questioning.

But what can they charge them with that will actually stick? They have a permit for the gun. They have clearly attempted to render aid. They have multiple witnesses that the attack was in self-defense and one of the witnesses has a severe head wound, ostensibly inflicted by the tied up person. Additionally, when the person wakes up they are in fact going to prove to be a raving lunatic, and further when they finally are able to identify the individual, they'll find he's a known felon and parole violator. So I suspect charges of assault of various sort aren't going to stick in court and any prosecution of that sort would fall apart. But it seems like the whole tying someone up and transporting them ought to be unlawful even in self-defense, but they did bring him to hospital, albeit not exactly the nearest one. And it seems like they ought to have some obligation to report all of this in a more timely fashion, but I'm not exactly sure what that crime is.

The police have plenty of reason to be upset with these jokers and would like to throw the book at them, but the prosecutor doesn't want to waste his time by reaching too far and charging the perps with crimes like attempted murder or kidnapping that aren't likely to stick in front of a jury.

So what all charges can he bring?

 

[The Black Ferret]

I'm not a lawyer, but I've dealt with a lot of rules lawyers... Anyway, I'd like to take a stab at this from the perspective of "I've seen a lot of police procedurals."

Well, the first thing to remember is that, regardless of how bad the perp is, the cops don't like civilians doing their job, and the rest of the city's law enforcement will likely feel the same, so the prosecuting attorney will try to make as much stick as possible. you'll see thins in real court cases, too. They will throw every charge they can at the suspect, so they know that they can get something on them. This isn't just about "police ego" or anything. Once you start looking like you are turning a blind eye to vigilantism, then you've opened Pandora's Box.

As for charges, firstly, there is the question of reasonable force. Did they need to be shot 4 times? Maybe they did, but the question would be enough to draw up charges for an inquiry. Especially if the guy they shot did not have a gun on him.

There could also be charges of.... let's interpret it as practicing medicine without a license. They stitched up the wounds, but why wouldn't they call EMTs first? It's one thing to apply first aid while waiting for 911 to show up, but to take the time to do amateur surgery and then take them to the hospital afterwards, rather than contact emergency services immediately would be considered questionable. They would be looking at it from the perspective of "what if you didn't get him to the real doctors in time?"

Kidnapping, actually, could be a perfectly valid charge. Citizen's arrest does not include "citizen's prison" or "citizen's interrogation room." If the guy was taken someplace, which is not a police station, against his will by someone not duly authorized to do so, then that is kidnapping.

Just a few initial thoughts off the top of my head.

 

[Celebrim]

Well, the first thing to remember is that, regardless of how bad the perp is, the cops don't like civilians doing their job, and the rest of the city's law enforcement will likely feel the same, so the prosecuting attorney will try to make as much stick as possible. you'll see thins in real court cases, too. They will throw every charge they can at the suspect, so they know that they can get something on them.

That is the purpose of this thread. Find everything I can reasonably charge the PC's with that a prosecutor might make stick.

As for charges, firstly, there is the question of reasonable force. Did they need to be shot 4 times? Maybe they did, but the question would be enough to draw up charges for an inquiry. Especially if the guy they shot did not have a gun on him.

I could have really got them for this, but every time they shot at the guy's back, they luckily missed. Since all the bullet wounds are from the front, they should be able to argue successfully that they had a reasonable belief that their life was threatened and that deadly force was reasonable in this instance. The fact that one of them is severely wounded by a bludgeoning weapon means that they could not have reasonably retreated. I could charge them with attempted murder, but I don't think I can make a very strong case of it.

There could also be charges of.... let's interpret it as practicing medicine without a license.

Nope, one of them is a medical practitioner. And he's presumably going to argue that had he not intervened medically, the person would have died from their wounds (which is in fact probably true). Indeed, since he's a far better doctor than most doctors, one of the things that the nurses would have been forced to testify to the detective investigating this, is that he did a really bang up job keeping the guy alive.

Kidnapping, actually, could be a perfectly valid charge.

I'm definitely considering the kidnapping charge, but the kidnapping in question was taking an unconscious, psychotic person to the hospital. I think that any decent lawyer would argue that the PC's lacked intent to prevent the person in question from being liberated, that they certainly did not secret the person or attempt to prevent them from being found, and were acting according to what a reasonable person might construe as the injured unconscious person's best interest. In fact, I foresee the entire kidnapping charge is one that might risk being made a laughing stock in front of a jury, and get the whole case thrown out.

 

[The Black Ferret]

That is the purpose of this thread. Find everything I can reasonably charge the PC's with that a prosecutor might make stick.



I could have really got them for this, but every time they shot at the guy's back, they luckily missed. Since all the bullet wounds are from the front, they should be able to argue successfully that they had a reasonable belief that their life was threatened and that deadly force was reasonable in this instance. The fact that one of them is severely wounded by a bludgeoning weapon means that they could not have reasonably retreated. I could charge them with attempted murder, but I don't think I can make a very strong case of it.



Nope, one of them is a medical practitioner. And he's presumably going to argue that had he not intervened medically, the person would have died from their wounds (which is in fact probably true). Indeed, since he's a far better doctor than most doctors, one of the things that the nurses would have been forced to testify to the detective investigating this, is that he did a really bang up job keeping the guy alive.



I'm definitely considering the kidnapping charge, but the kidnapping in question was taking an unconscious, psychotic person to the hospital. I think that any decent lawyer would argue that the PC's lacked intent to prevent the person in question from being liberated, that they certainly did not secret the person or attempt to prevent them from being found, and were acting according to what a reasonable person might construe as the injured unconscious person's best interest. In fact, I foresee the entire kidnapping charge is one that might risk being made a laughing stock in front of a jury, and get the whole case thrown out.

I see. Well, they are lucky the character is a doctor. That being said, they could press him to provide proper proof of that. I don't know if this is a situation of having secret IDs or the such, but if exposure might put the doctor in a compromising position, then it could possibly be used as leverage, even if they aren't pressing charges. Perhaps to force a plea bargain for other charges. If exposure is not an issue, then there's probably not much the police can do with it.

As far as the kidnapping, I misread and was under the impression that they might have taken him somewhere besides the hospital first. Being that it isn't the case, then, yes, the kidnapping charge might not be worth going after, but something to consider for any future cases.

I think the only thing I can think of at this point, for this case, is that it was four against one. even in a case of assault. The guy had a club or other melee weapon against 4 people with guns. Or 3 if one was out of the fight from being hit first. Even if you argue that he needed to be shot, did all 4 need to shoot at him, if he was far enough away that shooting was a safe tactic with risking hitting the person he clubbed over the head? I think reasonable force is still a viable way to go. Unless only one person actually had a gun.

barring that, this particular case might be a wash, then. Like most people who skirt the law, you will just have to wait until they make a mistake. That one shot in the back. That security camera footage showing them initiating the fight or use of excessive force. Judgement or the dice, or a combination of the two, will trip them up at some point.

 

[Nagol]

The police will likely want to hold them until their story can be somewhat confirmed either through identifying the wounded man and/or questioning him if/when he awakens.

If the cops are feeling ornery or if they need to issue charges to hold them long enough to confirm the story then they'd probably try to get charges of aggravated assault or assault with a weapon. If the story does check out and no state line was crossed, the cops would possibly drop it with a strong caution since although highly suspicious behaviour, it isn't obviously illegal.

The police shouldn't worry too much about if the charges can or will stick: that's the prosecutor's job; their job to investigate and recommend if charges should be laid. Persuading a prosecutor that the suspects are a serious flight risk and charges should be filed to hold them until the situation can be sorted out is probably a no-brainer considering the obvious violence in the situation. Transporting gets particularly perilous legally if it crosses a state line as it automatically gets the feds involved. If any of the PCs have a medical profession other than full doctor, they may get their licence yanked for overstepping their limits of practice.

 

[delericho]

Needtheless to say, the police are highly suspicious of all of this, and detain the individuals for questioning.

But what can they charge them with that will actually stick?

Probably nothing. But the real problem is that the PCs are now on the police radar, and the bureaucracy grinds very slowly.

So they'll probably get clear of this incident... eventually. But in the meantime, they'll have to watch their step as the police are keeping an eye on all their other activities. Which, knowing the PCs, probably aren't entirely legal.

Which leaves you with a question: just how hard do you want to make the PCs' lives, and for how long?

 

[Blue]

I am not a lawyer. But I did spent 19 weeks doing indictments on grand jury. (Just one day a week, was actually pretty cool though if I had a less understanding boss about the effect on projects I'd feel differently.)

First, the police will charge them well before an AP will get near the case to know what will stick.

Second, we had lots of indictments about possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose (and unlawful possession of a weapon if any of them did not have a permit) even among people defending themselves. Because the police had to charge them because that's what the law says. And then it came to the indictments and we had the freedom to "no-bill" (discard) the charge. (Oh, and EVERY person gets a possession charge, since it doesn't require physically holding it.)

Third, I believe there are laws against impeding a police investigation, and withholding from the police where it happened could easily cross that line. Especially with so many witnesses it's not believable that no one knows.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not a lawyer. But I did spent 19 weeks doing indictments on grand jury. (Just one day a week, was actually pretty cool though if I had a less understanding boss about the effect on projects I'd feel differently.)

First, the police will charge them well before an AP will get near the case to know what will stick.

Second, we had lots of indictments about possession of a weapon for unlawful purpose (and unlawful possession of a weapon if any of them did not have a permit) even among people defending themselves. Because the police had to charge them because that's what the law says. And then it came to the indictments and we had the freedom to "no-bill" (discard) the charge. (Oh, and EVERY person gets a possession charge, since it doesn't require physically holding it.)

Third, I believe there are laws against impeding a police investigation, and withholding from the police where it happened could easily cross that line. Especially with so many witnesses it's not believable that no one knows.

This. The DA comes along well after the cops have done the arresting and charging. The order of events here would be this:

Anyone the cops can determine were involved in the altercation is arrested. Charges will vary from attempted murder for the shooter to conspiracy and aiding and abetting before and after the fact for everyone else. That's the starter -- it's enough for the arrest so they likely won't go further immediately.

The characters will be taken into court for arraignment on the attempted murder charges in a few days. By this time, the cops will have all of the statements and will have identified the characters and added any easy details they have to the record. The DA will read over the arrest material, and present the charges to the judge and ask for bail. If there's lots of details that the characters are dangerous, or have been in trouble before, or are flight risks (not local, have money, etc.) then the bail will be set very high.

The cops will open an investigation. The results will feed to the DA, who may decide to add charges. Likely, these charges will be threatened as part of a negotiation to get guilty plea deals from the characters. If the characters refuse pleas, the DA will actually have to review the material. Given what you've presented, it's not solid that self-defense will be acceptable. Why were the players at the location the fight occurred? What was their meeting with the bad guy for? If you're engaged in some shaky business and things go south and you shoot someone, that's not self defense. Gang bangers don't get to claim self-defense because a drug deal goes bad and the other side pulls first. If there's a plausible theory that the characters were engaged in illegal activity at the time of the fight, self-defense is going to be a very hard affirmative defense -- they'll have to admit to the particulars of the illegal activity (and that's a confession, folks) to establish that the activity wasn't related to the altercation.

Likely, given how games work, the characters were trespassing and likely engaged in breaking and entering. Any evidence (even circumstantial) that the prosecution can bring will serious undermine the defense of self-defense. Also, as a note, self defense is an affirmative defense, which means that the defendant has to affirm they committed the action in question but that the circumstances mean it wasn't criminal. So, they can't claim they didn't do it, and even if they did it was self defense. Although, at this point, with the statements to the police already made, it's going to be hard to walk back that you didn't do it.

All said, I think you have attempted murder, aiding and abetting, practicing medicine without a license, and kidnapping. You likely have trespassing and a host of other smaller crimes involved in the lead up to the fight. I'd be shocked to learn that the party was in the right leading up to the fight. Also, it really doesn't matter if the bad guy is a raging nutcase and a clear danger -- the law really doesn't check to see if the victim deserved it. Sentencing might, but the conviction won't.

-----

Now, all that said, the legal system is NOT FUN. I'm not sure using the legal system or a close approximation of it in game would be fun. My suggestion would be to have the characters arrested and arraigned with a big bail, but introduce a fun lawyer character that works some magic behind the scenes to get the characters off -- although now on the scope of the police -- in return for some unspecified payment later. If this can tie into something in the campaign already introduced, like now owing a favor to a mob boss they crossed paths with before, that's even more fun. Use the law as a huge hammer, but offer an out with a cost, so to speak. But, for goodness sake, don't play out the legal system. I'd rather chew glass.

 

[Celebrim]

This. The DA comes along well after the cops have done the arresting and charging.

I'm aware of that. That's not the issue.

Given what you've presented, it's not solid that self-defense will be acceptable. Why were the players at the location the fight occurred? What was their meeting with the bad guy for?

The bad guy was definitely trespassing on private property and had done the whole breaking and entering, robbery, vandalism thing. (Things would have gone MUCH smoother had they just turned this guy over the local authorities in the first place, instead of transporting him around and not getting the police involved from the start). There is going to be an interesting discussion as to whether the PC's where also breaking and entering, but the PC's if they aren't stupid (again) have several rock solid defenses if they just say anything plausible about their relationship to the property and a verbal agreement with the owner.

If you're engaged in some shaky business and things go south and you shoot someone, that's not self defense.

As long as the PC's aren't stupid, they should be able to easily show that they were acting lawfully and the person they shot was not.

All said, I think you have attempted murder, aiding and abetting, practicing medicine without a license, and kidnapping.

And as I said, none of those charges in the circumstances hold the slightest water. You are going to charge people with attempted murder after saving a man's life? If they really intended to murder him, why didn't they leave him to die? Why did they administer legal aid? And again, the doctor in question is licensed to practice medicine in the state. And I looked up the definition of kidnapping in the State this occurred, and that charge isn't going to hold water either. The police may arraign the suspects on charges like that just to have an excuse to hold them, but one of the PC's is also a highly respected lawyer, and I doubt those charges will even get to a Grand Jury.

I'd be shocked to learn that the party was in the right leading up to the fight.

They were absolutely in the right leading up to the fight. They had a right to be on the property and their assailant did not. They had no duty to retreat at that point because they had already been assailed and had reason to believe that they had no where to go, and had every reason to believe that they were in imminent danger of their lives. A colleague had been smashed to the ground by a blow to the head and at the time they weren't sure the blow hadn't been fatal. They are going to be able to present all sorts of circumstantial evidence that their account of events is a truthful one, and they lucked out and didn't leave a lot of evidence for the police to find that might contradict their statements.

It's just everything that they did during the fight and after it that has created the problem and made them highly suspicious individuals.

And I'm not yet getting into the further problems they are likely to have if they don't start covering their tracks and giving at least the appearance of flying straight. I know what is going to happen if they don't cover up well. And yes, once the police find solid evidence of other crimes, or if the police can catch them in some sort of deception, or if the police catch them covering their tracks, then all those charges of attempted murder, kidnapping, and so forth come back on the table.

The idea situation for me is that the police have reason to suspect the PC's of stuff, but have no real means of bringing charges on anything serious that is going to stick. So instead the police go after them for a slew of lesser more procedural crimes, I can breeze over the trial, and the likely result is a bunch of minor penalties that the party can deal with that aren't as unfun as lengthy incarceration (which is basically PC death). I'm trying to figure if such crimes exist. In particular, the reason they are in big trouble anyway is mostly they didn't get the police involved as soon as all of this happened, making them seem like the really suspicious characters they actually are rather than the upstanding citizens that they would have appeared to be. So, are there crimes that they can be charged with related to not reporting the crime?

Meantime, it seems likely this campaign will end with them all in the jail if they don't mend their ways.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm aware of that. That's not the issue.



The bad guy was definitely trespassing on private property and had done the whole breaking and entering, robbery, vandalism thing. (Things would have gone MUCH smoother had they just turned this guy over the local authorities in the first place, instead of transporting him around and not getting the police involved from the start). There is going to be an interesting discussion as to whether the PC's where also breaking and entering, but the PC's if they aren't stupid (again) have several rock solid defenses if they just say anything plausible about their relationship to the property and a verbal agreement with the owner.



As long as the PC's aren't stupid, they should be able to easily show that they were acting lawfully and the person they shot was not.

Well, color me shocked, then.

And as I said, none of those charges in the circumstances hold the slightest water. You are going to charge people with attempted murder after saving a man's life? If they really intended to murder him, why didn't they leave him to die? Why did they administer legal aid? And again, the doctor in question is licensed to practice medicine in the state. And I looked up the definition of kidnapping in the State this occurred, and that charge isn't going to hold water either. The police may arraign the suspects on charges like that just to have an excuse to hold them, but one of the PC's is also a highly respected lawyer, and I doubt those charges will even get to a Grand Jury.

You mean they saved the life of the person they shot, right? You don't get a pass on attempted murder because you dug the bullets out and patched him up after you shot him. I think you might be laboring under the general misunderstanding of what our justice system does: it does not do justice, or, it only accidentally does justice. It does very well at punishing people and is exceptional at separating people from money, but justice is something that it manages by accident. And, believe it or not, this is by design. Justice is a finicky thing, and hard to do, but punishing people for breaking laws, like shooting other people, is something much easier (not easy, mind, just easier) to do.

So, to the cops, who are not there to prove people innocent but instead to find guilty people (this is really something everyone should remember!), you have a person who admits to shooting someone else and then patching them up, and you have the victim who's wounds match this story, but no other evidence: where it happened, what happeneded, etc, from anyone else but the guy that did the shooting and his friends. Everyone goes to jail, period.

And, unless there's an easy and verifiable story, with evidence, that backs up that story, the DA is going to treat this as attempted homicide with recalcitrant witnesses and arraign them as such.

As for the Grand Jury, again, you misunderstand what happens there. The Grand Jury is a tool for Federal and some states (not all use grand juries) to introduce evidence in investigations into the record (ie, preserve evidence for later use) and seek indictments. There is no duty to provide any evidence that supports a target's account of things -- it's legal and normal for only that evidence that supports the conviction to be presented. So, in states with grand juries, the cops will arrest and refer what they think their charges are to the DA's office along with evidence -- in this case witness and perp statements that they shot the guy -- and the DA's office will present to the grand jury that they are seeking an indictment against so-and-so for attempted murder. They have witness and perp statements that the shooting took place, and the prep had a gun consistent with the wounds on the victim. Since grand juries operate on a standard that is often said to be so low that a DA could indict a ham sandwich, this is more than enough evidence to indict and charge the characters.

So, when does the justicy part you think should happen happen? Well, if it's clear cut what happened, then the DA will likely choose to drop charges after that comes to light. If the evidence is so muddled that it looks like a conviction is iffy, especially if the characters have competent representation that's already making motions, the DA may drop the charges. Remember, DA's don't get promoted because they let attempted murders walk, they get promoted for convicting people of attempted murder. If you didn't catch it, I didn't say people guilty of attempted murder. Again, courts don't really do justice except by accident. It's accidentally something like justice often enough that it works, but it's still accidental.

So, okay, this sounds like I'm down on cops and DAs. I'm not down on cops. I have a number of good personal friends that are cops and I've done a lot of work in the LE field supporting cops. It it, however, pragmatic to understand that cops are not employed to prove people innocent, they're employed to catch and help convict bad guys. If you're talking to cops in their official capacity, they are not looking for innocent people, they are looking for bad guys. They may think the bad guy is you. There's countless stories of perfectly innocent and legal actions that look illegal and criminal. So, whenever you're talking to cops in their official capacity, always treat the conversation as if you are being investigated for a crime. Be polite. Refuse permission to be searched. If you're being questioned, ask if you're being detained, if not, leave. If yes, you're only response should be "I want a lawyer." These aren't because cops are bad guys, they certainly aren't, but they are not working to make sure you're a good guy. They deal with bad guys, and if you've come to their attention, they'll assume you're a bad guy and act accordingly.

DAs, on the other hand... look, most people joining the DA's office are young and motivated. And they enter a world where their worth is pretty much based on convictions -- do they get them. And, to do this, they are handed an immense amount of power with very, very few repercussions for misuse of that power. Not to say that possible repercussions don't exist, just that they are so rarely applied that they might as well not exist. So you have young people given a huge amount of power without safeguards and they're told to convict people to get ahead. This recipe generally means that DAs are dangerous and somewhat amoral in action. A DA can ruin your life for no reason and never face any repercussions for it. Not to say they all do, but that's the reality. Now, most of the time the cops pull in genuine bad guys, and DAs use this power to put genuine bad guys in prison, but its the exceptions that stick out.

They were absolutely in the right leading up to the fight. They had a right to be on the property and their assailant did not. They had no duty to retreat at that point because they had already been assailed and had reason to believe that they had no where to go, and had every reason to believe that they were in imminent danger of their lives. A colleague had been smashed to the ground by a blow to the head and at the time they weren't sure the blow hadn't been fatal. They are going to be able to present all sorts of circumstantial evidence that their account of events is a truthful one, and they lucked out and didn't leave a lot of evidence for the police to find that might contradict their statements.

It's just everything that they did during the fight and after it that has created the problem and made them highly suspicious individuals.

And I'm not yet getting into the further problems they are likely to have if they don't start covering their tracks and giving at least the appearance of flying straight. I know what is going to happen if they don't cover up well. And yes, once the police find solid evidence of other crimes, or if the police can catch them in some sort of deception, or if the police catch them covering their tracks, then all those charges of attempted murder, kidnapping, and so forth come back on the table.

The idea situation for me is that the police have reason to suspect the PC's of stuff, but have no real means of bringing charges on anything serious that is going to stick. So instead the police go after them for a slew of lesser more procedural crimes, I can breeze over the trial, and the likely result is a bunch of minor penalties that the party can deal with that aren't as unfun as lengthy incarceration (which is basically PC death). I'm trying to figure if such crimes exist. In particular, the reason they are in big trouble anyway is mostly they didn't get the police involved as soon as all of this happened, making them seem like the really suspicious characters they actually are rather than the upstanding citizens that they would have appeared to be. So, are there crimes that they can be charged with related to not reporting the crime?

Meantime, it seems likely this campaign will end with them all in the jail if they don't mend their ways.

Again, the legal system isn't fun. It's a good threat, though, but I'd suggest using it to drive the players to seek help they don't want to seek rather than just throwing them in jail. Jail is the realistic outcome, but it's not a fun one.