Is this a new law or a change to a current law: This thread is meant, in the first place, as a discussion about the execution of this law. Secondly, I wish to change the order of wording in the law itself.
- This is in no way an assault to the RP-situation and the following admin sit with (among others) Samuel Sheppard and others (who handled the RP situation perfectly!) -
What law do you wish to change/add: Law 3.7: The right to search a vehicle and/or person.
Additional Information: I am mixing up the template to illustrate an example and, in the end, come to my point and suggestions. This is written in a light manner and optional, my points can be understand without the situational sketch.
Why should this change/addition be made:
1. The wording of law 3.7.
Rule 3.7 indeed enables officers a Right to Search either a person or a vehicle. Where the pat-down of a person is quite standard in policing, a search of a vehicle is quite a far-going measure with regards to the privacy of a perphead. My first – and shortest point – comes to the wording of rule 3.7. The initial intention of a police officer must always be to first search the person detained, and only then (in special cases) may a police officer subject a vehicle to a search. In my opinion, first search the person, before the car will be searched.
2. The search of a vehicle and its trunk
My second point is that the rule 3.7 implies that the trunk of a vehicle can be searched. Back in the ol’ days this was prohibited. I did not find a Law or Rule explaining this possibility. Enabling or prohibiting this action must be specified in my opinion. Where the search of the trunk must be possible, otherwise it is very easy to hide firearms and other props used in a criminal act. However, one safeguard must be put in place: Police Officers may only confiscate items directly linked to the criminal act investigated and have more than reasonable proof. Possibly, on the order of a Senior Police Officer.
3. The search of a vehicle through nemo tenetur.
Thirdly – and with the above sketched scene – my most important point. I do not like the idea that Police Officers can force you to talk to the city garage employee and subsequently identify and search your vehicle. This action is a breach and defies the role play situation.
Now, on the basis of rule 3.7, police officers – together with a detained suspect – can head to the city garage and force the suspect to talk to the city employee of the garage and take their car out. After that, the car can be subject to a search.
The argument for this method lays in the fact that the city employee is part of the government officials and thus must listen to orders given by the serving police officers. This way of action is in order to show what cars any given person drives and in what state they are. In the RolePlay situation the suspect actually does nothing, since they just check on the employee and ask them which cars are registered to his name.
I find this way of RP troublesome.
Firstly, the player actually has to take out his cars and talk to the city attendant. Being uncuffed first, forced to talk, and then being cuffed again. This undermines the RP. Moreover so, since the car can be hidden away.
Let me illustrate: I rob the bank in my pink Lamborghini. I hide it away in the forest, since I don’t want the police to find my car (It might be smarter to pick a more inconspicuous vehicle, but I am a stupid criminal). Since I am suspected, the police take me to the city garage and let me talk to the attendant. I spawn my car away from the forest (where I didn’t want it to be found) and there it is. Ready for a thorough investigation. This undermines the roleplay situation in its entirety. I am bringing the evidence to the police, where my next point is about.
IF the police wants to find out what cars are registered to what player, they either have to check the city database (DMV) (or this must be made available, just like they can find out which property is registered to what name). Or the suspect has to answer these question. Lastly, the police can find the vehicle and check the registration.
Secondly, it is against the principle of nemo tenetur. In this way, the suspect is forced to cooperate with the government in order to get proof against his own case and thus – in extent - possibly convicting him. A suspect is always innocent unless the police can prove otherwise. A suspect has the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself (as is common notice in criminal law throughout the world). Letting a suspect take action in order to get the police proof, under force, defies this principle.
What is the aim of this change/addition:
I have written extensively on this topic now, so it is time to get to a close. The aim is to improve the roleplay situation, limit the powers of the police which are very big, take away the feeling of injustice if the police can do these kind of things, and lastly: the police must proof a case. The suspect is always innocent until proven guilty.
My version of Law 3.7 (needs some polishing still):
Law enforcement officer may search any person against whom has risen reasonable suspicion of having committed offences.
Law enforcement officers may search any person detained for anything that the detained person is believed to be in possession of relating to the investigation for which they are detained.
Law enforcement officers may search any arrested or convicted person in their custody for any evidence of a criminal offence.
Law enforcement officers may search any vehicle belonging to a detained or arrested person against whom has risen reasonable suspicion of having committed criminal offences. If there is reasonable belief that the vehicle contains evidence to be related to a crime that has been committed inside the vehicle and or a crime in which the vehicle has been used. A search of a vehicle must always be under supervision or warranted by a higher-ranking officer. (rank higher than…?)
Please let me know what you guys think about this addition / executive discussion!
- This is in no way an assault to the RP-situation and the following admin sit with (among others) Samuel Sheppard and others (who handled the RP situation perfectly!) -
What law do you wish to change/add: Law 3.7: The right to search a vehicle and/or person.
Additional Information: I am mixing up the template to illustrate an example and, in the end, come to my point and suggestions. This is written in a light manner and optional, my points can be understand without the situational sketch.
This was in the Paralake News this morning:
“Yesterday, just outside the city, a shoot-out between three vehicles occurred. Responding officers caught three perpetrators red handed: two cars were parked into each other on the middle of the highway and one of them was still shooting. After investigating the scene, a third party had to be involved, since those detained all collaborated the same story. When a black and gold Mercedes Gullwing drove by, that vehicle too was detained. However, the three suspects already detained pointed out that the wanted vehicle was a purple-and-gold Hudson Hornet.
Officers detained the two occupants and drove to the City Garage in order to get the car out of storage and search and/or identify the wanted vehicle. The three initally detained by police where released, subsequently also the two persons later detained were released. No guns or evidence was confiscated."
“Yesterday, just outside the city, a shoot-out between three vehicles occurred. Responding officers caught three perpetrators red handed: two cars were parked into each other on the middle of the highway and one of them was still shooting. After investigating the scene, a third party had to be involved, since those detained all collaborated the same story. When a black and gold Mercedes Gullwing drove by, that vehicle too was detained. However, the three suspects already detained pointed out that the wanted vehicle was a purple-and-gold Hudson Hornet.
Officers detained the two occupants and drove to the City Garage in order to get the car out of storage and search and/or identify the wanted vehicle. The three initally detained by police where released, subsequently also the two persons later detained were released. No guns or evidence was confiscated."
Why should this change/addition be made:
1. The wording of law 3.7.
Rule 3.7 indeed enables officers a Right to Search either a person or a vehicle. Where the pat-down of a person is quite standard in policing, a search of a vehicle is quite a far-going measure with regards to the privacy of a perphead. My first – and shortest point – comes to the wording of rule 3.7. The initial intention of a police officer must always be to first search the person detained, and only then (in special cases) may a police officer subject a vehicle to a search. In my opinion, first search the person, before the car will be searched.
2. The search of a vehicle and its trunk
My second point is that the rule 3.7 implies that the trunk of a vehicle can be searched. Back in the ol’ days this was prohibited. I did not find a Law or Rule explaining this possibility. Enabling or prohibiting this action must be specified in my opinion. Where the search of the trunk must be possible, otherwise it is very easy to hide firearms and other props used in a criminal act. However, one safeguard must be put in place: Police Officers may only confiscate items directly linked to the criminal act investigated and have more than reasonable proof. Possibly, on the order of a Senior Police Officer.
3. The search of a vehicle through nemo tenetur.
Thirdly – and with the above sketched scene – my most important point. I do not like the idea that Police Officers can force you to talk to the city garage employee and subsequently identify and search your vehicle. This action is a breach and defies the role play situation.
Now, on the basis of rule 3.7, police officers – together with a detained suspect – can head to the city garage and force the suspect to talk to the city employee of the garage and take their car out. After that, the car can be subject to a search.
The argument for this method lays in the fact that the city employee is part of the government officials and thus must listen to orders given by the serving police officers. This way of action is in order to show what cars any given person drives and in what state they are. In the RolePlay situation the suspect actually does nothing, since they just check on the employee and ask them which cars are registered to his name.
I find this way of RP troublesome.
Firstly, the player actually has to take out his cars and talk to the city attendant. Being uncuffed first, forced to talk, and then being cuffed again. This undermines the RP. Moreover so, since the car can be hidden away.
Let me illustrate: I rob the bank in my pink Lamborghini. I hide it away in the forest, since I don’t want the police to find my car (It might be smarter to pick a more inconspicuous vehicle, but I am a stupid criminal). Since I am suspected, the police take me to the city garage and let me talk to the attendant. I spawn my car away from the forest (where I didn’t want it to be found) and there it is. Ready for a thorough investigation. This undermines the roleplay situation in its entirety. I am bringing the evidence to the police, where my next point is about.
IF the police wants to find out what cars are registered to what player, they either have to check the city database (DMV) (or this must be made available, just like they can find out which property is registered to what name). Or the suspect has to answer these question. Lastly, the police can find the vehicle and check the registration.
Secondly, it is against the principle of nemo tenetur. In this way, the suspect is forced to cooperate with the government in order to get proof against his own case and thus – in extent - possibly convicting him. A suspect is always innocent unless the police can prove otherwise. A suspect has the right to remain silent and not to incriminate oneself (as is common notice in criminal law throughout the world). Letting a suspect take action in order to get the police proof, under force, defies this principle.
What is the aim of this change/addition:
I have written extensively on this topic now, so it is time to get to a close. The aim is to improve the roleplay situation, limit the powers of the police which are very big, take away the feeling of injustice if the police can do these kind of things, and lastly: the police must proof a case. The suspect is always innocent until proven guilty.
My version of Law 3.7 (needs some polishing still):
Law enforcement officer may search any person against whom has risen reasonable suspicion of having committed offences.
Law enforcement officers may search any person detained for anything that the detained person is believed to be in possession of relating to the investigation for which they are detained.
Law enforcement officers may search any arrested or convicted person in their custody for any evidence of a criminal offence.
Law enforcement officers may search any vehicle belonging to a detained or arrested person against whom has risen reasonable suspicion of having committed criminal offences. If there is reasonable belief that the vehicle contains evidence to be related to a crime that has been committed inside the vehicle and or a crime in which the vehicle has been used. A search of a vehicle must always be under supervision or warranted by a higher-ranking officer. (rank higher than…?)
Please let me know what you guys think about this addition / executive discussion!
Last edited:
.
