Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Going from that it seems that both criteria for exigent circumstances would apply, since someone may have been murdered at that flat or such, or in used words, that there was probable cause to believe that a felony occured. Securing evidence would seem plausible too. In how much especially a suspect could wind their way out after being linked to a murder elsewhere, as if calling for a reset of a round of hide and seek, I do not exactly know but would find it ridiculous if he were let go because of a technicality. Meaning that even if completely unrelated case and they take his fingerprints and find out that those fingerprints are of someone looked after in a murder case, I do not think they would ignore it just because it was a different case they took his fingerprints and blood sample in.
Btw, usually good with such threads to have *spoiler* in topic-line.
the the intro of the game..... litaraly nothing is a spoiler here.....
probable cause or not.... you can give an explination for the scream and for the blood and then deny the officer enterance to the flat.... which he ignores... and then searches without warrent after being denyed by the flat owner....
any evidance found that would link him to a crime he commited at the diner would not be able to go to court since the search was denyed and no warrent
hell all the blood in his flat belongs to him anyhow.... which ironicly if the cop finds he cuffs you on the spot...... evidance in the diner case gained from the flat search due to the search being conducted after the owner of said residance denyed enterance and then was forced to be searched anyway.... he would walk
b) Especially when police overstepped their rights to search and seize tho, so-calledly "suppress the evidence" of it at court sure may apply in some cases. E.g. police entered flat I was at and allegedly found a weapon I allegedly held without being allowed to, a suppression ruling sure would seem in place for court to do if there was no probable cause for search of that weapon (such as being used from a window) since otherwise police could be running around planting 'evidence' as they want. But for a police officer suspecting that a felony may have occured as far as happened seems to be justified, including seizing evidence such as the towel followed by blood test of it.
c) Yes, there was no evidence such as the murder weapon from the diner. But my point being that it is quite different whether police seized a pirate DVD of Fahrenheit Indigo Prophecy on one hand, which the defendant surely could call to be suppressed as evidence perhaps even if piracy is deemed a felony since the home entry happened for different reason, and on the other hand the whole thing of him being taken to a station where usualy such as taking fingerprints happens apparently while the blood from the towel and even bed sheets gets analyzed. And at that, as it turned out the person is a searched suspect in a different case and in my opinion justifiably held for just that reason where the defendant hardly could call for suppression of evidence of own identity by fingerprints and blood sample.
As for the side note, this thread doesn't give away story spoiler as such, but in terms of first playthrough one usually gets surprised by police knocking which isn't the case after reading thread such as this one.
i think the most important thing to note that the cop is in the wrong..... is that he asks first....
and then you have the chance to say no... at which point he forces his way in anyway.....
if you get caught off that situation.... lucas says it himself "it wasnt long before they linked me to the murder" but... in court... cause the search had no proabable cause..... he would be let off because.... what you get from his flat... are the matching fingerprints... and a blood sample to match up from the scene of the murder
but that evidance would not be allowed due to the cop being denyed ... and then searching anyway if the cop thought he could barge in anyway..... he wouldnt have asked
And no, the fingerprints were not exactly from the flat but from the person themself after having been arrested to check on suspicion of that a felony happend. Which is quite different to e.g. mentioned having seen a pirate DVD of Fahrenheit on the table even tho the entry was about something different, in which case surely suppression of evidence may be asked for at court eventually dealing with a new case about piracy, ergo meaning such case to be dismissed.
Nevertheless, the defendant of arrested Lukas may perhaps argue that police was not allowed to take his fingerprints. But, assuming that even if they did so not really legally allowed so and they learned by that that Lukas seems to be the prime suspect in a murder case (elsewhere), I doubt that they would treat it as if some game of hide and seek, meaning that the detectives would already know about the identity and have e.g. photo shown to witnesses to reaffirm whether it seems to be him after which they would have his fingerprints taken again anyhow even if court ruled the previous taking of fingerprints to not have been alright so. Whether or not police is allowed to take fingerprints:
http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/criminal-procedure-law/cpl-sect-160-10.html
Whether such also applies to DNA I don't know. But in case of fingerprints, it sounds as normal procedure for fingerprints to be taken since he was arrested on the suspicion of that a felony occured (at the flat) he seemed to be part of. And sure, defendant of the arrested person may argue that since it turned out that no felony happened at the flat that the fingerprints taken in the connection of the flat case can't be retained. But as said, since they already linked him to another case, the detectives of that other case happen to have... well... a hunch some may say perhaps but then enough to be able to have him arrested again respectivly retain him in arrest since already arrested. And that's that in my opinion.
I once had a phone system malfunction where it ended up dialing 911 by itself. When the police showed up at my door I could not refuse them entry - they were required to search the building.
I imagine neighbors reporting screams would fall into the same catagory. The simple fact that he had an excuse doen't suddenly remove any suspician or the right or requirement to search. Anyone could say "It was me" or "It was just the TV" and I seriously doubt many murdereres would tell the police at their door "Yeah, I just hacked someone up. Come right in and gather evidence."