Question about U.S. laws when it comes to terrorism.

ironpony said:

Okay thanks. Well the masks could have been made in several places, and the cops cannot tell what store a mask came from just by looking at them, especially if they are the traditional ski mask type mask, that is made by several companies? Or can they tell by looking? How many places sell ski masks in the summer? If you went to stores, how long a list do you think you'd get? But let's go shopping in January. So you get 10,000 transactions from all the stores. Cool. You now have credit card numbers. Who are the repeat numbers? Or they're using cash. How many cash transactions for ski masks do you think there are? Most store transactions are visually recorded on the security system. You can match the video to the transaction.

Is this guaranteed to produce usable evidence? Maybe. Maybe not. But if you've got the manpower, why not check and see what you get? If nothing else, maybe you can reduce the suspect pool.

Also even though the victims were snatched in places before, that was before, and the cops did not have anything to connect them to any of the suspects. The distance between all the places where they were snatched have nothing to do with each other? How many people do you know that have been in multiple locals separated by a 1,000 miles in the past year? How much faith do you have to have in your car to do crimes where you need to travel a hundred miles? Location can give some more pieces. You look to MO and you try to connect. You connect the absolutelys, the probablys, the maybes, the not likely but let's not exclude them.

How can the police determine who a kidnapper is, just because of how far away two locations were, where the victims were kidnapped from. If a kidnapper has a car with a phony plate that is untraceable, the kidnapper will not mind spending extra gas, to go to a further location. But how much further? And that involves time. How much free time does this guy have? Are there toll booths in the area? Run a check to see what phony plates show up. That isn't available, try running traffic cams for phony plates.

But the kidnapper is going to smart enough to by the gas in gas cans, and then filling up the car later. Can the police get a warrant search everyone in a whole city, who gets his gas in gas cans?

I don't think that the distance between the locations is going to actually get the police to look at particular suspects, unless I am wrong? It's going to rule out suspects. Anything that helps narrow down the pool of suspects is important.

Also as far as the sealed rooms go, the police do not know of any of the locations that the victims were held at. The victims were blindfolded the whole time, and the police never knew where they were. Now that the suspects have gotten off in court for lack of evidence, they know the police are watching them. Okay, let's see if we can define something here. What do you mean that they get off for lack of evidence? First off, there had to be sufficient evidence for an arrest warrant. After the arrest warrant is issued, there are basically three options -- dismissed by prosecutor, dismissed by judge for lack of evidence (in other words, a piece of evidence could not be used), or not guilty by a jury. In all three cases, there's lots of evidence, just not enough, but more than enough to justify a search warrant.

So they will not commit anymore kidnappings, and the only way the police can catch them now, is by listening in to what is going on behind closed doors, or searching for evidence on their properties before they get rid of it. But the police not have any more kidnapping evidence to go by since they cannot get a warrant to get in to look for anything, now that there are two suspects. Okay, maybe I understand this now. Without jeopardy attaching, the case got dismissed. Bad guys have been scared straight (Please excuse me while I laugh. The chances of this happening with a sexual deviant is somewhere between a snowball in hell and less.) but have evidence they need to destroy. (Also extremely unlikely to happen.) So the police figure that if they can find this evidence, they can now get a guilty.

What is the basis for the police believing that the bad guys have evidence (probably souvenirs) that the bad guys are going to want to destroy? And somehow the destruction of this evidence is somewhat complicated. Without a reason for believing this, no one is going to watch them. But once you've got that, you've pretty much got a search warrant.

All you do is argue to the judge that these bad guys had the charges dismissed because of ???, that the police have developed information that the guys are going to destroy some evidence they have, and that the police believe that a wire tap will enable the police to identify where this evidence is.

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

I also asked a cop about getting the credit car numbers to all the masks purchased over the years, but the cop told me that the police are not allowed to this cause it invades people's rights to privacy laws, and the police cannot go digging into every joe citizen's credit card accounts. Police cannot investigate individual transactions without a warrant. Stores can, and do, provide police with a list of transactions for a specific item that will include how they got paid for. Credit card number may appear and possibly names. A search warrant can be obtained for this information if the store doesn't want to turn it over. This list is meaningless until you have a suspect. But once you find a suspect, you can check their credit cards against the list. If you find their number on your list, it's some evidence that shows the suspect bought ski masks. Not much by itself, but it's a brick in the wall. Police can do an inventory of her purse or wallet and see what she has for credit cards.


I already wrote that the police have been checking toll booths and things like that, but it it didn't get them a specific suspect. That's how I wrote it. But now they have suspects, and they can check their vehicle registrations. Again, not enough to give you a lot, but another brick.

In my story what happens is, is that the police were not able to find enough connections between the locations, the cars, and the masks to narrow down a specific suspect, after a these crimes have been going on for months. It's kind of like in the movie M (1931), where the police were not able to get anything specific enough after several kidnappings. But now that they have suspects, you check again. You don't exclude them if they're not on your lists, but it's rare that you don't find them somewhere.

One night a cop on patrol, gets a glimpse of some suspicious activity, he decides to watch, such as two guys search another guy for weapons or a wire, or doing that type of search. The cop decides to follow them very discretely in his unmarked car, not to far, to a secluded location near by. He cannot identify faces from his distance, but he sees they meet up with more men wearing masks and gloves. But he's taking pictures. He's calling for back up. He's going to record car registrations. More and more data to work with.

It's a 'blood in', which is a term for when a gang gets a new member they are recruiting to spill the blood of another person in order to see if that person can be relied upon to be a fellow member. In this case the new member has to assault the new kidnap victim.

As the cop observes, he sees that an innocent kidnapped hostage is about to be likely harmed, so he intervenes, saves the kidnap victim, and manages to arrest one of the suspects, while the others get away in the process. A bit iffy without backup, but it's plausible. But the suspects that escape are going to be telling us stuff. Assuming they use cars, you start looking at traffic cams in the area. You're going to get some registrations. Fingerprints and DNA will be all over the place. Suspects you can put there are especially helpful if they say they have an alibi. You then ask who was with them and that expands your suspect list.

Unbeknownst to the investigators though, the hostage, was actually a fellow gang member posing a hostage, as part of the blood in. The member posing as a hostage, agreed to part of a staged assault, where she wouldn't really take much damage, since it was just a test to see if he could do it. So if this is completely unbeknownst to the police, the police believe the victim at face value and move on. Police have to have some reason to doubt her story.

The reason the gang did this, was in case the new recruit may not have been an undercover cop or something, they did not want to be caught with a real kidnapped hostage, and can create deniability of a crime, should the blood in be a set up.

So when the cop, arrests one of them, and saves the hostage, the hostage then makes up the story, that she and the arrested suspect are actually friends, and they were playing a role playing. So the police can investigate this and see if this is true. And this helps develop your suspect list. She's going to be hanging around gang members.

They say that they went out drinking the night before, met the others, and then brought them back to her property for a role playing fantasy game. The police ask her who the other's are and why they ran, and she says that since she met them and brought them back after a night of drinking, she didn't get their names, and just brought them back to play. Why they ran, she doesn't know and assumes they must be wanted for something else, she says. She of course does not want to name the others. The police ask where she was drinking. Presumably she's going to say some bar. The police then talk to the bar tender. Again, they can get a search warrant to look at all the transactions, including the credit card information.

She also reports a complaint towards the cop who rescued her, saying that he threatened her into testifying against her arrested friend, or he will make things bad for her in the future. Even though it's her word against the cops, she still wanted to complain anyway, just to save face to help her look innocent. The police will investigate, but that takes her story and gives a lot of justification for the police to search further without looking like they're investigating her.

The prosecutor, thinking that these two suspects could be part of the same gang, still tries to take it to a judge to see if there is anything more they can do, but a judge dismisses it on lack of evidence of a crime actually happening, aside from maybe mischief charges. This doesn't go to the judge. There's nothing here to charge them on, and any prosecutor who passed the Bar exam would know this. You send the woman home, with a warning to get a check to see if she has an STD and a warning that this sort of behavior can get you in trouble. Guy receives the male version of this warning. This would be accomplished in about two to six hours.

So there is not enough evidence to charge her or the other suspect, with any crimes, since it was just role playing, on her property, and there is no crime, and no victim of a crime. True, but lots of evidence for the police to search through and work on. After the other gang members get away and escape, they gas down the car with the phony plate and burn it. Which leaves a VIN number for the police to track down, and an arson charge. The building that the cop also spotted the fake blood in in, was also owned by the woman, so it doesn't lead to any other suspects, other than her and the on guy. Again, more information to work on.

Now I showed my story two people in law enforcement and they said that this is all reasonable suspicion that these people would be connected to that same gang, but since they committed no crime with no real victim to determine it, a judge cannot give out search warrants or wire tap orders to continue further in the case. I agree, but now you start working with all your new information. Unlikely you develop absolutely nothing from it. In this type of case, the big problem is getting that first break to the suspect. Once you have that, the police can use their massive resources and work everything. One search warrant I'd request, and fairly easy to get, is to put a GPS tracker on both of their cars. I'd also set up the traffic cams and cruisers to record whenever their cars are seen, which doesn't require a warrant.

So since the two suspects know that they are now on the police's radar, they are not going to participate in any more criminal activity with the rest of the gang and are going to law low. Which is why the police act like they believe her story. Second is I doubt they'll lay low for long. But you're looking for that contact. She said she met them at a bar and now you're getting evidence that they actually knew them. She lied. That's grounds for a wire tap with all the rest of this. Even without the GPS tracker, you can do a lot of tracking of vehicles. Lots and lots of traffic cams and many cruisers are equipped to do it. The only thing they are going to do, is have conversations with the gang on what is happening, and where their progress is at. The cops need to record these conversations to get more, but legally cannot get wire tap orders to do so, I was told.

As far as evidence that the gang needs to make disappear, I am not sure yet. I was throwing it out there as an idea, for the cops to be able to acquire something they could use. The cops' basis for believing that there is evidence that is going to be destroyed would depend on where I go with the story from here, but not sure where to go, since I was told that the cops could not get warrants to record conversations to find out more. I was told by a cop that this is not enough to get legal warrants or wire tap orders to move further. If that is the case, then what?

I am also looking back in the case seeing if I can find any jigsaw puzzle pieces that will build towards a suspect particularly. When it comes to the masks for example, can the police actually check every citizen for who bought one, all around the city, or state even? They could, and have in some extreme cases. More it's to put together lists. The more little pieces you can put together, the better the case develops.

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

jclarkdawe said:

Based upon what you're saying, the alleged victim is quickly believed by the police to be lying to them. Based upon that assumption, most likely the police will talk to her, get a statement from her in writing, confirm with her that she's telling them the truth (believing that she's lying to them but forming a basis for a subsequent charge), and send her on the way. This assumes that the dude they catch tells them basically the same story.

I'm assuming they don't believe the victim in part because of other crimes of a similar nature going on. There may be another reason. But it doesn't seem that this incident matches the crimes. The MO is significantly different. The crimes occur inside rooms, not outdoors. There's also a question of how they are cleaning the crime scene. Normally bleach is used to destroy DNA, and one thing that the police would be looking for is a substantial amount of bleach. Of course, it could be sitting in the trunk of a car.

The basic idea works here, but details in the process get you in trouble. The car got away though. The cop only managed to arrest the one suspect. The car got away, and the other suspects, who are not identified burned the car. How did the suspects get away? Flap their hands and fly? If they ran, that means they live close by or had cars hidden. If they drove, they'll show up on traffic cams. Do you have any idea how many traffic cams there are these days? Many places you can't drive without going a mile without hitting a traffic cam. The woman hostage suspect makes up the story that she didn't get their names while drunk at the bar. That's fine. Did everybody in the bar pay in cash? Bar tender doesn't know any of them? They never plan on going back to the bar? Bar owner is going to give up the bad guys so fast it will make your head spin, or bar owner loses his license. So the police have no names to go on when it comes to who was in the car, that has no traceable plates, since the car was meant not be traceable. The M.O. is suppose to be different. Before the gang was committing real kidnappings, where as this is a blood in. So the difference in M.O. is intentional, and why the cops have trouble connecting the M.O. to the previous kidnappings. Somehow the police have to connect this or they don't have any reason to question her story. I haven't figured out how she is going to successfully lie about the bar, when it comes to the bar cameras though. Perhaps she could talk to a lot of people there, to the point where the police do not know who to look for? They look at everybody. They find one she knows, and they've got proof she's lying.

And the male suspect who is arrested, does not say anything, remains silent and let's her do the talking since it's easier for one person to tell a lying story, compared to two people, where there could be a mismatch in the lies. Then the police are not going to believe her at all. If this was some kinky sex thing, he'd be talking his head off. If he doesn't talk, you know there's a reason for it and they'll start busting his balls. They'll figure she's lying because she's been threatened, and charge him with gang rape and hit him with a million plus bail. He's got to support her story or it isn't going to work. The police cannot charge the suspect with burning the car though, cause he surrendered when the cop came into arrest them, and the others escaped, cause the cop can only hold him under arrest while protecting and rescuing the hostage. So the others escape in their car and then later burn it. So that suspect cannot be charged with that, cause the woman lies and says that she and him met the others while drunk the night before, do not know who they are, and did not make the decision with them, to burn their car. True, but it makes it look like her story is bull shit. Police approach here to getting warrants is the "victim" was lying through her teeth.

I couldn't copy the quote you have below, but I will try to explain some insight on what happens in my scenario.

Yes, the police, once they have a suspect can use the credit car receipt as a brick in the wall, when it comes to that point.

As for checking the suspects vehicles, the suspects would not use vehicles that could be traced back to them, and I assume they would use ones with phony plates, and well as other identifications removed, that can be traced back to any owners. Many police cars now have a camera that reads license plates. If the license plate isn't legit, the cop is notified. You can't remove VIN numbers without removing the entire car. They'd be using stolen vehicles, and that gives the police another line to work. And there's a limit to how long you can work stolen cars without getting caught.

When you say that when the police will check up on the woman's story and she will be hanging around other gang members, what do you mean by that? Do you mean she will be before or after, the blood in was discovered? Presumably they are her friends. People tend to hang around with their friends.

As for the police talking to the bartender the night before, I assume that the gang, if they were to create such a lie, would use cash only. The blood in lies are designed to be used in case the new recruit is an undercover cop and they don't know it. It's always a risk with a blood in. So when coming up with such a lie in case it is, wouldn't the gang already have the drunken night before covered, and pay cash? And they go to some strange bar? You don't think the bar tender would wonder why all these strangers were showing up unless there is a convention is in town. And they're all paying in cash? Bars have to be licensed. They don't want to be involved in crimes. They're likely to ask the cops to send an undercover down to check out the situation. Also if the suspects lie successfully, and get away with it, are the cops allowed to look up credit card information, if their is no evidence to prove that the suspect is guilty of a crime? Once you buy something in a store, the record of the transaction belongs to the store. Many stores will happily give this sort of information to the police. Can the police search a credit card based on reasonable suspicion alone, or do they need probable cause? Neither of these standards are that high, but to investigate a specific bank account they need a search warrant.

The police can look further into the woman, cause she files a complaint, but what will they find based on her filing a complaint only? She doesn't really give them anything specific to fish off of, does she? Because with the complaint, the police can go asking for witnesses at the bar to investigate her complaint.

And yes although a prosecutor would not normally go to court with case on such evidence, the prosecutor has his reasons to try, even though they are not what a prosecutor would normally do, I think his reasons are explained in his character, as he is under pressure, election wise, to stop this violent gang, and at least wants to show that he tried harder, rather than dismissing the only suspect in possible relation to the case he has, in two to six hours. I'd like to be running against this incompetent. Why is he announcing this? This is part of an ongoing investigation and would not be released to the public.

As for the police using the VIN number off the vehicle, since the gang is using this vehicle not only for kidnappings, but also for a blood in, they have no reason to keep the VIN number one, and would logically remove it. Do you know how many places the VIN number is on a car? There are at least two on the engine block, neither of which can be removed and keep the engine running. As for the Arson charge, the cops cannot charge the one suspect they have for that since that suspect surrendered immediately, while the others got away, cause the cop could only detain one, while rescuing the woman. The police cannot prove that this suspect was in collusion with the others, since the woman lies about she and him, meeting them while drunk and not knowing who they are. But if the woman is telling the truth, why torch the vehicle? Both the woman and the man could be charged with conspiracy to commit arson, conspiracy to destroy evidence, lying to the police, and obstruction of justice. Based upon where you want the plot to go, I'd hold off on those charges, but there's enough here for an arrest warrant, and a good chance of winning at trial. And a good likelihood of them being stuck in jail because of a very high bail amount.

How is the woman owning the house more information to go on though? All she does is own the house. It was never used in any of the other crimes, so how is that helpful, evidence wise? Where did she get the money to buy it? Who does the repair work on the house? Who insures it? Who comes over there to visit her?

The fact that the woman lied about meeting the guy in the bar, and they find that out though could work. You say that this and the other evidence is grounds for a wire tap. She signed a statement that says the facts that she wrote in the statement are true. If the cops are really good, they'll get her to swear to it under penalties of perjury. Then they start looking for where they can find out she lied. Did she drive off in a blue car and it was really red? Did she order Manhattans and not Jello shots at the bar? Does she meet any of the dudes involved? As I'm setting this up, lying to the police is a crime. Once they can show she lied on her statement, and can present a coherent argument that she's connected to these rapes, there's enough evidence for a wire tap. But if the vehicle has no VIN number on it, and the suspect surrendered long before the others get away and there is nothing to tie him to the suspects, would that still be grounds for a wire tap?

It seems to me, that maybe the bar evidence is all they have to go on, cause I think the other things you mention, might not have been logically left there as evidence, cause I don't know if the villains would have not covered those. Unless I am wrong?

You got me to think about a lot though. Thank you for your input.

Click to expand...

Jim Clark-Dawe

Click to expand...

ironpony said:

Okay thanks.

I will think about the traffic camera one, and do some research there.

As for the blood in, not having the same M.O. as the other crimes, the police still suspect that it's the same people, cause of the masks and clothes of the suspects, who got away, as well as the arrested suspect. The clothes look the same and the cop saw a kidnapped woman about to be sexually assaulted by the new recruit for the blood in, before he intervened.

The other kidnappings had sexual assaults in them as well, so the cops think it COULD be connected, but they are really wanting to bust the gang and hoping they are.

As for the arrested suspect not opening his mouth to support her story, the suspect has the right to remain silent and does not have to talk. Absolutely. But that doesn't mean the cops are stupid. If he's not talking, there's a reason. So even though she is the only one who tells the story, he is not breaking any laws, and they cannot charge him because there is no witness saying he gang raped anyone. What about the cop??? He saw it, he busted in and interrupted it. All the police have is a witness who said it was just a fantasy role play. So how can they charge him and give him a million bail, with just that one witness, who is not going to accuse him of any crime? Rape victims frequently deny that a rape has occurred. You've got a cop who witnessed a rape, or he didn't have probable cause to break in on the situation. And the police suspect he's connected to multiple rapes. Might lose this at trial, but he's going to stay locked up on high bail. And police are allowed to develop evidence after an arrest.

I was told by a lawyer, when researching that they would have to let him go, because remaining silent is not enough to prove guilt for the charges to stick, especially if there is a witness, who says it was a role play. Is the lawyer I asked, wrong? Did you mention to the lawyer that a cop witnessed this rape? Cop testifies that there was a rape. "Victim" gets up and says it was role play. Couple of experts testify that victims often "minimize" and "deny." Who is the jury going to believe? And the woman's story is going to sound strange to the jurors, who are upright members of the community. They're going to have a hard time understanding a woman volunteering to be gangbanged.

Even if her story looks like bullshit, can they get warrants cause it looks like bullshit or do they need more since again, no crime occurred with this suspect. Have to prove that it is bullshit. Basically the way I wrote it, is that the cop's ask her why the other guy is remaining silent, and she says she doesn't know, and maybe his lawyer advised him not to talk for some reason, but she is just guessing. So basically the cops do not know why he is remaining silent, but there is still no crime. The cops know exactly why he's staying quiet. How dumb do you think the cops are? Even though the story is bullshit, there legally has to be a crime of some sort to move further, doesn't there? A cop witnessed a rape. That's a crime.

You say the police can get a warrant cause the victim was lying through her teeth, but how do they know she is lying through her teeth? Because they work every lead she gives them. This is what the police do. Her story has so many problems that it's going to unravel fairly quickly.

What does the bar being licensed have to do with it? Bars like to keep their licenses. Otherwise, they go out of business. They like to cooperate with the police. The bar is not involved in the crime and wouldn't know anything. The bar tender has a lot of customers to serve and would not be paying attention to the suspects who were there, compared to all the other people. Why would he/she? Bar tenders have to be good at identifying trouble. Bar tenders pay attention to their patrons.

When you say the cops will send a cop undercover, what would the undercover cop do exactly? Look. Listen. Record license plates. Pay attention. Listen for names.

If the police can go asking at the bar to investigate her complaint, perhaps I can use that then. Of course the police can go to the bar to investigate.

Aside from the prosecutor not announcing it to the public, could the public find out another way? Not unless a cop blabs. Well if the prosecutor will not take it to a judge then I will write it so that the case the suspect is let go, for lack of evidence of crime, before it reaches the point where a prosecutor takes it to a judge.

You say that there is a good chance of the suspects going to trial and loosing, but you haven't said on what charges exactly. conspiracy to commit arson, conspiracy to destroy evidence, lying to the police, and obstruction of justice There is no evidence of a kidnapping, assault or unlawful confinement crime since the supposed victim is denying all of it, so what charge would it be? And the cop is a witness to an assault and unlawful confinement.

How can they be charged with conspiracy to arson? For example, if I went to a bar, picked up a woman, then took her home, let's say the next day the cops come, she sees them, and runs out to her car, drives away and burns. The cops will not charge me with conspiracy to arson, because I will tell them that I picked her up last night, and I do not remember her name cause I was drunk, and she took me home. The car is burned so the police can't trace it. It has no plates (plates survive fire.) Here's how this plays out at trial. Cop testifies he saw a rape, busted in, captured the defendant, but a lot of suspects escaped. Then the police discovered a van on fire at the scene or immediately after leaving the scene. The van had no plates. The only reason the police can think of for the van to be torched is to destroy evidence.

Defendant says nothing.

What do you think the jury is going to do?

And upon conviction, the prosecutor is promising the defendant he's going down for ten or more years. Probably at a super-max prison. Of course, if the defendant wants to do some talking, maybe the state could live with a year county time.

What do you think the defendant is going to do?

That will not be enough for a conspiracy to arson charge to stick, so why would it stick in this case? As far as lying to the police, if the police can prove they are lying, then yes. But is their any other proof other than checking with bar staff, who may have been too busy to remember those two specific people, and who they may have met, since they are too busy serving everyone?

Thanks for all the evidence ideas though. Some of them can be enough for a wire tap then. But I still do not understand how they can be charged with conspiracy to arson, or how the crime will stick, just because one told a story, where as the other exercised his right to remain silent and legally didn't have to talk at all. I've defended reasonable doubt cases. They're extremely hard to win. And the police will have a burned van sitting in the parking lot of the courthouse for the jury to look at.

Click to expand...