If you’re such an expert, how did you manage to cram so many fallacies into one post?
1. Wrong. Reasonable Suspicion is all that’s needed to stop/detain a subject. Did you fall asleep when your instructors were “drilling” you on Terry v Ohio? You might want to take another look at the case before you shoot your mouth off again.
2. Semi-Wrong. A case is not invalidated because a suspect’s rights per Miranda haven’t been read. It’s possible to convict a suspect of a crime without ever having to question the suspect about the crime they’re being accused of. Possible, but unlikely.
3. Wrong. Where the fuck did you get this from? If you paid attention when your instructors covered Miranda v Arizona you’d know that the Miranda Warning needs to be read only if two things are happening: Custody & Interrogation. Now, if an officer takes you into custody, but asks you how you like your steak cooked, he doesn’t need to Mirandize you. While in custody, the questions have to pertain to the crime you’re being accused of or Miranda doesn’t apply.
4. Wrong. I’m starting to see a pattern of ignorance unfolding here. An officer does not have to mirandize his arrestee during “the arrest phase.” As I said before Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. An officer doesn’t have to mirandize until the suspect is in custody and being questioned about the crime he is being accused of. Until those two criteria are met, Miranda doesn’t apply. Also, if there is imminent danger to the police or the public, the suspect doesn’t need to be Mirandized. E.G. A cop is involved in a gun battle near a school when class is getting out. There’s a lull in the action and the suspect ditches his firearm and attempts to abscond, but is taken into custody. The officer realizes that the gun isn’t on the suspect or anywhere nearby after searching him incident to the arrest. The officer questions the suspect vis a vis the location of the firearm without first mirandizing the suspect since the officer and the public are in imminent danger due to the weapon being unaccounted for. In this case, that weapon can be found by a schoolchild and potentially be used (most likely inadvertently in this case) to harm the officer and/or the public, therefore Miranda wouldn’t apply.
5. Wrong. Are you making things up now? Have you ever heard of exigent circumstance? If there’s gunfire coming from inside of a house, or a woman can be heard screaming for help from inside of a house, or an officer on the sidewalk looks into the living room of a house and can see illegal drugs being consumed, the door can be kicked down and officers can make entry without a warrant to search the premises. There is no need for a signed warrant from a magistrate when exigent circumstances or some elements of plain view doctrine exist.
One thing thing you have to remember is that this is a video game and this server is red v blue with some RP sprinkled on top. I expect liberties to be taken. It wouldn’t be fun for the average person wanting to play APD if he had to RP identity, mirandize, and memorize the penal code. For the sake of the game, the APD know who you are, they know what you’ve done, and they can ticket you and/or jail you for what you’ve done. If that’s not your thing, then you know where the door is.