07-28-2021, 03:10 PM
"When you've run into a wall with no place to go, return to the basics." -Miles Edgeworth.
The basics in this instance are as follows:
The Affidavit was notarised by an interested party. This is not allowed.
To identify someone, one of the following circumstances need to have happened:
Ways to Identify someone IC'ly:
-You have their F3
-They Identify themselves to you, verbally giving you their full name / unique nickname
-Someone who has their F3 Identifies them to you
-You have viewed their ID card or searched their person (See Police rules section)
-If someone has committed an offense against you (Act of violence, mugging, etc) you may recognize them based on their voice and clothing for up to 20 minutes afterwards. Players may change clothes or lay low during this time to avoid recognition.
I don't think any of the above circumstances applied.
Certainly one could argue the good faith exception (even though this is an OOC issue), but the good faith exception clearly states that the police MUST be acting in good faith, measured by the reasonable person rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). I am of the opinion that a reasonable person certainly would have asked how the man identified the don as being Antonio Manuel or whatever his name is.
On the topic of discord. Here is a quote from Don Manuel: "Update: These discords were not used for ic shit it was used to find some1 to contact to then trade ic in game.".
This is not allowed and will be considered IC as per the following rule: "However to cover the fact that some people may use this to skirt the rules if IC conversations are specified by both parties or is obviously done in IC in DMs (Example: A sale or deal that would take place in IC after discord confirmation) then it can be considered as IC by the reviewing Admins."
Therefore, to summarize:
The affidavit was not notarised correctly.
The evidence naming the people directly is null and void as it fails the recognition test.
The evidence gathered via discord is IC. You may not put "this is ooc" in an attempt to avoid LEOs.
The Good Faith exception applies if a reasonable person believes the evidence to be true. Would a reasonable person believe this to be true? I am of the opinion that a reasonable person would ask more questions before initiating procedures. And if someone obtained a name via discord, then the OOC/IC test must apply. Did they obtain it by looking on the sidebar? That would be OOC. Or did the person directly talk to the criminal informant and tell them their name? That would be IC.
The basics in this instance are as follows:
The Affidavit was notarised by an interested party. This is not allowed.
To identify someone, one of the following circumstances need to have happened:
Ways to Identify someone IC'ly:
-You have their F3
-They Identify themselves to you, verbally giving you their full name / unique nickname
-Someone who has their F3 Identifies them to you
-You have viewed their ID card or searched their person (See Police rules section)
-If someone has committed an offense against you (Act of violence, mugging, etc) you may recognize them based on their voice and clothing for up to 20 minutes afterwards. Players may change clothes or lay low during this time to avoid recognition.
I don't think any of the above circumstances applied.
Certainly one could argue the good faith exception (even though this is an OOC issue), but the good faith exception clearly states that the police MUST be acting in good faith, measured by the reasonable person rule (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person). I am of the opinion that a reasonable person certainly would have asked how the man identified the don as being Antonio Manuel or whatever his name is.
On the topic of discord. Here is a quote from Don Manuel: "Update: These discords were not used for ic shit it was used to find some1 to contact to then trade ic in game.".
This is not allowed and will be considered IC as per the following rule: "However to cover the fact that some people may use this to skirt the rules if IC conversations are specified by both parties or is obviously done in IC in DMs (Example: A sale or deal that would take place in IC after discord confirmation) then it can be considered as IC by the reviewing Admins."
Therefore, to summarize:
The affidavit was not notarised correctly.
The evidence naming the people directly is null and void as it fails the recognition test.
The evidence gathered via discord is IC. You may not put "this is ooc" in an attempt to avoid LEOs.
The Good Faith exception applies if a reasonable person believes the evidence to be true. Would a reasonable person believe this to be true? I am of the opinion that a reasonable person would ask more questions before initiating procedures. And if someone obtained a name via discord, then the OOC/IC test must apply. Did they obtain it by looking on the sidebar? That would be OOC. Or did the person directly talk to the criminal informant and tell them their name? That would be IC.
-
x1
-
-
x1
- ChrisGM
-