UK vs. US CSI, Lying about Immunity, Ring Doorbell Footage

 I'm Adam Richardson, and this is the Writer's Detective Bureau, the podcast dedicated to helping authors and screenwriters write professional quality crime related fiction. Welcome to Episode 126, but in many ways, it's really Episode 1. It is Episode 1, as far as me getting in front of a camera. As of today, the Writer's Detective Bureau is now a video podcast, which you can find on YouTube.

As I record this, I have five subscribers on my YouTube channel, and all they've been doing is listening to the audio only backlist of the podcast. So if you'd like to check out my brand new YouTube channel, the easiest way to find me is by going to writers detective.com/youtube and that will redirect you right to my channel.

I think channel needs to hit 500 subscribers before I can get a real. channel name. In addition to turning this podcast, uh, where I answer your questions into a video podcast, I will also be using the YouTube channel to post tips and insights for writing about crime. This has been a long time coming.

I've never been a huge fan of being on camera or in pictures in general, uh, but that wasn't why I didn't really post videos before. A very legitimate reason was because I had pending murder trials that I was going to be testifying in, and I really didn't want to have any of my online content be brought into a courtroom.

Not that any of it would have hurt me or the cases that I was involved in, but it seemed cleaner that way. Now, though, those cases have finally run their course, and as I record this, I'm less than 18 months away from retirement, which led me to confront a very real issue, a reality, if you will, and it's one that I bet most of you struggle with as well, or at least outright avoid.

I've been playing small. Using my work, uh, what my co workers, what a jury, or attorneys in a court case might think, uh, or what trolls of the internet might think and say as an excuse not to play big. It's time for both of us, you and me, to stop playing small. See, the thing is, when we decide to play big, We think everyone is going to judge us.

Reality is that no one's paying attention to anyone but themselves. When people do talk smack, it's a reflection of who they are, how they're hurt, and how they need to work on themselves. It's not a reflection on how we're doing in the arena. Like everyone else learning to play big, regardless of whether we are winning or learning, we're growing.

So, I urge you to look at where you are playing small. In your writing career, or in your life, where you know you should be stepping out of your comfort zone and striving for what you know you deserve, even if you feel guilty for wanting it. But you might be thinking, but wait, I've already tried that.

Things were going great until Until you hit what psychologist Gay Hendricks calls an upper limit problem, if you struggle with those things that seem to happen just when things are finally going great, then you need to read or listen to this book. I'll leave links to the book in the show notes at writers detective.

com forward slash one twenty six or in the description below if you're watching this on YouTube. It's already October of twenty twenty two. The last few years have been a crazy time machine, and if you're like me, your head is spinning at how fast the calendar pages are flipping by, which is why we need to start playing big and stepping into who we are capable of becoming.

Alright, pep talk over, let's do this. Our first question comes from Silver Cufflink patron Richard Kirkman, who writes, Thanks for all of the great information you provide on your podcast, I've become addicted to it. You mentioned that you're in England, which I was during the previous episode, uh, prompts me to ask something I've been curious about for a long time.

In contemporary crime shows from the UK or Commonwealth, there seems to be quite a difference in how CSI officers and detectives present, act, and dress at homicides versus how it's depicted in U. S. crime shows, or even what we see on the news here. In the UK, CSIs and sometimes detectives are dressed in white slippered.

The victim in situ is always protected by a tent. There are even things laid down on the floor or ground for investigators to step on in some crime scenes so as not to disturb any possible evidence. First, is that a true difference even in large U. S. city departments, and if so, why? I know the U. K. police have much more centralized and probably more standardized procedures than our fragmented jurisdictions.

Do you think it makes a difference in the effectiveness of investigation and prosecution? Thanks again, looking forward to your answer. Excellent questions, Richard, and I've noticed the same thing. I think the way the UK and the Commonwealth CSI folks conduct a more sterilized crime scene investigation is most definitely a best practice that the US could learn from.

The white suits Richard is referring to are Tyvek suits, disposable, plasticated, paper like suits that, in theory, should keep you from shedding your DNA all over the crime scene. We do have access to Tyvek suits, but we tend to primarily use them for hazmat situations, like back when we had a major problem with clandestine meth labs popping up all over the country.

I've been in some very bloody crime scenes where a Tyvek suit should have been worn, would have been great to have, um, but they weren't offered up to me. We do use those blue surgical booties on our shoes quite often to keep from tracking blood all over a crime scene, but that's been about it from... Or at least for where I work, I've seen the platforms that Richard refers to like metal two foot by one foot plates that are placed, um, on the ground.

They're elevated off the floor by about three inch tall feet, like one in each corner. Uh, but that's been a relatively recent addition to my department CSI team. At least, um, I've not seen that widely adopted in the U S yet. Uh, but back to the Tyvek suits. The problem with the Tyvek suits is that they are non breathable.

Let me tell you that I am a sweater. Not like a Christmas sweater, or jumper if you're from the UK. I mean, I sweat profusely when I wear even a windbreaker. So even if the Tyvek suit kept me from leaving arm hairs with my DNA in the crime scene, my socks are going to be wet from perspiration. Too much info.

But I think comfort is a main reason why we tend not to wear them in the US. Along with budget. Tyvek suits are relatively cheap, about 5 per suit in the US, but like latex gloves, you're tossing it after each use, and that certainly eats into a budget quickly given how busy our CSI units are in the United States.

Really though, it comes down to whether crime scene contamination by investigators has become enough of an issue in court. Until we have a major case that hinges on our not wearing them, I don't really see us adopting that best practice until we're forced to. It's not about the money, it's about the money.

Our next question comes from Sean Watson who writes, Hello Adam, thank you for all your time and effort putting together the podcast and your research for these questions. I recently watched an episode of Law Order where a detective lied to a suspect. promised her immunity, and then arrested her when she confessed.

This raised two questions for me. One, how far are the police allowed to lie when talking to witnesses, suspects, or persons of interest? And two, would such a deception have any impact on the credibility of other testimony from that officer, or put that officer on the Brady list? Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Sean. Thanks for the questions, Sean. We are allowed to use a ruse or a certain amount of deception when talking to suspects, but there are limitations on how far we can push it. The landmark decision is Florida v. K word. And that sets the limitation to being deceptions that cannot shock the conscience of the court, nor can we fabricate false evidence.

So as an example, I can say your DNA was found at the scene, but I cannot fabricate a fake DNA lab result, lest that fake lab results somehow get confused as actual evidence. But lying about immunity is a whole other matter. If you tell someone they have immunity, whether you have the authority to grant it to them or not, It pretty much applies from that point forward.

Using the fruit of the poisonous tree theory from the exclusionary rule, like if I obtained a confession after a suspect invoked their right to not talk to me, whatever the suspect that was falsely told they had immunity admitted to, or revealed, would likely not be admissible as evidence. While it would certainly damage the case, let's say I told you I granted you immunity and I don't have the authority to do so, or I just flat out lied to you about immunity, but then you confess to a murder and you tell me where the body is hidden, neither your confession nor the body that we find based upon your admission would be admissible.

It's hard to prove a murder when the body itself and the findings we glean from it are not admissible. But it wouldn't necessarily mean the officer would end up on the Brady List. So what is the Brady List? Prosecutors are obligated to provide evidence. Exculpatory and impeaching information to the defense about peace officers.

And this stems from the 14th Amendment as it relates to due process, and specifically how the United States Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. Maryland in 1963. In other words, each prosecutor's office, like your local district attorney's office, must maintain a list of law enforcement officers that have sustained allegations, meaning confirmed allegations of criminal convictions, untruthfulness, or any other issue that brings that officer's credibility into question.

When we're talking about untruthfulness, we aren't talking about using a ruse in an interview. We're talking about Liing to internal affairs, if they're investigating a complaint, or perjury on a witness stand, or in a warrant, or falsifying official records, like intentionally lying in an official police report.

As a cop, you do not get a second chance at being branded a molester. a liar. We swear to tell the truth to get search warrants and arrest warrants issued. We swear, certify, or affirm that the contents in our police reports are true to the best of our knowledge. Being entrusted by the public means maintaining that trust.

If an officer is found to have done something and added to the Brady list, the prosecutor's office Can demand the police agency not forward any cases, meaning reports or investigations where that officer is a witness, meaning that they had any involvement with the case whatsoever because the prosecutor will refuse to call that officer as a witness, nor do they want that officer being called in by a defense attorney for their involvement in that case.

So what's an officer to do if they can't be part of an investigation? If they can't do their job because they are branded as being uncredible, not much really. Most often, those officers are terminated. There are problems with the Brady List, though. As far as I'm aware, most states do not provide any due process for officers added to a Brady List.

Many states won't even divulge to the officer why they were added to the Brady List. So I anticipate a push for due process on behalf of individual officers in the future if protocols for adding officers to Brady Lists aren't clearly spelled out. Before we get to our last question, I want to give a very heartfelt thank you to my Patreon patrons, especially over the last few months.

My coffee club patrons, my Silver Cufflink patrons, and my Gold Shield patrons like Debra Dunbar from Deborah dunbar.com. CC Jameson from CC jamon.com. Vicki Tharp of Vicki tharp.com. Larry Darter, Natalie Borelli, Craig Kingsman of Craig kingsman.com. Robert Mendenhall of Robert j mendenhall.com. Marco Carri of Marco carri.com.

Rob Kerns of Knights fall press.com. Mariah Stone of mariah stone.com. Kaylee and Aurora Jacobson, thank you so much for your support. You have no idea how much it means to me. Our next question comes from Victoria Kazarian, who writes, I have a question about how footage from home security cameras or devices like ring would be used as evidence.

If a crime is recorded on one, would the homeowner have to surrender that footage to the police and would they still be able to keep a copy themselves? Adam, I've podcast for the past few years and I've learned so much from it. Thank you for being such a great research resource for mystery writers. Well, thank you so much, Victoria.

It is definitely a privilege to be able to help writers like you. So would a homeowner have to surrender that ring footage to the police? They'd only have to if the police presented them with a search warrant for the footage. Realistically, the police would ask the homeowner to voluntarily provide the footage, which as a ring user myself.

would technically be a digital copy of what was recorded. So yes, the homeowner would still have a copy of the recording saved to their Ring cloud account. To the best of my knowledge, Ring doorbells do not have their own internal DVR or digital video recorder, uh, so that footage is pushed out to the cloud.

Remember though, that the cloud really means someone else's computer. So with that in mind, if the homeowner flat out refused to assist the police, or let's say the police have no way of actually reaching the homeowner, the police could write a search warrant and serve it on ring, meaning serving the company ring LLC to obtain the footage.

In fact, if you go to ring. com and click on the Terms of Service, you'll find a pretty common TOS statement that reads, in addition to the rights granted above, you also acknowledge and agree that Ring may access, use, preserve, and or disclose your content to law enforcement authorities, government officials, and or third parties if legally required to do so.

Uh, and it goes on to say deleted content and ring protect recordings may be stored by ring in order to comply with certain legal obligations and are not retrievable without a valid court order, which means there's a possibility the police might still be able to use a warrant to get a copy of the video, even if the homeowner deleted the video.

Thanks for your question, Victoria. I hope this helps with your next mystery writing session. Thank you so much for listening this week. This show is powered by your questions. Send them to me by going to writersdetective. com forward slash podcast. Thanks again for listening. Have a great week and write well.