Viewing American Society VI from "FireWire"

Marcus 2022-09-26 16:05:29

As mentioned earlier, the police leadership has pushed Daniels into a dilemma. The case cannot be handled too well. Otherwise, the police leadership will not be able to hold on to the face, nor can it be handled too badly, otherwise it will not be able to explain to the court. At the same time, the task force is also distracted, contradictory, and each has ghosts—Rawls and others have placed eyeliners (Santangelo, Santangelo) inside the task force to control its internal situation at any time. At the first task force meeting, McNulty quarreled with Daniels because of investigative tactics. Daniels insisted on using the "fishing" method to arrest him under Burrell's instruction, but it was obvious that this could only be done. Capture a few low-level horses, it is impossible to touch Barksdale, Sjunger and others.
However, McNulty was also a person who did not see the coffin and did not cry. Although he was scolded by the leader and his mood was extremely bad, he would not give up as long as the case did not proceed according to his ideas (see picture). It just so happened that at this time, the Barksdale Group killed William Ganter, the only witness in the Di-Angela case, in order to kill the chickens and the monkeys. You know, the killing of prosecution witnesses is a very serious problem for the police. In Baltimore, the problem is ten times more serious than other places. Because the drug cartel is powerful, no one wants to testify in court. Witnesses are killed again. The situation, the consequences are disastrous. How serious is this matter? After this incident was stabbed to the media, Landsman’s words can be interpreted: “Even if McNulty and the wife of the deputy bureau were arrested and raped in bed, there would be no such incident (the witness was killed). It will have a greater impact on his future.”
But McNulty was already a big deal at this time- he was determined. After learning of this, he went to Judge Faerun to leak the secret as soon as he tried to pass the court again. The police department pressured the police department to deploy elite soldiers to investigate the case.
At the same time, in order to confirm that William Gantt was killed because of testimony-in Baltimore, you can be killed for 10,000 reasons, so William Ganter may not necessarily be killed because of testimony, such as the first time the police officers were killed. This possibility is denied-Jimmy (McNulty's nickname) and Bunker, the old pair, took Dee back to the police station, questioned him, and tried to find some clues.
Next, McNulty and Bunker showed us the superb methods of obtaining confessions-coaxing, deceiving, intimidating, and defrauding the Baltimore Police Department. These methods will be seen repeatedly in different cases and different scenes in the future. This time The main use is to coax and deceive. Here, in order for everyone to understand this drama better, I want to explain some of the evidence collection methods of the US police.
We know that in the process of investigating and prosecuting criminal cases, the police have many methods that may violate civil rights and civil liberties. Some violations are larger and more obvious, while others are smaller and more concealed. For example, detention directly restricts civil liberties and has the greatest impact on the rights of citizens. In the case of stalking and wiretapping, violations of civil rights are relatively small or concealed. The general idea of ​​the American judicial system is that the greater the impact on the rights of citizens, the stricter the restrictions. For example, the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution mentioned early on that a search must be approved by the court. When the police are investigating the case, if they feel that a search is necessary, he must contact the prosecutor and help him apply for the judge's search permit. The U.S. Constitution stipulates that citizens have the right not to be subjected to unreasonable searches. Who is in charge of what is reasonable or unreasonable? Judge. If it is approved by the judge, it is considered reasonable. What are the judges' standards? That is, there must be sufficient evidence to prove that there may be clues to the crime in the searched place. The judge sees the written explanation from the police. If there is any evidence that meets the general standard, the judge will approve the search. If it does not meet this standard, it will not approve it. This is a basic principle, but there are many exceptions. For example, in an emergency situation, the police not only have sufficient reasons to suspect that there are clues to a crime in the searched place, but he also has enough reason to suspect that if the search is not carried out immediately, the clues and evidence will be destroyed. We call this an emergency. In an emergency, the police can directly conduct a search, but if the evidence found in the search is to be used in court, it must be reviewed. That is to say, the defendant has the right to request that these evidences be excluded (not presented in court). If there is such a request, then the court will hold a hearing for the trial to see if his search is legal and whether there is an emergency. , Is there a basis for criminal clues, so it is very questionable if the police conduct a search without obtaining the court’s approval in advance. He knew that in the end, he had to go through a court review before his evidence could be used. Therefore, it is best for the police to contact the prosecutor before the search. In this regard, the prosecutor is equivalent to the police’s legal adviser. Especially in an emergency, the police call the prosecutor and say that we are too late to go to the court. Do you think this is the case? Searches can be conducted, and the role of the prosecutor at this time is the legal adviser. Therefore, although the judge does not participate in the specific actions of the search, he has a very important role and decision-making power (of course, the judge is also restricted, and the final conviction is not the judge, but the jury). At the same time, the defense lawyer also has the right, of course, not at the scene, but the prosecution said that some of the evidence was obtained through search during the prosecution.
In other aspects, judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers also have certain rights and functions. For example, eavesdropping. Eavesdropping is considered to be one of the most important detection methods affecting citizens’ rights in the United States. A citizen does not know that a government official is eavesdropping on his conversations. This has a very large impact on his right to privacy, so he cannot be allowed to The police easily tapped. Eavesdropping is a search, it is searching for an invisible thing, it is the content of human conversation. According to the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, searches affect citizens’ right to privacy, which belongs to citizens, but citizens can also waive this right, so searches can be conducted with the consent of the parties involved. In other words, if you did not get a search warrant in the court, and asked the parties if they could search, the parties agreed, then the search is completely legal in this case. But this consent must be completely voluntary, and fully understand the results of the consent search. Why mention consent? Because it has a special meaning in eavesdropping. Undercover police and secret informants are often used when investigating major cases in the United States. These two methods of detection are very effective, because if the suspect’s own words can be recorded, the video tape or tape will be put on the court when the court is in session. What the jury heard is the most convincing evidence. The concept of eavesdropping here is that the undercover policeman or the secret informant carries a tape recorder on his body, and if he agrees to record his own conversation, it is considered legal. Because two people are talking, I have my right to privacy, and you have your right to privacy, but our conversation is not confidential to me. You are willing to share your information with me, so I have the right to record our conversation Down as the most accurate and reliable evidence. If the two criminal suspects are in a conversation, and there is no undercover police or secret informant present, and no one of the participants agrees, if the law enforcement agency wants to eavesdrop, it will have to go through quite complicated and difficult legal procedures. Because Americans believe that privacy rights are highly threatened in this situation, if the police wants to take action, he must contact the prosecutor to see if they meet the eavesdropping conditions. Simply put, the condition of wiretapping is that when other detection methods are invalid, there is a lot of evidence that there is likely to be a dialogue related to the crime in that place or that phone. At the same time, wiretapping can only be used when a more important crime exists. Finally, if the prosecutor feels that the conditions are met, he must obtain the approval from the headquarters of the US Department of Justice before he can apply for the judge's approval. After the judge's approval, he can conduct wiretapping. The specific wiretapping is the job of the police, but prosecutors and judges play a very important role in the approval process. In the process of wiretapping, it is also supervised by the prosecutor’s judge, for example, it There is a time limit. Prosecutors have to report to the judge every ten days to see the results of the wiretapping. If there is no result, they cannot continue; if there are problems, they cannot continue. Eavesdropping approval is only valid for 30 days, if you want to continue, you must apply again. If the eavesdropping has a result, the defense lawyer has a chance to exclude the result of the eavesdropping during the trial, so the defense lawyer can also play a role in the eavesdropping. (These details can be seen one by one in "FireWire")
Some investigative methods may not have as great an impact on privacy as wiretapping and search, and according to the laws of the United States, the police cannot completely make their own decisions. For example, during the investigation stage, it is necessary to obtain the suspect’s bank account, or have some other records, but not everyone can go to the bank to ask for it, and even the police cannot take the police card and tell the bank that I want something. The police do not have this right for the person’s account and all the documents on the account. According to U.S. law, the police must approve the prosecutor if they need such documents. The legal procedure is somewhat different from the actual one. Legally, only one type of subpoena order can be used. In fact, what we use is the so-called grand jury subpoena order. Banks must provide bank information when receiving a subpoena from a grand jury. The subpoena from a grand jury is actually an order of a judge. The judge authorizes the prosecutor, and the summons order is handed over to the police for implementation. After the documents are obtained, the police have to hand it over to the grand jury, in fact it is handed over to the prosecutor. In the investigation stage, not all rights belong to the police. Perhaps the role played by the police in the investigation stage is the most important. It is specifically for investigative work. However, he is restricted and directed by the prosecutor in all aspects, and must be controlled in all aspects. Subject to the supervision and restriction of the court, we must also consider that the case is subject to legal and judicial supervision when it is submitted to the court.
Of course, many methods of investigation are to interrogate criminal suspects, and American law has special restrictions on this. Miranda warned that everyone probably knew that this was based on a 1967 Supreme Court case. Before 1967, there was no clear legal requirement, and various states used some methods similar to Miranda's warning. If the Miranda warning was not issued before 1967 in the United States before interrogating criminals in custody or whose freedom was restricted, the confessions obtained were considered illegal and could not be used. The content of Miranda’s warning is familiar to everyone, that is, when a person is caught, the police must tell him what his rights are, he has the right to silence, he has the right to hire a lawyer, and if he doesn’t have money to hire a lawyer, the court can arrange one for him free of charge. If you are willing to give up the right of a lawyer, you can give up, and what he said can be used as evidence. After this warning, if the suspect is willing to speak, the police can interrogate him. If at the beginning of answering the police's question, the suspect changes his mind and says that I don't want to speak anymore, then the questioning is over. If the criminal suspect says I am willing to talk to you, but I require my defense lawyer to be present, he can ask after the defense lawyer comes. When a criminal suspect is being questioned, the defense lawyer has another important role. Either he can be present, or he cannot be questioned if he is not present.
The opportunity to inquire is not a long time. Because the accusation and restriction of freedom in the United States occur almost simultaneously, that is, when the police arrests a person, they are obliged to take him to the court immediately. Only the judge can make the decision to detain a person (whether he is released on bail pending trial). The police and prosecutors do not. s right. All measures that affect and restrict the rights of citizens must be protected. The stricter the restrictions or the more important the rights, the more comprehensive protection he will receive. Therefore, custody is the most important right involving civil liberties. Neither the police nor the prosecutor can be the master, and it must be made by the judge through the procedures of the court. It is said that the arrested criminal suspect should be brought to the court immediately, which is flexible. Generally speaking, it is the same day, if caught on Monday morning, you have to take it to the court in the afternoon; if caught in the afternoon, you have to take the following morning Take it to the court, and wait until Monday to catch it on weekends. (There is no detention center in the United States. The police to which the guards belong is one of the major ills in our country that needs reform.) If you have not hired a lawyer when you arrive at the court, the court has a rigid obligation to hire a lawyer for him. Since that time, the suspect and the police have been in an equal confrontation system. He has been charged and he has a defense lawyer. If the prosecution asks for detention and the defense lawyer objects, a hearing will be held to decide whether to detain. Regardless of whether it is in custody or not, from this moment on, if the prosecution wants to question the defendant, it must obtain the consent of the defense lawyer.

View more about The Wire reviews

Extended Reading

The Wire quotes

  • Det. William Moreland: [repeated line to McNulty] Happy now, bitch?

  • [repeated line]

    State Sen. R. Clayton 'Clay' Davis: SHIIIIIT