[2 Dismissal] Obstruction of Justice [Binned:01/05/2018]

[Korinra]

Just a thought about a minor crime that could help with a lot of confusion:

i120 - Obstruction of Justice

To willingly prevent officers or investigators from performing their duty in arresting or investigating a crime.

If an officer witnesses a crime, preventing them from arresting would fall under this under any code (as in Code Green, a warrant is only required if an officer did not see the crime). This would also allow for an arrest of anyone who fails to acknowledge a warrant in any code, or an arrest and/or investigation in code blue or red (under their particular requirements). This can also be lying during an investigation to protect a suspect, touching a scene of a crime, or refusing access to an officer who is making an arrest. This would not apply to someone trying to run from the police, for that reference i202 - Resisting Arrest and/or Sparking a Manhunt.

First Offense: 5 minutes

Second Offense: Demotion/Suspension

Fine: 500 Credits

This would be a simple catch-all for people who get in Security's way of doing their job. A minor offense that can easily be pointed at when someone hinders Security from their duty simply because they don't like dealing with Security. Additionally, because of the wording of it, it would never apply to the initial suspect, but rather anyone who gets in Security's way intentionally, either by action or refusal of action. Additionally, as it's a minor crime, it comes with a very short sentencing (like all minor crimes) so it would not impede on game play, but rather add a small annoyance for anyone who interrupts Security's duties.

[Itanimulli]

I can very, very, very very easily see this becoming one of the most irritating things to be subject to on a station,

Literally, you can throw this at anyone.

-1.

Edited April 25, 2018 by Guest

[Synnono]

This should be moved to policy suggestions when possible. I'll take a look soon.

[ben10083]

We already have regulations against this and policies.

For interfering for arrest you get effected by the 'aiding a criminal' policy and get tried for the SAME crime.

For any other interference (like fudging up a crime scene) it is sabotage or vandalism.

and if you refuse a warrant....you are either going to get flashed, batoned, or simply cuffed, and resistance will become resisting arrest.

overall, this is not needed (demotion on a 2nd offense is pretty darn major mate.) and we already have stuff that deals with this just fine.

-1

[K0NFL1QT]

... touching a scene of a crime...

 

Considering your recent thread about noncompliance with the CSI, I can't help but feel you're trying to sneak this into the regulations specifically so you can call foul on doctors taking bodies from a murder to clone them, because you'd rather sequester the body away in your CSI office as evidence than let that player be revived.

[Arrow768]

Moved it to policy.

I am not a huge fan of it, as this is very abuseable.

[MO_oNyMan]

Obstruction of justice is IRL used when

- You lie to an officer (Lying to an officer can be classified as aiding and abetting but i guess you could enforce it with a specific charge)

- You fuck with evidence (Fucking with evidence is already covered by sabotage. If someone walks on your scene yuo can charge them with trespassing. If they touch anything you can charge them with sabotage.)

- You refuse to aid an officer (Refusing to aid an officer is a bit too vague to be enforced as is)

The wording suggests to use it when

- Someone tries to hamper officer making an arrest (which is already covered by aiding and abetting)

- Someone refuses to cooperate with officer with a warrant (which is imo the best part of the suggested regulation as it is not explicitly covered by any regulation as of now)

- Lying to an investigator (which is again sorta covered by a&a but i wouldn't be opposed to having a specific charge for it)

there's also a grey area when a crime scene is situated in some department and people ask for a search warrant to get access to it

All in all if the regulation was reworked to not overlap with sabotage (It would basically be applied for lying to security, failing to acknowledge a warrant and refusing to let security in to check a known crime scene) I would support the suggestion. It fills blind spots in regulations nicely

[Scheveningen]

 

Obstruction of justice/aiding and abetting is already covered under regulations. There is no blind spot here.

[Korinra]

 

Obstruction of justice/aiding and abetting is already covered under regulations. There is no blind spot here.

 

That's true, so then remove the part about lying on behalf of someone, the other two points still stand. If I refuse to open a door because, "You don't have a warrant", I'm not doing it with the intent of preventing you from arresting someone, I'm doing it because I don't believe you should be allowed into my department, even though you saw a crime be committed. If I'm hindering an officer simply because I don't like the officer, I have no intent of helping the suspect, so while I should be considered to be "breaking the law", I shouldn't be as guilty as that person in that situation. I can name other situations too. Refusing to speak to an investigator with a warrant isn't technically illegal. Simply saying, "I have nothing to add to your investigation", any time they ask a question isn't "lying", and you might just be doing it because you think YOU'RE on trial and don't want to get in trouble, essentially it's a refusing to provide useful details. This isn't as simple as 'aiding' a criminal though, it never even uses that kind of terminology in my original post. Simply refusing to even SPEAK with Security isn't "aiding" a criminal, because you don't even know what they're going to ask you. The point here is for the obstinate people who refuse to even be involved, even though they might have information Security wants.

As for me lumping in crime scene stuff. Yes I'm lumping that in. I've asked multiple mods and highly active users and got different answers (sometimes different answers from the same person) on if there is a crime covering that, and which crime it is. There is OBVIOUS confusion about how crime scene laws work, this would be a catchall for anything crime scene related. A minor crime to arrest people on simply to remove them from the crime scene and get them away from the area for a while. Sabotage? No, I disagree with Sabotage for the reason that it words "malicious intent" (To hinder the efforts of the crew or station with malicious intent.). A medical member running in to heal a recently deceased isn't doing so out of malice, so they're not committing sabotage. Trespassing? Not most of the time. That applies to areas the medical staff can't go. What if the person died in a public area though? Like what if someone died in the bar? That's not trespassing unless Security cordons it off, but medical knows about the death WHILE it's happening, and Security finds out about it AFTER, so Medical is usually able to get there first (which could be fixed by making the refresh of the suit sensors slower but that's for another topic). Since these aren't just the opinions of me on these laws, it's clear SOMETHING is confusing to people, and this clears the confusion.

[MO_oNyMan]

If I refuse to open a door because, "You don't have a warrant", I'm not doing it with the intent of preventing you from arresting someone, I'm doing it because I don't believe you should be allowed into my department, even though you saw a crime be committed. If I'm hindering an officer simply because I don't like the officer, I have no intent of helping the suspect, so while I should be considered to be "breaking the law", I shouldn't be as guilty as that person in that situation. I can name other situations too.

Regardless of whether you intend or not to help the suspect refusing an officer access to a crime scene or a witnessed criminal is helping the criminal himself so it is technically covered by a&a. That being said i don't know a lot of people who will take kindly to you wanting to arrest a dickish medic for denying you access even if you're actually in the right by the regs. So i wouldn't mind the new regulation covering denying access to an established crime scene.

 

Refusing to speak to an investigator with a warrant isn't technically illegal. Simply saying, "I have nothing to add to your investigation", any time they ask a question isn't "lying", and you might just be doing it because you think YOU'RE on trial and don't want to get in trouble, essentially it's a refusing to provide useful details. This isn't as simple as 'aiding' a criminal though, it never even uses that kind of terminology in my original post. Simply refusing to even SPEAK with Security isn't "aiding" a criminal, because you don't even know what they're going to ask you. The point here is for the obstinate people who refuse to even be involved, even though they might have information Security wants.

we don't technically know anything about Biesel law and how it operates with such situation but IRL it is called "the right to remain silent". So i think if someone doesn't want to talk to security he can opt to not do so as a nod to this right. Deliberately lying instead of keeping quite on the other hand is throwing off the investigation and is punished by IRL obstruction of justice charge. While it is technically covered by aiding and abetting as well i wouldn't mind this new regulation covering lying to security (not refusing to speak mind you)

 

As for me lumping in crime scene stuff. Yes I'm lumping that in. I've asked multiple mods and highly active users and got different answers (sometimes different answers from the same person) on if there is a crime covering that, and which crime it is. There is OBVIOUS confusion about how crime scene laws work, this would be a catchall for anything crime scene related. A minor crime to arrest people on simply to remove them from the crime scene and get them away from the area for a while. Sabotage? No, I disagree with Sabotage for the reason that it words "malicious intent" (To hinder the efforts of the crew or station with malicious intent.). A medical member running in to heal a recently deceased isn't doing so out of malice, so they're not committing sabotage.

For tampering with evidence the general consensus have been the application of sabotage. However the wording of it is questionable if we're talking about stupidity, not malicious destruction. However even in that case neglect of duty and aiding and abetting applies (since you're helping the criminal by destroying evidence). I'm not a huge fan of a&a being a catch all exception. Wording of sabotage or NoD could be corrected to fit such infraction somewhat nicer or a new one could take this instance on itself (however in that case punishment for it should be increased)

 

Trespassing? Not most of the time. That applies to areas the medical staff can't go. What if the person died in a public area though? Like what if someone died in the bar? That's not trespassing unless Security cordons it off, but medical knows about the death WHILE it's happening, and Security finds out about it AFTER, so Medical is usually able to get there first (which could be fixed by making the refresh of the suit sensors slower but that's for another topic). Since these aren't just the opinions of me on these laws, it's clear SOMETHING is confusing to people, and this clears the confusion.

 

Medical is entitled to take over both when the crewmember is injured but not dead (as is the case with the presented example) and immediately after the crime scene is processed. If medics find out about the dead crewmember and don't notify security you once again can apply neglect of duty with the blessing of HoS and aiding and abetting if it was murder and not an accident

[Synnono]

This would be a simple catch-all for people who get in Security's way of doing their job.

 

This is more or less why I am opposed to this. It has a similar feel to the suggestion that proposed letting security officers authorize their own warrants.

Regulations and authorizations are arguably in place to provide a framework for security to do their jobs within. Adding "catch-alls" for situations that would otherwise control security behavior leaves officers free to do as they please, and opens up extra potential for player abuse. Having something on the books like this allows a bad officer to note someone they don't like near a crime scene, tag them twice with the regulation during the investigation, and get them demoted. The proposed punishments would not even stop that person from coming back and continuing to obstruct security in the event that they ARE actually obstructing them.

In a perfect world, good officers would only use something like Obstruction of Justice when it is valid and necessary. My feeling is that it wouldn't work that way in practice, and there are other tools available for an officer to get a troublesome person away from an investigation.

Also, as a side note, security is not the police and does not exist to mete out justice, despite the memes. We'd want to change the name to something else if we kept this.

The above is my two cents on this. I posted this thread to the CCIA team Discord channel last week, and asked them to contribute here with any thoughts about this. As none seem to have any, and all I have is my own opinion to put down, right now I'm voting for dismissal.

[Faris]

Not supporting a catch all. Syn already echo'd my stance but it boils down to the fact catch-alls will result in "technically legitimate" abuse, current regulations are fine as you'll need to be specific.

Voting for dismissal.