Cops looting bodies?

[tenkar]

Well, on the classic episode of "Married with Children", where the sky diving Santa Claus crash lands in the Bundy's lawn, as the cop is leaving, he gives Al a tip

"Don't die with your jewelry on!" and grins, flashing some rings that the dead Santa had been wearing.

As a real world cop I can tell you that the above quote is usually directed toward the members of the fire department... even my great-grandmother used to talk about firemen putting silverware in their boots (why else would they need such oversized boots?)

And from personal experience, having been evicted once, the police (along with the "movers") stole quite a bit of stuff.

So it might not be lawful and good, but it's pretty common and apparently acceptable.

I'm sorry for the loss of your property. In my jurisdiction the police department does not get involved in evictions... depending on where the court order comes from it is either the City Sheriff or the City Marshal that oversees the eviction.

All that being said, there are dishonest cops just like there are dishonest members of every profession on earth... any stranger who enters your home has the potential to be a member of that small minority.

 

[JDJblatherings]

Ever see the movie Soylent-Green...nevr mind the food stuff. The police in that film are buzzards , they supplement their living by looting the homes of victims and criminals.

How much does the lady of pain really care aboutprivate property? i'd warrant she doesn't give a darn as long as the city isn't knocked out of whack by such activity.

 

[Ambrus]

How much does the lady of pain really care aboutprivate property? i'd warrant she doesn't give a darn as long as the city isn't knocked out of whack by such activity.

It's not so much about what the Lady of Pain would allow, but what the city's government will legally sanction. Sigil's municipal code is an agreed upon set of rules proposed and ratified in the Hall of Speakers, Sigil's legislative body.

Individual Harmonium agents can of course be corrupt, but I'm wondering what might be the legal view on the ownership of legally seized property of suspected or condemned criminals. Now I'm curious to know if there are any medieval-esque real-world instances where arresting officers or bounty hunters might have had a legal right to retain some or all of a criminal's property.

 

[JDJblatherings]

One could be declared an outlaw under medieval law simply by being accused of a crime.
The outlaw lost all property and rights and any contract he was party to fell void. His chattels came under the possession of the King, and any land he owned would often be restored to the chief lord in the surrounding territories.

In pre-modern law and in lot of legal systems still in operation you are guilty until proven innocent not innocent until proven guilty.

Even in the U.S. property is siezed for a multiplicity of reasons prior to conviction and one can not always expect return of that property but instead "just compensation".

 

[sckeener]

Harmonium officer...ouch that is rough.

The real issue is corruption. As long as the officers are not purposely picking rich people to shake down, I think the officer could take their stuff...a good 'bad' example is Louisiana...pulling over rich cars, impounding the vehicle, selling it, and everyone in the court system gets a kick back from the sale.

So as long as the Harmonium officer has a good reason and isn't targeting people to take their stuff, he should be able to do it....probably get a talking to from their superiors every once in a while....might have to attend ethics classes...

 

[Lord Zardoz]

So what might the city's civic code have to say about a suspect's possessions? In a normal D&D game, the PCs kill the bad guys and loot their stuff, but what should happen when the PCs are semi-official investigators arresting criminals? Should the arresting officer have the right to claim a share? If so, how much? What about her friends who assisted in the arrest?

The great thing about fantasy mideval games is that the concept of due process is much more flexible, since you can use spells like Zone of Truth or other divinations to gain that wonderful moral certainty of guilt or innocence.

Now, the civic code says whatever the government wants it to say. Looting could be justified as a 'seizing of property used in an unlawful act'. Instead of the officers keeping the swag, they take it back to HQ and some decision makers decide if they ought to sell it, keep it, hold it until some fine is paid by the owner, destroy it (in the case of particularly evil items like a Book of Vile darkness), or give it to someone in law enforcement to use. The arresting officer may be able to make a claim for the item, but not guarantee that he gets it, I think.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Esme]

Hya! I'm a player in Ambrus's gameand I'd like to thank everyone for your thoughts. I'll try to contribute in an impartial manner .

A thought that occured to me is the status of the apprehended criminals. All four PC are tax-paying, paper-carrying, faction-belonging citizens of Sigil. Would the law protecting personnal possessions extend to these men if it's discovered that they're criminals or even non-citizens?

Modern policing, with it's very precise rules regarding such situations is a fairly recent concept. In a medieval city such an arrest could have been made by city militia (as in this case, one could argue), or by agents of the local noble or king. The latter could probably keep anything found as his noble privilege without much grumbling. Citizens keeping any possession from a criminal would probably have to contend with relatives claiming the items. If the criminal was a stranger, then his things could probably be claimed by the arresting party as compensation without fear of said relatives. It's dangerous being a stranger in a society that depends so much on personnal relationships and networks for it's law and stability.

Game on!

Esme aka "Ekikos son of Yurgos, Master of the Mind"

 

[Herobizkit]

I am a police officer in real life, and you are 100% correct on the proceedure. In my area the non-evidence items except weapons are usually held at the jail until the suspect is released on bond, or at the end of a sentence. Any weapons are held at the police station until a judge orders them returned or destroyed.

Saaayyyy...how do you know so much about getting arrested anyway?

I watch a LOT of crime dramas...

 

[Gez]

And from personal experience, having been evicted once, the police (along with the "movers") stole quite a bit of stuff.

There's corruption, and then there's simple incompetence. I know a guy who lost a few semi-valuable things (like an old cell phone) along with totally worthless things (like pictures of relatives) having having been arrested. While the stuff may have been stolen, and then the personal things just dumped, it appeared more than it was simply lost through sheer carelessness.

 

[Ambrus]

Here's a summary of what's been said so far, along with my own two cent analysis of the issue. There have been roughly a dozen responses to the thread I posted concerning Sigil's civic rules for the looting of arrestees. Just thought I'd share the results to invite some discussion on the matter.

Essentially, there were three (rule of threes) schools of thought on the matter (not including the one person who suggested that NPCs shouldn't generally possess anything of value).


Looting is more or less tolerated (5 people)

• 3 people held to the opinion that greed is the norm and everyone will grab anything they can get a hold of.
• 1 person thought it'd be okay as long as the arrester wasn't purposefully targeting the wealthy for arrest.
• 1 person thought it'd be okay as long as the suspect were convicted and bureaucratic procedures were followed.


Outlaws have no legal rights to property (2 people)

• Guilty till proven innocent. Suspects have no rights to property, so there's no crime in taking their stuff.
• If an arrestee's legal heirs aren't around to claim of ownership, then there's no crime in taking their stuff.


Seized property is turned over to the Harmonium (5 people)

• 3 people held to the opinion that cash rewards should be offered to the arresters if suspects were convicted.
• 1 person thought seized gear could be claimed by the victims before being put up for public auction.
• 1 person thought that the arresters could petition the Harmonium for compensation, but that it wasn't guaranteed.

My apologies if I misinterpreted what you said.


Although the first option is the easiest to manage in-game (kill something, take its stuff) I don't believe it would/should be the default assumption in Sigil. Sure corruption exists, and might even be widespread, but I don't believe it should be the de facto legal code of the city. The civic code is agreed upon in the Hall of Speakers and upheld by three law-abiding factions. Sanctioning the seizure of property by officers of the law can only encourage false arrests, unwarranted persecution, and ever-increasing civil unrest. In one word: chaos. Neither the Hardheads, Guvners not Mercykillers want that, so they have to devise a different method of dealing with an arrestees' property.

The second option does have some historical merit to it, but it doesn't apply very well to a fantastic city like Sigil. The City of Doors is, first and foremost, a trade city; a planar hub of mercantilism. Two thirds of the city's population is, at any one time, transient. Most visitors simply don't have any form of valid identification or legal recognition within the city. But to survive and thrive, the city's government has to offer these foreign merchants a measure of legal protection, lest they simply choose to go somewhere more accommodating and safe. For that reason everyone within Sigil, whether they're natives with proper ID or clueless newly arrived from the prime, has to be granted some basic civil rights. They cannot be allowed to be accosted and their property taken from them without some sanctioned legal reprisals. Otherwise, many fewer people would risk coming through the City of Doors.

For these reasons, I believe only the final option is truly tenable. To maintain order and harmony in the Cage all of an arrested suspect's possessions are seized by the Harmonium and held until trial; at which point they are returned in the case of an acquittal or permanently retained in the case of a conviction. Other Factions, such as the Fraternity of Order and the Fated, help oversee the process to ensure proper procedures are maintained. Following a conviction, a semi-public auction can be held amongst the factions, perhaps with due consideration going to the victims and/or arresters. Proceeds of the sale of a criminal's possessions go towards compensating the victims, legal and incarceration fees and in paying out rewards and compensations as appropriate to the arresters.

Although the latter approach does dissuade baseless persecution due to the fact that the arresters won't be compensated for false arrests due to a lack of evidence, it does encourage corruption. For instance, there's little incentive for an officer to arrest a poor suspect since he can't hope to claim a lucrative reward after a successful conviction. On the other hand, it does encourage officers to pursue wealthy suspects and to falsefy evidence to ensure an eventual conviction. There's also little to stop an out-and-out corrupt officer from pocketing an arrestee's possessions during an arrest naturally.

Thoughts? Opinions?