Question for the more knowledgable

[XerXesXu]

That's the tip-off to the authorities that something smells fishy in their house.

In the UK they would smell gas and enter lawfully to abate a common nuisance.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I'll explain more: I'm thinking of having a character be investigated for spousal abuse. The thing is, the same actions they're calling abusive aren't experienced that way by the recipient. It mirrors the real naysayers in my life compared to myself.

As a volunteer Guardian ad Litem for the family court, I can tell you what would happen in this scenario...

If law enforcement is sent to investigate an allegation of abuse and the suspect(s) refused to cooperate with them or allow them into the residence, they would be arrested and then questioned while in custody. The potential risk if the allegations were true, whether justifiable at the time or not, would drive the actions of law enforcement. Where certain allegations are concerned, the law here has mandatory actions for respondents to follow.

 

[AchtungNight]

I wrote an Erotic Horror story last Halloween- ( https://literotica.com/s/courtney-crowe )- where a psychopath hooker plots with a corrupt prosecutor to mess with some rich folk. It’s supposed to end on a cliffhanger. I waited till my next story ( https://literotica.com/s/fire-woman ) to show how the detectives and an ethical prosecutor resolve the matter. If you’re interested in case study…

These stories involve framing for aggravated sexual assault and drug distribution, not domestic abuse, but they are similar matters. Not spoiling with further details in this thread.

 

[MillieDynamite]

You also have the situation of crime being committed, and it's known to have happened, as opposed to suspected. When a murder has happened, if it is inside a house, they don't need a search warrant for the home proper. However, the grounds, the garage, and any sheds on the property may or may not need a search warrant or permission. It depends on the circumstances. A murder in the driveway doesn't give the police cart blanch to search the home, garage, or other buildings, but the grounds are fair play. Depending on the cop, they may get permission or search warrants, which would be granted, or choose to search without one. If something incriminating is found when permission or a warrant wasn't granted, they may have opened up a can of worms for the guilty party to use to exclude evidence.

 

[lil_jenni]

I asked my Hubby about this, as he is a lawyer. He gave me a long look, said it would depend on the laws of a particular state and what the officers personally witness. For example, they might arrest an uncooperative person on suspicion of battery if they saw physical injuries in a context that their experience led them to believe a crime had happened. He also mentioned these arrests may never see charges brought, as sometimes such arrests are made merely to end the situation. If more evidence is found or a witness comes forward, the initial arrest is not necessarily a problem in the same way an illegal search would be.

He also asked if "pressing charges" was part of your question, which I did not think it was. But he wanted to say that the notion of pressing charges is mainly a myth, at least as it's used by the general public (and believe me, I hear this every time we watch a TV show or the news and someone talks about pressing charges ). Pressing charges is shorthand for whether the complainant is willing to be a witness. If not, sometimes it ends the case. But it does not have to. Prosecutors have the ultimate decision on whether to bring charges in court for most crimes. And especially with DV, they may bring charges even if the complaining witness does not want them to do so.

His final comment was that in fiction, the writer can make it work however the writer wants, and not to worry about what others say.

 

[lil_jenni]

I asked my Hubby about this, as he is a lawyer. He gave me a long look, said it would depend on the laws of a particular state and what the officers personally witness. For example, they might arrest an uncooperative person on suspicion of battery if they saw physical injuries in a context that their experience led them to believe a crime had happened. He also mentioned these arrests may never see charges brought, as sometimes such arrests are made merely to end the situation. If more evidence is found or a witness comes forward, the initial arrest is not necessarily a problem in the same way an illegal search would be.

He also asked if "pressing charges" was part of your question, which I did not think it was. But he wanted to say that the notion of pressing charges is mainly a myth, at least as it's used by the general public (and believe me, I hear this every time we watch a TV show or the news and someone talks about pressing charges ). Pressing charges is shorthand for whether the complainant is willing to be a witness. If not, sometimes it ends the case. But it does not have to. Prosecutors have the ultimate decision on whether to bring charges in court for most crimes. And especially with DV, they may bring charges even if the complaining witness does not want them to do so.

His final comment was that in fiction, the writer can make it work however the writer wants, and not to worry about what others say.

I misstated because I did not look at my notes... And yes, I took notes.

Anyway, the police would likely not arrest someone on suspicion--they might detain such a person for questioning and never make a formal arrest with booking, charges, etc. This may create a buffer against a tort action for false arrest, although not always. I knew there had been something about false arrest. I should have looked at my notes before I posted.

 

[XerXesXu]

I misstated because I did not look at my notes... And yes, I took notes.

Anyway, the police would likely not arrest someone on suspicion--they might detain such a person for questioning and never make a formal arrest with booking, charges, etc. This may create a buffer against a tort action for false arrest, although not always. I knew there had been something about false arrest. I should have looked at my notes before I posted.

This is UK law, I don't know how it travels. You can't detain a person on suspicion for questioning. The moment a constable (peace officer) limits a person's freedom they are under arrest on suspicion that an offence has been committed and that they have committed that offence. The constable must first caution the person that they do not have to say anything, etc. Even if the person is not arrested, if they are being interviewed as a witness, the moment the constable suspects that the person has committed the offence he must caution them that they do not have to say anything etc. There's no intermediary space for a suspect to be detained to coerce them into answering questions on suspicion, but short of formally arresting and cautioning them.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In Colorado, when my father was a PI there, placing a person in handcuffs was an arrest. PIs can't make arrests, so PIs never handcuff anyone in Colorado in the 1980s. Security personnel carried handcuffs and often got in trouble when they cuffed individuals as a way of defusing a situation. Once the person who was handcuffed found out that they had no authority to handcuff them, they got a lawyer and sued.

However, working in fugitive recovery, a PI would handcuff the fugitive. They had a copy of the arrest warrant and a copy of the bail agreement and would take the bail jumper to a sheriff's station or police depart and turn them in. The receiving officer would put a date and time stamp and seal stamp on the bail agreement and give it to the PI, who'd give it to his company, who, in turn, gave it to the lawyers to collect the "reward." That hasn't changed much.

But this has nothing to do with the gest of the thread. Sorry for the derailment.

 

[Paul_Chance]

She doesn't call 911, she calls 988, the suicide hotline. The suspicious thing about it is the marked detail that she left her locked in the bathroom before it happened. That's the tip-off to the authorities that something smells fishy in their house.

However, I'm now thinking of not including that plot point at all, seeing as it would break from the realism.

Yeah, I'd say drop any plot points that have the potential to detract from the story if their is another way to move the story forward in the way you want to.

In the case you describe above, if she is currently locked in the bathroom, then 988 would forward to call to 911 who would dispatch patrol officers who would make contact with the caller to ascertain her welfare and take the appropriate steps. If the call led the patrol officers to encounter the spouse, who refused to allow them to contact the caller, then it would very quickly escalate to a potential hostage situation and patrol would call in crisis response.

If the caller was reporting a prior incident (not ongoing), then odds are it would never reach the police. It would instead go to whatever non-law enforcement crisis response team the jurisdiction had and they would contact the caller, either in person or maybe something as simple as a phone call.

 

[Paul_Chance]

A police officer handcuffing someone is not legally an arrest. Police are able to handcuff people (temporarily detain, temporarily restrain) for safety purposes (the safety of both the officer and the suspect) and to detain them (restrict their movement) while sorting out what is going on and/or establishing a persons identity.

Additionally, in America, all jurisdictions have some version of "protective custody" that police can place people under for their own safety and/or psychological evaluation.

 

[Sinstories]

I would recommend you try to stick to what is a common sense, yet "defend-able" interpretation. If an LEO knows or suspects that someone's life or safety is in danger, they can enter a premise to ensure the safety or well being of someone, anything they see in plain site as a result of that entry would be legit. If your story involves potential abuse and the officer suspects abuse is going on and the delay to get a warrant COULD put someone at risk, they can enter. Whether that is specifically and always true is really irrelevant, to readers, it is a common sense interpretation and thus would allow you to move the story forward. If someone wants to pick it apart, oh well, you can't keep everyone happy, so don't try.

 

[madelinemasoch]

In the case you describe above, if she is currently locked in the bathroom, then 988 would forward to call to 911 who would dispatch patrol officers who would make contact with the caller to ascertain her welfare and take the appropriate steps. If the call led the patrol officers to encounter the spouse, who refused to allow them to contact the caller, then it would very quickly escalate to a potential hostage situation and patrol would call in crisis response.

To clarify, the spouse that calls 988 isn't the one who attempted. The one who attempted is the one locked in the bathroom. She's not locked in the bathroom anymore because the other one unlocked the door.

It does actually happen that they reroute the call, but she doesn't stay on the line, and the police (and ambulance) come anyway. They take her to the hospital and the other is left at the house. I think that's what's gonna happen, anyway. I haven't even finished the scene.

I would recommend you try to stick to what is a common sense, yet "defend-able" interpretation. If an LEO knows or suspects that someone's life or safety is in danger, they can enter a premise to ensure the safety or well being of someone, anything they see in plain site as a result of that entry would be legit. If your story involves potential abuse and the officer suspects abuse is going on and the delay to get a warrant COULD put someone at risk, they can enter. Whether that is specifically and always true is really irrelevant, to readers, it is a common sense interpretation and thus would allow you to move the story forward. If someone wants to pick it apart, oh well, you can't keep everyone happy, so don't try.

I was going to have the investigator come when that character's already in the hospital. Now, I've decided the investigator just won't exist.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Suicide, in most American locations, is against the law—the police usually at least question a person who is known to have attempted to kill themselves. However, there's yet to be prosecution of a successful suicide. I mean, once they're dead, what more can you do to them?

On a somewhat serious note, people who try are often sent to a psych ward at a hospital, or they receive court-ordered treatment. The cops generally question friends and relatives of the individual who attempted to kill themselves.

In most instances, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It takes a lot of despair to drive some to kill themselves. That has to make a good story, the getting there, at least.

One day, a depressed pig strolled into a slaughterhouse to commit sooeycide!

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Suicide, in most American locations, is against the law—the police usually at least question a person who is known to have attempted to kill themselves. However, there's yet to be prosecution of a successful suicide. I mean, once they're dead, what more can you do to them?

On a somewhat serious note, people who try are often sent to a psych ward at a hospital, or they receive court-ordered treatment. The cops generally question friends and relatives of the individual who attempted to kill themselves.

In most instances, suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem. It takes a lot of despair to drive some to kill themselves. That has to make a good story, the getting there, at least.

One day, a depressed pig strolled into a slaughterhouse to commit sooeycide!

Not sure if the squealing sound I just made was excitement or disgust.