Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TromboneAl

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The trunk is held closed with a piece of string. It's a very junky car (intentionally, it will turn out).
  2. I agree with that one! >As for your hypothetical, that may not be an illegal search. If the driver allowed his help opening the trunk is part of the process of fixing a tail light. Good point. I'll have the cop open the trunk on his own without any kind of consent. All caught on bodycam to make it more dramatic.
  3. I appreciate the law-related advice. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction, pg1067! >The first rule of being a writer is to write what you know. If you don't know, find another genre. I'm glad that I've ignored that advice. I've published fourteen books touching on topics such as psychological disorders, quantum physics, parallel universes, and money laundering. One is currently an Amazon best-seller. https://writingcooperative.com/write-what-you-know-and-other-bad-advice-6cd6935c744b https://lithub.com/write-what-you-know-is-not-good-writing-advice/ https://litreactor.com/columns/write-what-you-like-why-write-what-you-know-is-bad-advice Okay, sorry for that. Sometimes it's hard to resist. ---------------- My current thinking is that the woman is stopped for a flickering taillight. The rookie officer, his judgment overcome by how pretty the woman is, tries to help her fix it. The trunk is held closed with a string. He opens it up unbidden, digs down by the taillight, and discovers the gun. Eager to prove his worth to the department, he fails to just leave it where it is. I see the top objection as: "No officer would be that stupid." Any other problems that you see? Thanks!
  4. In a book I'm writing, I want some evidence that's obtained from a search of the trunk of a vehicle to be inadmissible because the search was illegal. Can you provide some interesting examples of illegal searches? Perhaps an officer's body cam footage will help make the case. Consent not properly obtained? Consent was ambiguous due to language issues? Gung ho rookie officer? Officer sees something suspicious because the rear seat is down and he can see into the trunk compartment? Maybe a rear light is out, and the officer, unasked, opens the trunk to see if he can fix it, then sees the illegal item? I appreciate the help! Al
  5. If you're saying that I stole the idea, that is not the case. I've never seen that plot anywhere. If you're saying "Ho hum, that plot's just like many others," you may be right. I sincerely appreciate your opinion and will take it into consideration.
  6. Excellent info, just what I need. Thanks for the help. My plan is to engineer this so that the search will be clearly illegal. Would this timing be reasonable: Day 0: Traffic stop Day 1: Arraignment. Not guilty plea entered. Day 8: Pretrial hearing. The defendant's attorney files motion for suppression of the seized weapon. Day 20: Judge rules that the search was illegal, and the gun cannot be introduced. The prosecutor dismisses the charges. Also, is it possible that the lawyer would meet with the prosecutor and say, "Hey, look. There's no way you can get that gun introduced as evidence," at which point the prosecutor agrees and decides to drop the charges?
  7. That's not how it works in California. California: 1. Arraignment must occur within 48 hours, weekends and holidays not included (Plea entered, bail set) 2. Pretrial conference phase, including preliminary hearing (Within 10 days of arraignment and concluded within 60 calendar days) 3. Trial
  8. Thanks. She wasn't driving, didn't possessed marijuana, and marijuana is legal in California.
  9. Concerning step 6, would the woman's lawyer be able to call a witness during the arraignment? In this case, I'd like to have him call the arresting officer and show that there was no consent for the search. Thanks!
  10. This is another potential subplot in a legal thriller that I'm working on. Please let me know if I'm asking too many questions! A man is driving a van and a woman is his passenger The van is stopped by the police After the van is stopped but before the policeman comes to the window, the driver and the passenger trade places, because the driver has a suspended license (OSLT) The woman is found to have some cannabis in her system, and charged for DUI Later the driver confesses that he traded places with the woman In that situation, would the woman be charged with providing false information to a peace officer? What if the driver says he coerced the passenger to switch places with him? Thanks! Al
  11. I am in the initial stages of hashing out a plot for my next legal thriller. I'm sure there are major problems with it. Maybe you can point them out and suggest fixes. A female assassin named Aksana shoots a man in the head. After she leaves the scene, she is stopped (possibly due to a clerical error). The police find her weapon during the stop. The weapon has had the serial number removed. She is arrested on an illegal weapons charge. At her arraignment, her lawyer is able to show that the search was illegal, and the case is thrown out (possibly because the stop was related to a clerical error, haven't decided yet). I'm guessing they do not return the illegal weapon even though the search was illegal (??). The police discover the body and retrieve the bullet. A ballistics test is done, and they get a probable match between the bullet and the weapon. Aksana is not arrested because they don't have any evidence they can use, but they investigate her. More evidence surfaces, and she is re-arrested. Aksana is able to get out on bail. She is held over, and the trial goes through ups and downs. Before the trial ends, a suspect that the police didn't pursue commits suicide with a note confessing to the assassination. The charges are dismissed. It turns out that Aksana faked the other suspect's suicide. Many thanks in advance for your help! Al
  12. Hi, I'm a writer, and my next book will include a subplot concerning blackmail. Here are some questions I have: 1. My initial research tells me that in California, someone cannot be convicted of blackmail (comes under the extortion laws in California) unless the defendant consents to the defendant's demands. That is, if someone tries to blackmail you, but you don't pay up (by transferring either money or other thing of value), it's only attempted extortion. Is that right? 2. Let's say someone goes to an attorney and says he's received a blackmail threat. Might the attorney suggest that working with police, the person make the payment in order to convict the criminal of extortion (higher penalties)? 3. This website talks about a new law regarding sextortion: "The law, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2018, amends existing extortion law under California Penal Code Section 518 to make it a crime to use the threat of releasing private sexually explicit images as blackmail to demand the payment of money, performance of sexual acts or more sexually images." I don't see how that is any different from the existing definition of extortion. Thanks! Al
  • Create New...