As Seen On TV: Lies
Many readers of this blog think I’m pretty hard on the TV show Castle. I’m not, really. I just use the show as a tool for teaching you guys how it’s really done. Seeing the flaws in the show’s police procedure is a great way to learn the correct way to write about cops. Besides, it’s more fun to learn about stuffy procedures when you have Nathan Fillian and Stana Katic as visual aids.
But, there are other shows out there that have absolutely killed the way the public perceives police procedure and investigation (great title for a book, huh?).
So, let’s look at my top ten list of fictional facts that TV writers have gotten wrong for years.
10. Undercover officers must identify themselves if challenged by a criminal.
Not true. In fact, if this were indeed fact, there’d be no undercover operations. Every crook in the world would then simply ask the new guy, “Are you a cop?” The officer would then be forced to respond affirmatively, the deal would be over, and there’d be one less officer at the next Christmas party.
9. Officers must read a suspect his rights the moment he’s arrested.
No. Police officers are only required to advised bad guys of the Miranda warnings if they’re going to question them. That gobblety-gook about spouting off the warnings the second the officer slaps on the cuffs is just that - gobblety-gook.
8. The law says all criminals must be allowed to use the phone.
No. Most departments have a policy that allows a phone call, but there are no laws that require it. In jail, the use of the telephone is a privilege. In fact, the telephone is used as a tool for disciplinary action. You screw up, we take your phone privileges. End of story. The same is true with family visits and shopping at the jail commissary. Those privileges may also be taken away.
7. You can be charged with obstruction of justice for not talking to the police.
No. You do have the constitutional right not to incriminate yourself - the right to remain silent - because anything you say WILL be used against you. However, there are laws that require you to answer basic questions, like, “What is your name?” and “Where do you live?” I guess I should mention that you’re also required, by law, to tell the truth when answering those questions.
6. Police officers have the authority to order someone to remain in town while they conduct their investigation.
Nope. Without a signed order from a judge, police officers do not have the authority to enforce this demand. (I guess now would be a good time to tell you that I live very, very near Chris Daughtry).
5. Officers have the authority to make deals with criminal suspects, such as how much prison time they’ll receive if they cooperate.
No. Only a prosecutor or judge has the authority to offer a deal to criminal suspects.
4. Officers have the authority to “drop” charges on a suspect once he’s been formally charged.
Again, no. Only a judge or prosecutor may have a defendant’s charges reduced or dismissed.
3. Officers can obtain a search warrant with simple phone call to a judge.
No. A phone call, especially to this judge, won’t net you a search warrant. All search warrants must be signed by a judge or magistrate, which requires a face-to-face meeting and a raising-your-right-hand-swearing-to-the-facts sort of thing.
2. Most criminal cases are solved by the use of forensic science, such as DNA and fingerprints.
No. Most crimes are solved the old fashioned way, by knocking on doors and talking to people. DNA and fingerprints are rarely the smoking gun in criminal cases.
1. Police officers leave the scene of the crime with lights and sirens going full blast.
No. Officers use lights and sirens when heading TO the scene of a crime. Not when leaving. The use of emergency equipment is only permitted during an actual emergency. Once the bad guy is safely cuffed and stuffed in the rear of the patrol car, the emergency is over and the lights go off. However, if the suspect is injured and requires medical care, officers sometimes transport them to the hospital. They’ll use lights and siren in those instances.
Posted in Police Procedure
February 3rd, 2010 9:08 am
What a great post ! You always make learning fun and easy. You should have had a six pack of kids Lee.
Can an officer “suggest” to a prosecutor to reduce a charge after cooperation ?
There is a successful author I have been reading who did a reprint of his first book and he stated some of the things he is writing is not police procedure and that he wrote it that way draw his audience in.
February 3rd, 2010 9:32 am
SZ - Sure, there’s a dialog between the officers and the prosecutor. We often let the prosecutor know when a suspect has been particularly “helpful,” or not.
That sort of disclaimer would make me pass over that particular book and choose another. I know I’m only one sale lost, but a sale is a sale.
Don’t get me wrong, fiction is fiction. Those tales aren’t real, thank goodness. I love stories like the ones written by Dean Koontz, Stephen King, and others. Of course, I know their books aren’t realistic. But you can bet that the majority of the “real” stuff they write about is pretty darn accurate. For example, King wrote about an old Buick that had magical abilities. We know that’s not real, but SK went to the trouble of riding with Pennsylvania State Troopers (that’s where the story was set) for a while so he could get their procedures down pat, and it showed in his book. That’s how to do it!
February 3rd, 2010 10:39 am
Tangental to this are the local myths - the state I live in the legislature has developed laws protecting doctors from most civil suits. Over time this has turned into a pervasive belief that all doctors are protected from all laws. Including criminal and federal laws and regulations.
I have noticed on TV there is a tendency to mix local civil laws and criminal laws, and Federal laws and regulations as if they are all one.
February 3rd, 2010 2:49 pm
A good list.
With regard to #2, I can understand that forensics may not help you find your guy, but how important are they once things get to court? Not being of the CSI generation, I always had the impression that good police work caught the criminal and good forensic evidence made sure he went to jail.
February 3rd, 2010 3:11 pm
tudza - No. As I said, most crimes are not solved with the use of fingerprints and DNA. But if that evidence is available (it’s just not always there) then it’s very helpful and does help locate the suspect(s).
Good police work is what leads law enforcement officials to a suspect, and good police work is what helps put that offender in jail. Forensic evidence is merely icing on the cake. However, a single piece of forensic evidence can also make or break a case. There are just too many elements involved in a criminal case to single out ne as the thing that lands a bad guy in prison.
February 4th, 2010 7:28 am
Great help, Lee. Of course, it’s still a problem when writers get it right but everyone thinks they’re wrong because these “myths” have been so prevalent in books, tv, and the movies. I try to run any police procedures by a real cop before I write it. And I love when I can have a non-LEO on scene to ask why the cop doesn’t do such-and-so, and he can explain that real life isn’t television, so maybe I’m educating a reader or two.