rfahey
04-29-2006, 10:43 AM
I've been thinking lately about Batman and the rest of the DC heroes' relationships with law enforcement. Batman has always had a complex relationship with law enforcement officials. At times he has been treated as a criminal, and at others as almost a member of the police force. I think it would open up some interesting story possibilities to look at the legal ramifications of this relationship.
We all know that the Constitution places limits on the use of police force to conduct criminal investigations - police must obtain warrants to conduct searches, they cannot torture suspects into making incriminating statements, etc. It's just as true that government authorities can't get around these restrictions by deputizing private individuals who go around and do these things for them, otherwise the protections would be completely worthless. What about the case, though, of a supposed "vigilante" who regularly collects evidence in ways that the police can't, and who seems to have a long-term working relationship with the police?
As a defense attorney for someone arrested due to Batman's involvement, I think the first thing I would do is move to strike all evidence obtained by Batman, on the theory that he is an agent (whether 'official' or not) of the GCPD, and therefore he would be required to gather evidence only in ways that are constitutionally permissible. Now, how would the state go about rebutting that argument? It would probably have to show that it regards Batman as a lawbreaker and regularly tries to arrest him, and in no way sanctions his conduct. Of course, there is a batsignal on top of police hq, which is a problem ...
A storyline that explores this angle could have large-scale ramifications for the DC Universe as a whole, since in order to preserve the validity of evidence obtained by vigilantes, police departments would have to maintain at least some level of public animosity for the vigilantes themselves. You might even be able to have a story in which a crooked cop fabricates evidence and claims it was given to the police by a hero, and somehow it gets used in the trial to convict someone. Of course, DC might not want to make its books more realistic in this way, but at least in the case of Batman, where his relationship with the police is central to his character, it would justify some base level of animosity on the part of the police. At any rate, I think it would be interesting to see these issues explored, since DC lately has been preoccupied with the question of what makes a hero, and whether its characters measure up to that standard.
We all know that the Constitution places limits on the use of police force to conduct criminal investigations - police must obtain warrants to conduct searches, they cannot torture suspects into making incriminating statements, etc. It's just as true that government authorities can't get around these restrictions by deputizing private individuals who go around and do these things for them, otherwise the protections would be completely worthless. What about the case, though, of a supposed "vigilante" who regularly collects evidence in ways that the police can't, and who seems to have a long-term working relationship with the police?
As a defense attorney for someone arrested due to Batman's involvement, I think the first thing I would do is move to strike all evidence obtained by Batman, on the theory that he is an agent (whether 'official' or not) of the GCPD, and therefore he would be required to gather evidence only in ways that are constitutionally permissible. Now, how would the state go about rebutting that argument? It would probably have to show that it regards Batman as a lawbreaker and regularly tries to arrest him, and in no way sanctions his conduct. Of course, there is a batsignal on top of police hq, which is a problem ...
A storyline that explores this angle could have large-scale ramifications for the DC Universe as a whole, since in order to preserve the validity of evidence obtained by vigilantes, police departments would have to maintain at least some level of public animosity for the vigilantes themselves. You might even be able to have a story in which a crooked cop fabricates evidence and claims it was given to the police by a hero, and somehow it gets used in the trial to convict someone. Of course, DC might not want to make its books more realistic in this way, but at least in the case of Batman, where his relationship with the police is central to his character, it would justify some base level of animosity on the part of the police. At any rate, I think it would be interesting to see these issues explored, since DC lately has been preoccupied with the question of what makes a hero, and whether its characters measure up to that standard.