[TarpleyG]

Do the writers have a clue??? I don't think so, what about you?

For those that didn't see it--Defendant is on trial for murder. Defendant was stopped by LEO for busted tail light. Defendant has a warrant for his arrest for something so cop places him under arrest, searches car, and turns up murder weapon. Defender questions CSI guy that worked case and asked if he had a search warrant before he searched the rest of the car after the LEO found murder weapon and processed the murder weapon. He says no, the officer would have gotten the search warrant for us. Defender says no he didn't. Judge throws case out.

Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I learned that if you are arrested, LEO now has probable cause now to search your vehicle "to make it safe for transport and impound."

This show gets worse and worse every week with blatantly obvious misinformation like this. I was all set to turn it off and just go to bed but my wife wanted to keep watching it.

Am I overreacting? I know it's just a TV show but this could potentially get someone's a$$ in a sling later if they think this is law and go mouthing off to LEO searching thier car after they get arrested.

Thought/comments??? I know, those of you who gave up your TV a million years ago are better than me. You don't need to chime in.

GT

[B_Scott]

I agree 100%.
I was watching it with my fiancee and her parents and I got upset that they would lead people to believe that a warrant was needed in that situation.
No one else understood.
I am glad I have friends on The HighRoad that think the same as I.

[scbair]

My personal favorite TC SNAFUs are technical in nature. I recall a Law and Order episode that centered around information surfacing about a long ago homicide (30 years or so, IIRC). A suspect is finally ( :eek: ) ID'd, and a witness now recalls seeing this suspect throw something into the lake from a pier, lo those many years ago.

A diver finds a revolver in the muck at the bottom of the lake (at optimal revolver-chunking distance from the pier), and proudly displays the rust-encrusted piece to the investigators. Next scene? The investigator announces ballistics tests have positively connected the found revolver to the bullet recovered from the victim. :what:

I started laughing, couldn't even appreciate the subsequent well-planned plot twists:barf: and picked up a Stephen Hunter novel.:D

[MuzzleBlast]

This is a CBS show, right? I don't watch CBS unless there is a game on.
For that matter, I don't watch ABC or NBC either. God created satellite TV for a REASON.

[MarkDido]

I'm a Crime Scene Tech and for that exact reason, I don't watch CSI.

Spent 23 years in the Navy which is also the reason why I never watched JAG, Pensacola, Wings of Gold, etc.....

[TonyB]

The problem w/ CSI is that they always catch people........if these guys worked the OJ trial he'd be away now:rolleyes:
I heard somewhere that when it comes to a cool effect or senario,reality goes out the window in favor of "coolness"......I watch the show but take it w/ a grain of salt.....:cool:

[foghornl]

I watch CSI, but with a sort of "jaundiced eye" after the episode (first year, I think) while they were checking printers to determine which one printed the ransom note...looking for a blemish on the photo-sensitive drum of a laser printer. Too bad the one they said printed ransom note was an INKJET printer...no photo-drum in an inkjet/bubblejet

[Mal H]

I saw that one also, Tarpley, and had exactly the same thought about the warrant misinformation. What a load of stuff! I have got to stop watching that show, there is always something grossly wrong with the script. Most often it is the firearms info that is wrong in some way. Maybe we are so attuned to the facts, it is very easy to spot the fallacies.

And don't get me started on JAG! If any real JAG officer went on the 'adventures' they did, well, there wouldn't be any JAG officers left. I think I've watched 1/2 of an entire episode, but the previews give enough of the story to know that it hasn't changed. In truth, if it followed reality, that would be the No. 1 most boring show on TV. But they can't have that so, "let's have our advocates and lawyers fly jets, pursue terrorists, etc." Yeah, right!

[Ed Straker]

Funniest thing I found about JAG was not the show itself, but the advertisements for the show, which featured a bunch of F-104 Starfighters!

Plus, I was in the Marines, and there is NO WM that looks like Catherine Bell.:)

[mtnbkr]

I missed the first 15 minutes. :(

CSI is getting worse, but I still watch it. If I stopped watching CSI, I'd be down to 1hr/week of TV (Enterprise, which is getting worse as well).

Keep in mind, if CSI were more reality based, it would be quite boring and nobody would watch. I think some of the fiction they come up with is quite entertaining (and the ex-stripper chick is muy hot).

Henry Rollins has a good spoken word bit about tv and why it has to be more exciting than your life. He talks about TV shows like "Your ????ty Job", which features a schlub at a factory stamping lables on cans for an hour or a fast food fry cook flipping burgers. That's real life, wanna watch that? :p

Chris

[Mornard]

At the start, CSI concentrated ust on the actual forensics of a case which, real or not, were at least interesting. Last night was dreadful. The show is losing it, and the semi-hot gals aren't making up for it. It's no longer edgey and is getting perilously close to a PC angle, at times.

[GySgt]

Sorry, didn't watch it.....I never did like that show!!! But honestly, that redhead on there is sure nice to look at, if you mute the sound so you don't have to listen to the dialogue :D

And I have to agree with Ed Straker, if Women Marines looked as good as Catherine Bell........there'd be a line at the recruiting office!!!

Semper Fi, GySgt

[bogie]

Er... When I was doing my Trained Killer training at the Defense Information School, there were marines there. And some of the women were pretty darn good looking. And could whup my butt.

[Elmer Snerd]

Is it possible that the writers of such shows are getting paranoid about revealing actual forensic/police/legal procedures?

[Matt G]

Saw it.

My question at the time was why, if the initial evidence required a warrant to obtain (unnecessary in vehicle inventory or search incident to arrest), how did they obtain the warrant for the later vehicle search?!?

It did not, however, occur to me to post my chagrin over the silly show here on THR, as it was completely Off-Topic.

[Gordon Fink]

Saw the episode. It was a somewhat clumsy effort to show the value of Constitutional rights and good police work. The Fourth Amendment saves an innocent man from a wrongful murder rap. Good police work catches the real killer.

In reality, the search would have been upheld. The innocent man would have been tried, convicted, and probably sentenced to die. Unless the exculpating DNA evidence came to light by the 11th hour …

~G. Fink