I have a question for a movie I’m going to make:
If you break into someone else’s house, and you find evidence that they committed a serious crime, then would you still go to jail for breaking in?
If you break into someone’s house with the intention of doing them harm then they could quite potentially prosecute you no matter what you discover. If you break in because you consider yourself to be some sort of hero then there is the ever so slim possibility that you’ll be pardoned, but you could still be charged.
you are breaking and entering, so without a warrant, and without being able to prove the the break-in was in self defense, it is a crime. But if you need to get in to diffuse a bomb or save a life, then you will not be charged. Even police are not above that.
Ditto what samadam said.
anogarlr: got it.
samadam: what if what you were looking for and what you found indirectly saved someone’s life?
it would have te be in the knowledge that you were saving someones life.
either way, you could still get your ass paid out for beaking and entering, trauma to defendant, damage to character and a whole pile of other crap.
Okay, here’s what I have so far:
Something is going on, lalala, and the main character knows that another person(freind) is in danger, so he looks, and then breaks into this other guy’s house, becuase he knows the other guy knows what happened to his freind, and so he breaks in, and he finds a “lead” on where his freind is, and so on and so forth. Just a VERY, VERY early stage rough draft. 
SO assuming he found his freind, whom he knew was in danger, perhaps mortal danger, and so the other guy goes to jail, and the evil guy who was trying to kill his freind goes to jail, but here’s the question, does the guy go to jail?
You’re the writer! 
Does he?
I don’t know about other parts of the world, but in the US it’s a felony NOT to prevent a “heinous crime”. You are covered under the law and breaking and entering wouldn’t apply. Here in Massachusetts we also have the Good Samaritan law. This requires that you help someone in dire need. Note that in both cases you are required to do nothing more than contact the police or other authorities and report it, and a good lawyer for the other side could try and play that you overstepped the boundries, but the court would most likely find that you acted appropriately.
Of course there are semantics and definitions here the lawyers love to get entangled with (after all that’s where their money comes from). For example, a Heinous Crime would have to involve something like murder or arson or an act of terrorism. Stopping an assault wouldn’t necessarilly be covered unless you can prove you knew such assault was going to result in a fatality. Even in this case though, I think a court would be understanding. At least one would hope.
I suppose it all depends on how you want the legal system in your story to act. If you get the “Hanging Judge” he might throw your protaganist in jail just because he rules to the letter of the law. It could make for an interesting plot twist.
I think that what you are supposed to do is report it to the police, and let them do the breaking in…
If you want to make a buck or two just break into someones home and trip over their sofa and break your leg. You can then sue the owners of the house you just broke into and earn thousands in legal damages.
You could say that you entered the house because you heard a scream for help but if you do end up in jail, you could probably then bail yourself out with money you received from the law suit and still have some cash left-over for a nice holiday.
Not the sort of job you’ll find at the job agency though.
If you want to make a buck or two just break into someones home and trip over their sofa and break your leg. You can then sue the owners of the house you just broke into and earn thousands in legal damages.
You could say that you entered the house because you heard a scream for help but if you do end up in jail, you could probably then bail yourself out with money you received from the law suit and still have some cash left-over for a nice holiday.
Not the sort of job you’ll find at the job agency though.
It’s actually not THAT simple solo… all the circumstances have to be there in a believable way … just an example… what if they questioned the suspect and asked about the yell … what kind of yell … wich words … what tone etc… then they’ll question all the ppl in the immediate surroundings… if something doesn’t fit … it’s a hoax… Even with more than one hoaxer it’s very difficult to do …
When I am reading a story, I simply want the story to feel plausible. It doesn’t have to be technically or technologically correct. But I do have to feel that whatever the characters do, they’re “true to themselves.” You, the author, control everything. I think a good author carefully designs his/her characters to play the roles for which they are intended.
When an author fails in that, I feel cheated. For example, ordinarily I love vampire-stories. But I hated the two Anne Rice (Interview…) stories I tried to read because … aside from the pointless and endless references to “kinky sex” which did nothing for story … I felt that her protagonist was wandering into dumb situations simply so that Anne, “the puppetmaster whose shadow I could plainly see on the backdrop of her stage” could lead him out again. “Lestat [the protagonist…] wouldn’t do that!” So I stopped reading her stories, wildly-popular an author though she may be to others.
md01:
Even if you did get cought, you could still win thousands in legal damages. You don’t get that long in jail for Breaking & entering anyway.
How about this:
You walk towards neighbours door and purposely fall over one of their front garden tools. You get injured, file a law suite & didn’t even have to break in.
If the police ask what you were doing in their front garden you just say that you were on the way to your neighbours door with the intention of inviting them over for some milk and cookies ; )
I think it might stick except for the milk & cookies part.
What do you think?
sounds like something that would happen in california
Okay, cool, Now I’ve got an idea for a movie!
Thanks!
This is purely hypothetical, right? 
of course… 
With my massive legal knowledge gleaned from watching cop shows %| I think the rule is that if evidence was found through illegal means then it’s inadmissible in court. That means that if you find something in someone’s house for example you have to have been warranted to look for it. Without a warrant it can’t be used, regardless of how incriminating it is, or what the crime.
The rule is a safeguard so that the police can’t just break into anyone’s place for no reason. It answers the immortal question “Who polices the police?”
At least, that’s the way it works on Law & Order… 
Philip:
So if I suspected my neighbour of being a member of a terrorist group, broke into his house and found loads of plans to attack America or some other country, that evidence can’t be used in court??
Despite all of these plans and documents, this terrorist can’t be convicted of being a terrorist just because I broke in. I wouldn’t want to be responsible for the next terrorist attack.
There must be a line somehwere surely.