The tip doesn’t have to be admissible for the police to act on it. It just has to have some “indicia of reliability.” This can be a problem when judges act as a rubber stamp for warrants rather than performing their gatekeeper function, but otherwise it works fairly well (and a warrant issued on a rubber stamp basis can be overturned and all resulting evidence suppressed upon the proper showing).
It ought to be as admissible (or not) as any witness who says “I heard these guys planning to commit a crime.” I don’t see super powers being particularly relevant except to explain how he might have heard it from very far away.
In “ear-witness” cases, you don’t really question whether their powers of hearing were sufficient. You’re questioning whether the witness is telling the truth and, if telling the truth, whether they heard, interpreted and/or remembered it correctly.
Just using the kidnapped child as an example, I imagine the dialogue he heard wouldn’t be so different from a kinky BDSM scenario that might be played out between consenting adults.
Check post #13: there’s legal precedent.
Your example basically suggests the opposite. Though certainly whether it was possible for a witness to hear something can be a subject of impeachment.
If all Bob did was jot down what he thought he heard on a notepad and handed it in to the police, the defense lawyer would be asking him some really uncomfortable questions, like
[ul]
[li]Do you often listen to other people’s conversations?[/li][li]Were other conversations taking place that you heard?[/li][li]How were you able to distinguish my client’s dialogue from the others you overheard?[/li][li]Did you write down or record the other conversations?[/li][li]Are you actually employed by the police?[/li][li]Did you have a judge issue a warrant or establish just cause?[/li][li]Are you aware you were violating right to privacy?[/li][li]What other proof do you have besides your handwritten notes?[/li][li]How can we trust an admitted voyeur?[/li][/ul]
By admitting he has the ability to hear conversations from far away, Bob makes himself subject to restraining orders and vulnerable to lawsuits. He should have just stuck to fighting giant robots.
If there’s any question about whether it’s possible and a competent defense lawyer, then yes you do question it. If someone comes into court saying that they somehow heard me plotting to blow up city hall when they were five miles away, a good lawyer is going to dig deep into how they could possibly manage that. Either it’s simply absurdly impossible which makes their testimony highly suspect, or they’re using some kind of illegal listening device which might make their testimony inadmissible and opens the door to finding out what motive they had for using the device.
We know enough about Bob by now to know that he would not be particularly discomfited by any of those questions.
Sorry, I don’t follow you. I’m saying there’s precedent that it can’t be used as direct evidence.
Be honest, you wrote this just so you can work “exsanguinating” into it, didn’t you?
As to the question, the police should use all of it. This is a world where supers exist and are accepted. There’s no reason why they should doubt the list and not use it as a jumping off point to stop these other criminals.
NM.
I guess I was thinking of that being along the lines of testing whether they’re telling the truth. If they say they overheard conversation, but were not physically capable of hearing it, then they have to be lying about something.